Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2015

File:Coesfeld, Lette, Windmühle -- 2015 -- 5774.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2015 at 15:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--6AND5 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this ultra wide angle shot (11mm) doesn't work for me. The windmill looks quite distorted/leaning backwards, probably due to pointing the lens upward to get it all into the frame. This shot of yours works much better for me in that regard, plus it has nicer clouds/sky. --El Grafo (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I think it is a good hint. --XRay ^talk 15:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and upper crop is too tight. --Ivar (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm fine with the dramatic angle. --Pine^✉ 19:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this kind of shots. But I think you used a polarizer and it shows on the upper right sky which is darker (not too obvious though so I have little doubts). Dangerous on an UWA, when the sun is low in the sky! But nice lighting. - Benh (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Colin (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nor the subject neither the technical achievement seem extraordinary to me. The light is particularly disappointing.--Jebulon (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per crop and light as noted by others. Too bad ... I see where the good idea was. Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puy Pariou - 137.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2015 at 13:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don't like this one as much as that other Puy one recently. I can see what you were thinking, but the cropped tree at left undermines that, and it's a little unsharp on the other side of the crater and the background behind it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macaca nemestrina (Linnaeus, 1766).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2015 at 21:22:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Contrast could be better, the image lloks too bright.--XRay ^talk 09:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Smile! --Pokéfan95 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Black point seems to be too high, strong colour artifacts and banding in many aeras. — Julian H.^✈ 18:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And chromatic noise.--Jebulon (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon who can't see the moire but can see the chromatic noise.... --Laitche (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical imperfections are a problem here, I agree. --Tremonist (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruínas 5.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2015 at 22:02:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Ianstorni - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sure it was an accomplishment getting this setting to produce a usable image, and congratulations to you for pulling it off, but the degree of difficulty does not always translate into a featurable image. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's really a pity but the quality is not as good as it should be. Composition and subject are very nice. --Code (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think the best time of evening/blue hour was chosen for this. It's a bit dark and as per above opposers, it doesn't translate into a FP for me. Diliff (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the others. --Tremonist (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-052.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2015 at 18:56:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dutch Omafiets, roadster of classic design in Gouda, Netherlands.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Dutch Omafiets, roadster of classic design in Gouda, Netherlands. All by Ralf Roletschek -- Ralf Roleček 18:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 18:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bike is nice and cute although the composition is disordered to me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject almost disappears in the busy background. --El Grafo (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Composition looks ok to me, really nice idea, indeed. But the letters farther back are unsharp, Ralf! Spoils the general impression a bit. --Tremonist (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche and El Grafo. Severely posterized and oversaturated red flowers don't mesh well with the subdued colors of the rest of the image, either. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roleček 19:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suspenso 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2015 at 22:45:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by Fotoarte101 - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare example of a good use of vignetting-B&W effect. Almost a mushroom bomb. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know, the file is tiny, the picture's noisy, the effect is overdone, etc. Still... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin: the file is tiny, the picture's noisy, the effect is overdone. It's a bit of a cliché. Didn't we have a similar picture a while back? The heavy vignetting takes this beyond a standard photo (see similar File:Suspenso.jpg) to self-made non-notable religious imagery. I've no problem with Commons hosting/featuring such photographic imagery (any site that votes exploding/flaming light bulbs as image of the year nearly twice in a row clearly likes photographic art). But I think the standard should be higher than this, which is typical of a lot of WLM that looks impressive on a small monitor but couldn't even be printed A4. -- Colin (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's iconic, it's small, it could almost be a logo for Rio maybe. Minimalistic, but great in a way. Generally, however, I tend to agree here with Colin when it comes to the terms of this competition. --Tremonist (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, after careful consideration. There's a possible FP to be made here, but it needs to be bigger and less self-consciously arty. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excessive "artistic" subtraction processing details, details that could serve as encyclopedic value. --The Photographer (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apollo & Daphne September 2015-1a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2015 at 11:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Detail of the famous sculpture Apollo and Daphne [1], by Giancarlo Bernini, in the Borghese Gallery (Rome). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 19:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome back, Al ! This one is a FP, to me.--Jebulon (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry oppose again. The background really distracts. The right pillar is the most annoying. - Benh (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The foreground really attracts... --Tremonist (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photo has some value. I wont mind being not so sharp, but some adaptation could be done to bring statue more into "focus". --Mile (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background, per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop on bottom could be wider --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the opposers --Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Juan de Busa, Oliván, Huesca, España, 2015-01-07, DD 13-20 PAN.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2015 at 09:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by me, Poc o² 09:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 09:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive detail, but the subject isn't that interesting to me, and the scene composition isn't grabbing me either. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's surely a matter of taste but I can tell you that I drove 3 hours (one way) to take pictures of this 11th-century jewel Poc o² 08:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you usually provide much more details in your nomination. 11th century? Looks very recently renovated. I see now that it is historically interesting, but I maintain it isn't photographically interesting. It's a very simple building shot in hard direct light. I think File:San Juan de Busa, Oliván, Huesca, España, 2015-01-07, DD 24.JPG is better and I'd probably support that on the grounds that the blue sky and snowy mountains add to the image and composition. With this nomination, the fence and two shrubs are fighting for attention. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I didn't provide much information because I'm travelling and this time I really had to optimize the weight (as I had to wear it for many kilomeyers on St James's Way), so I didn't take my laptop and editing here with a smartphone is really (at least to me) a pain in the ass... Regarding the fence the idea is that those lines guide to the subject, rather than distract of it. Poc o² 17:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all: The light is absolutely beautiful and I find the building interesting enough. I actually said "wow" when I zoomed in on the building, as I had definitely not expected this level of detail. So why am I opposing this? Well, like Colin, I'm not really convinced by the composition. I can see that you put quite some thought into this, and you almost got it, but … how do I explain this? To me, it's not really a shot of the building alone, as there's too much other stuff going on in the frame (mountains in the background, etc.) But it's also not really a landscape shot, as the building is too dominant for that. It's somewhere in-between those two. Maybe if you'd moved in a bit closer from that position to get behind that first bush on the right? Then you'd still have had some of that nice fence in frame … --El Grafo (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. I might like it better with a higher camera position to include more of the landscape in the background into the picture, but I also understand the appeal of the silhouette of the building against the sky. — Julian H.^✈ 11:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting historical building, Poco, even renovated. --Tremonist (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the diagonals of the buildings, mountains and fence echo each other. Ideally this would have been shot in summertime, but as it is the earth tones work very well together. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wav! --Lmbuga (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parapente - 145.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2015 at 15:36:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The scene is captured well, as far as I can see. Overall weather could have been better, but never mind. --Tremonist (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this one the composition works. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient wow for me, sorry. Would also be better if they were facing the camera. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radovljica Linhartov trg drei Blechblasinstrumente 19032015 0925.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2015 at 20:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Baritonhorns, exposed on Linhart square in Radovljica, Slovenia. Created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support Very nice and good light, ~~but the left border makes the composition wrongly balanced, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)~~ Of course I change my vote.--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought the shadows distracting at first, but even they are interesting somehow. Really good photo quality. --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a fan of the composition and shadows... I'm also a bit sad about the border, but it's just too good to me. - Benh (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the subject and the colors. The composition is not too bad, but it needs a slight crop on the left. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: What about this crop? --Laitche (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better, or even a bit larger. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe @Johann Jaritz: can crop the nominated image a bit at the left and at the bottom? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, guys, for reviewing. Sorry, that I did not react to your suggestions sooner, but now I uploaded a corrected version. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johann, @Yann: , @Jebulon: , @Laitche: new version uploaded. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support --Laitche (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this very special composition. --Hubertl 11:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn - Return of the Prodigal Son - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2015 at 03:50:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Rembrandt - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Pokéfan95 -- Pokéfan95 (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pokéfan95 (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't be loaded! This means: resolution probably satisfactory. --Tremonist (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original file's filesize is 250.2 MB and 22,991 × 30,000 pixels, heehee. Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but makes it impossible to vote here. For all the others as well, it seems... --Tremonist (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praia de Area Maior. Louro. Muros. Galiza K.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 17:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Composition: foreground and left-most part are uninterresting for me. I think also the PoV isn't optimum. Sting (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors but agree with sting about the composition and the pine trees on the right side are disturbing. --Laitche (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not agree with you. Amazing, in my opinion. I have no doubt that occur because my name is not one, I find no other possible justification. Thanks.

es: Los arbustos de la derecha equilibran la imagen, no estorban, aportan equilibrio. Que la parte izquierda carezca de interés para usted es algo que por mi parte es mejor que quede sin comentar: ¿sabe usted lo que es el contraste de espacios y de colores?--Lmbuga (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry I don't understand that language.) I think composition is very subjective, I prefer without pine trees on the right side, that's my opinion and just my opinion so do not worry I always get opposing to my comments --Laitche (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wikimedia Commons is an international and multilingual space. I can't say what I think in English. Should I be ostracized by that? Thanks--Lmbuga (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say this "Nice colors but agree with sting about the composition and the pine trees on the right side are disturbing", but (es:) sting criticaba el lado izquierdo: ¿De que habla usted? ¿Cree usted que se comporta con seriedad? ¿Como se suma a una crítica diciendo algo que no tiene nada que ver? USTED HABLA DEL LADO CONTRARIO AL QUE HABLA STING: SERIOUS, PLEASE--Lmbuga (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, with respect, I do not agree. But I'm not one for you--Lmbuga (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good rule of composition in landscape photography (of course, it's not carved in stone): foreground subject, second plan (here the beach) and background (here the mountain). Here your foreground is occupied by regularly set dry grass, not eye-catching and at the limit of DoF, particularly at the left. The pine trees are set at the sides and get lost... or are too present; I'm undecided about their status. The right one, like Laitche wrote (and that's why I was talking about PoV), is invading and hiding the beach but hasn't force enough to get above the horizon; that's why I don't think it balances the composition. And about contrast of colors and spaces, right. But your foreground lacks color and is a prominent mass of undistinguishable grass taking too much space compared to what you want to show as the subject of the image. I don't know the place but my recommendation, if you allow me, would be to go a few steps to the right and closer to these pine trees in order to give them a reasonable height to counterbalance the mountain and set them as foreground subject, at the right. Mountain at the half left, getting rid of the left pine trees (or the pine trees at the left and the mountain at the center-right, depending how you can set the composition to show the beach). A lower sun, with more appealing light may also help. Your image is nice but a bit too common in my opinion. Hope this helps. Sting (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: and don't be so worried about your language or your “name”. ;-)
PS2: When I vote or comment here, I try – at least – to be constructive [with arguments] (edit) and transmit my little experience/knowledge for the photographer better his work. It isn't always well accepted [and I may be wrong] (edit), but that's part of the deal. And on the other hand, if one nominator here expects only praises about his work, well, imo he's in the wrong place because it's about voting here, that means accepting hearing about pros and cons, which should lead to a bettering of the work (again, my opinion). If it's only about promotion, barnstars, medals and self-promotion, I suggest to turn towards the social networks.

Too many words (unable to read, sorry). Do you know someone than can translate it. Imposible understand it to me. Sorry. (I'm sure that this is not a mutiligual proyect: It's a English covert proyect)--Lmbuga (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, sorry.--Lmbuga (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)--Lmbuga (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know write in Spanish but I can translate it in Portuguese if it helps. Sting (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your words has not signature. Sorry, can I say this: why? Sorry: I'm not one for you and for the usuals--Lmbuga (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I didn't understand what you mean or wanted to say. Sting (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: Eu entendo português muito bem, but your words has not signature: I'm not idiot--Lmbuga (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Não entendo o que você quer dizer com "as palavras não tem assinatura". Os "PS" e "PS2" (para "post scriptum") são eu que escrevi. Mas acho melhor deixar esta conversa aí. Boa noite. Sting (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boa noite (mas as palavras que você (ou outro usuário) me dirigiu não foram assinadas). Amanhã é outro dia--Lmbuga (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Eu não quero continuar a falar sobre isso: eu não sou nada. --Lmbuga (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "PS" é para "post scriptum", quer dizer "[nota] depois da assinatura". É por isso que não assinei novamente e que coloquei ao mesmo nível que o texto principal. Não vejo qual outro texto não tem assinatura. Aliás, não vejo qual o problema de entendimento das frazes, mesmo sem assinatura. Sting (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Opá! Não vai começar a chorar, né?! Não assassinei sua foto: tentei te dar dicas para melhorar ela para uma futura tomada. Se não quer ou aceitar, tudo bem. Sting (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a final (and personal) comment/consideration: imho, FPC is not only about promoting (or rejecting) one picture, but also in bettering the taking of the photograph, eventually with new shots. What else would be the point of an argumented opposing vote? (not the first time writing this, but well, I see it needs to be repeated...) Sting (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a final (and personal) comment/consideration: I am nobody. You know--Lmbuga (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Galego: As palabras de Sting, non cabe dúbida, véxase o último que di, son as palabras dun bo compañeiro e as dun verdadeiro amigo: Non estamos aquí para fodérmonos (IRONIA). I'mnot jeb--Lmbuga (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:12-07-15-arlington-friedfhof-RalfR-048.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 12:21:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

National cementery Arlington, VA - Amphitheater

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info National cementery Arlington, VA - Amphitheater - all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition but not sharp enough. I think 20MP is today's standard not special. --Laitche (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ralf, it's tilted (leaning to the right)! --Tremonist (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Low resolution quality, and two small stitching errors (see notes on image). Sting (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's full resolution of a Nikon D300s, Error is corrected. --Ralf Roleček 18:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with the camera but with the lens which lacks sharpness here (but at least it's even). Sting (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilt, and notwithstanding that the blown clouds in the corners are distracting, especially with so much white already in the picture. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roleček 07:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to @Ralf Roletschek: Really a pity... Great composition. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metal poles (surface is chromium-plated) - HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 13:23:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Ten metal poles (surface is chromium-plated). Height: 5cm. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why HDR, where is focus ? --Mile (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

> Why HDR?

Adjusting the brightest part makes whole image too dark.

> where is focus?

The focus of three images is exactly the same position, around top of the center poles. --Laitche (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I know this subject can be taken more detailed like this one, this time I was aiming common kingfisher and I knew will get bored while waiting a bird so I brought this subject therefore the camera setting was for the bird... I will try this subject with proper setting next time then ~~I withdraw my nomination~~, Thanks --Laitche (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Unwithdraw. --Laitche (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused about your choices in general though. Why a 150-600mm with 1.4x at f/16? Diliff (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Diliff, as I wrote above. I was aiming common kingfisher so I had to fix the camera location and lens setting, cause as soon as they come I could capture the bird (couldn't change the lens) and I was thinking about stacking too but I didn't want to stack with so many photos (wanted a few photos for stacking) that's why I chose f/16 however when I saw photos on my pc, I gave up HDR + stacking... Regards. PS. this shot was for sort of killing time :) --Laitche (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it is worth a so quick withdraw. You should let this nomination alive a little bit more...--Jebulon (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK Jebulon, no problem at all :) --Laitche (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I can support this. It is strange, questionning, well executed and I like the visual effects, even with the background. I've no problem with the settings, even strange indeed, as the result works for me.--Jebulon (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I don't have a problem with the settings really (they don't cause me to oppose), but they are far from optimal. f/16 results in a less-than-sharp image, and I don't think it was necessary to maintain depth of field across the subject (a guess). If anything, a more narrow DoF would assist the composition IMO because the background be be better separated from the subject. Anyway, yes I agree it's an interesting effect. Diliff (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I will try to be a metal pole artist! --Laitche (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Arrangement is really bad, they do poles, tubes very different, by longer size - length, via diagonal. Also quality is not there. --Mile (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, quality is not there therefore I tried to withdraw... --Laitche (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination after all... --Laitche (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brasilia Cathedral DSC 4638.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2015 at 23:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Marcosnardon - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nope, ginormous distortion, too many people to be a FP, the main angel should be brighter. -- RTA 12:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. And their are problems with resolution as well. The building, though, is really nice, so it should be possible to find better photos of it. --Tremonist (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Croped and enlighted.
Support Something like this become more interesting. --Mile (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit noisy at top, but not so much as to ruin this interesting image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support @PetarM: Thanks! But a question: I think it might be more interesting if you did not cut the center of the dome. Please, can you do this? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Mile (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PetarM: More. I suggest no cutting at the top. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks again. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --It doesn't show what (or how, if you prefer) this building is really. Much more than that! Sting (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sting that's is not the purpose of FP but VI (Valued Image) nominee. Details of something are often better looking and hence more interesting to become Feautered Photo. --Mile (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it has the same idea as this one. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Don't worry Mile, my vote isn't about the value of the image, but about this image reducing the building to... well, almost nothing. Sorry to be harsh but it deserves much better. Sting (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @ArionEstar: maybe, but the composition is clearly poorer, and while the Roman church leads to introspection, the modern Brazilian one, with its vitrals, needs to breathe. Sting (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I will nominate the edited version. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Obsuser (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frankfurt am Main, Gutenberg-Denkmal -- 2015 -- 6752.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2015 at 16:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support sehr schön, die Schatten passen --Ralf Roleček 09:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ralf. --Tremonist (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I assume it's very hard to get much better angle even so, I cannot support this angle, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Laitche; the statue and the background clash too much for it to be striking in and of itself. I admit that the contrast of historical and modern Frankfurt is well-captured, and that might well be enough for a QI, but it's not going to be an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand the purpose, but I find the result confusing.--Jebulon (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and the shadows are a little bit too strong for my taste. --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. I think it better to withdraw the nomination. --XRay ^talk 14:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ljubljana Cathedral Altar and Cupola ceiling[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2015 at 10:22:48 (UTC)

Altar ceiling
Cupola ceiling

Info Ljubljana Cathedral; ceiling of altar and cupola with part of nave.
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LivioAndronico. I know this kind of photo its more your domain. Hope we see some more. --Mile (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could support the altar ceiling, but not the cuppola because of lack of centering. I think a set is not a good idea in this case.--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These photos thrive upon simplicity; however, the first image lacks symmetry, and the second image also has its composition lacking harmony with that chandelier.--Fotoriety (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's probably to also show the chandelier why symmetry has been broken. Photo quality is ok. --Tremonist (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support for the altar ceiling, but the dome is too dark (cf. [2]) A well-lit photo of it would be more than welcome. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Eleassar Its very well and natural lit. Colors of cupola are all dark and this is natural appearance. Check some similar types Livio uploaded from Rome. Lahko greš pa kar sam pogledat osebno. --Mile (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edvard Munch - Madonna - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2015 at 08:07:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Edvard Munch / Google Art Project, uploaded by 4ing, nominated by Yann (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per the English Wikipedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wall hanging from Morocco, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2015 at 08:14:11 (UTC)

Detail
Detail

Info created by unknown / Indianapolis Museum of Art, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice and well-done, many details visible. --Tremonist (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Tremonist. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The resolution of the whole piece is disappointing. Something to do? --Jebulon (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Indianapolis Museum of Art didn't provide a high resolution, sorry. Yann (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Formerly FPX, same as for the Munch's Madonna set: the "whole piece" does not fit the minimum FP size requirement--Jebulon (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Jebulon: What do you think if I remove the whole piece from this nomination (my initial intention was to nominate only the details, but I thought that it is better to add the whole piece as well). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll revoke my oppose and shall support ! I'm sorry, it is a pity.--Jebulon (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, done. Yann (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe you'll find me a bit nitpicking, but I think you should re-nominate from the beginning, the first voters did not support that... Sorry. I promise my support though.--Jebulon (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Tremonist and ArionEstar: Do you still support without the whole piece? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Yann, I do. --Tremonist (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As promised.--Jebulon (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon: You should strike your older vote. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't get the reason but some areas are blurry, both of two images. --Laitche (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laitche: Blurry? I don't see anything blurry, and I doubt there is with this camera and this setting. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. I see :) --Laitche (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to @Yann: Try renominate. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aaspere mõisa tuuleveski 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2015 at 19:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Industry
Info all by Ivar (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great foliage and lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture. --Code (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support An autumn day, I prefer in 2015 but nice photo :) --Laitche (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and scenic autumn shot. --Mile (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Postcard perfect ... well, close enough. I could quibble about some of the not-quite-sharpness on the exposed areas of the mill, but given the light that might be asking too much. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you to surpass a postcard, means challenging to be beyond the outstanding paintings... Ivar :) --Laitche (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per PetarM. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palazzo Barberini (Rome) - Borromini's staircase.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2015 at 15:50:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Livioandronico2013 - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice try, but this is just a little too off-center to work for me and the lens flare doesn't help either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. And the left side is cropped out. --Tremonist (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skjoldhøj Kirke ved solnedgang 14 juni 2013.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2015 at 19:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Skjoldhøj Church at sunset June 14, 2013. The sunset is reflected in the church's windows. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry: it is too dark, and the mood of a sunset is no longer there. --A.Savin 06:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I can see your good intensions, Villy. I can also see why it's necessary for the photo to be that dark overall -- to bring out the reflections of the last sun beams. Perhaps a crop might do in order to reduce some of the all too present darkness. --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this atmosphere --Pudelek (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, since I oppose as is but would more strongly consider a support if cropped as Tremonist suggests. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ok - I see your points according the darkness, and I have uploaded a cropped version. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have cropped into just the building. The stuff on the bottom is still dark and distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per A.Savin, too dark. Yann (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could probably provide more light on the dark parts, but the "mood of a sunset" is here IMO, see the light in the windows. A bit les dark, and you'll get my support (but not to the alternative cropped version...)--Jebulon (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's really dark, and it seems to be a recurring thing in your photo. So either it's ur mood, and we'll have to respect that, or it's your monitor :) Either way, I think you intended to have only the glasses standing out from the reflection of the sunset (which is very beautiful). But the reflection should be brighter IMO because we're still talking about sunset. My 2 cents :) And yes, I too think this works better with the wider framing. - Benh (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the previous (original) crop. --Laitche (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support The colours are really beautiful, the atmosphere is great. Yes, the crop could have gone a little further, as Daniel suggests, but I give you a vote, Villy. --Tremonist (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like it this way. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, too tight. Yann (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Панорама на внатрешноста во црквата во Лазарополе.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2015 at 19:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I think a little clipping on a light is ok but here, the area is too large and other objects are affected. — Julian H.^✈ 18:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Julian; also gets grainy near the sides. What a shame ... the colors are lovely. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. --Tremonist (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altar ceiling of St. George's Chapel, Ljubljana.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2015 at 17:08:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Altar ceiling of St. George's Chapel, Ljubljana Castle. All by --Mile (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not just a good church interior photo, but also a creative one. --A.Savin 06:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some CA all around the windows, maybe some sharpening lines too. Correctible. Great picture.--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)I'd be happy to have the descriptions of the coats of arms too.[reply]

Done CA removed, beware of thin sticks which are parallel to vertical sticks on windows, at quick look might be mistaken for CA. As for sharpening lines - you will have to show me. Since no sharpening was done, other way around - walls were denoised. For coat of arms, families are clearly readable, some other information about them I didnt see. They are in all hall, but hall is gothic and very asymmetric, since I know how conservative people here are if they don't see symmetric or straight line I went to this one. --Mile (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent, thank you. Indeed CoA are identified enough by themselves (I'm very interested in CoA). Please see note, but no matter. I'm not conservative, my brain is. I try to stop it, but it is hard, to many fights against my poor own personality, sometimes I win, sometimes not, sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice color and detail. I like the shapes especially—they sort of look like some coats of arms (If I knew more about heraldry, I'd be able to use the exact term for what those windows remind me of). Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - Mile, if you change something in your picture during the voting process, it would be kind of you to tell this to us...--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to remember, edition was minor. --Mile (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question would you mind sharing what lens / settings this what shot with ? Thanks - Benh (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's an interesting composition (I think it's a fisheye again) but IMO, the noise reduction on your pictureS (yes an S) is a bit too heavy. - Benh (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh lens is mentioned in category, Samyang, and no other would do such in single shot. PicutreS ?... I haven't used NR till Samyang (with some exceptions), which gave some more noise in edges of photos (especially if they are underexposed). Here, walls were denoised, not frescoes. Comapare it with 1st version. Lens is sharp. --Mile (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC) p.S. Set at sweet spot of Samyang: f/5.6 and focus distance dot minor back from ∞[reply]

Thanks. I don't think everyone could tell this is a fisheye at first glance, unless they know the place (couldn't add a link to a 360° view of it, but a quick Google takes us there). As for noise, I like when surfaces retain their textures, which I don't feel is the case here. Still a good shot. - Benh (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Mile but I agree with Benh about the quality issues. --Laitche (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Centreville, VA, Quaker Guns in the fort on the heights.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2015 at 17:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by George N. Barnard and James F. Gibson - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop a bit of the sky. Yann (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann its historic shot, I wouldn't crop, should stay original. --Mile (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. Agree with Petar. Personal crop is always possible.--Jebulon (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info This file was not featured 19 October 2014. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't see how that's particularly relevant. It didn't get a quorum, but noone opposed it, and there's no block to renominations - indeed, we have explicit instructions for how to renominate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Paisaje junto a Castillo de Lerés, Huesca, España, 2015-01-07, DD 02.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2015 at 19:11:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting icy winter landscape you chose, thank you for digging it out Tomer! Poc o² 06:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting ... a vineyard (I assume) between growing seasons, a winter landscape of a notably warm country. Not an intuitively "wow" subject, but you did it. Congratulations. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 14:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find anything featurable here, but the mood. And I'm not sensitive to it, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Andrew (Sant'Andrea al Quirinale) September 2015-3a.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2015 at 21:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Saint Andrew ascending to the sky on a cloud, by Antonio Raggi. Church of Sant'Andrea al Quirinale, Rome. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent light and composition.--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What are you doing? Do you steal my work [3]? (I joke :D)--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I thought of you when taking these photos especially of the 900 churches of Rome! Much more difficult than expected due to the lack of light. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 12:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pürgg Johanneskapelle Innenraum 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2015 at 09:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Romanesque Chapel of St. John in Pürgg, Styria. The frescos date from the 12^th century, probably around 1160, the crucifix from the 11^th century. All by --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delicate and well captured enough. Very nice and impressive subject.--Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. Could be a little bit sharper. --Code (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ....and 7--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RO SB Council tower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2015 at 07:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by Andrei Stroe - uploaded by Andrei Stroe - nominated by Andrei Stroe -- —Andrei S. _Talk 07:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Andrei S. _Talk 07:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the picture is full of CA and the composition is not very impressing. --Code (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be a bit tilted, too. --Tremonist (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To add to Tremonist and Code, the colors seem washed out as well. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stift Altenburg Johannishof 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2015 at 06:35:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info St. John's courtyard of Altenburg Abbey, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice view, but the shadow is a little unfortunate. --Tremonist (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To expand on Tremonist's oppose: There's just enough asymmetry to throw off the symmetry the image wants us to see even without the shadow. Plus I feel the WB is a little too stacked in the cooler direction. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toranj - special circular design of Iranian carpets.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2015 at 07:36:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Alborzagros - uploaded by Alborzagros - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So beautiful but too blurry, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The artwork is all about the detail, but the image can't show that (per Laitche). — Julian H.^✈ 18:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chata the Boxer.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2015 at 01:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop, DOF should be larger. --Mile (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like this pose and nice composition but I can't accept the square reflections in the eyes... --Laitche (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice doggy! Nice doggy! oppose Good dog portrait but, in addition to Petar's objection's there's just no wow ... or, as it should be called for pictures of dogs, no aaaaaaawwwwww. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Laitche, Daniel, and Petar M. I think removing the red eye and giving it a wow factor will make me support it. Nice dog though. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I have absolutely no experience in studio portrait photography myself, so please take the following with an appropriate grain of salt. There may be more pleasing shapes for Catch lights than a square, but I think that this is totally acceptable. But there are some other things keeping me from supporting: Usually, I would expect the point of focus to be on the eyes instead of the nose. Speaking of eyes: It might be the lightning, but it looks as if she has some kind of Strabismus? The right side of her face is a bit dark for my taste – I know that "short lighting" is a valid lighting pattern in portrait photography, but in this case it doesn't really work for me. But I do like the over-all quality of the light as well as her pose. I think there's actually quite a bit of "wow" in how you managed to "arrange" her in a classic portrait position. --El Grafo (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:19° International Jazz Festival of Punta del Este - 150111-2052-jikatu (16077813707).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2015 at 05:28:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Focus on a tenor saxophone at the 19° Festival International de Jazz de Punta del Este, Uruguay. Created by Jimmy Baikovicius - uploaded by Clusternote - nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer this one (better angle, better crop). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think composition is missed here. --Mile (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sort of nice mood but too shallow DoF and windshield cover for the mic is distracting. --Laitche (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gets it right that there's something transcendent about photos of jazz being performed in black and white, but ... I might have liked it more if it were either one of the images it's trying to be both of. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's interesting to see it getting blurred more an more the farther one moves from right to left. --Tremonist (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --I like the composition, in my mind (with the B&W) well in the mood of jazz. Noise very well controled. DoF is shallow but the essencial parts are in focus, without motion blur. Just may be a suggestion, trying in post-processing (curves, levels ?) to enhance the "presence" of the sax which deserves it. Sting (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S 1108-077.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2015 at 19:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Island Kalliosaarenluoto in Helsinki, Finland, all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 19:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a general view it's quite interesting, what the island itself surely doesn't seem to be. The photo is quite dark, what spoils the impression a bit. The shimmering waves are among the most exciting aspects of the photo to my mind. --Tremonist (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark island, the supposed subject, is as Tremonist upstaged by its surrounding sky and sea. However, those aren't enough to make up for a very unexciting composition. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Chmielnik, Wzgórza Włodzickie, Sudety.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2015 at 15:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours. A tender reminder of civilization's existence visible on the left. --Tremonist (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Tremonist. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure. IMO sharpness could be better. May there are minor CAs too. And the object in the sky is disturbing.--XRay ^talk 09:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: Look again now. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. IMO OK now. --XRay ^talk 13:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel like something is lacking in the composition. This is clearly going for minimalism, but still a bit too busy to achieve the full desired effect. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compositionwise: Horizon in the middle, and almost the empty quarter below could be cropped out.--Jebulon (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louis Pasteur, foto av Félix Nadar Crisco edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2015 at 17:17:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Nadar - uploaded by Garrondo, edited by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 17:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 17:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC) 20:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Worth a FP. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice old-photo qualities, great expression, great light. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Панорама на село Штавица.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2015 at 18:15:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great view but seems a little over-saturated to me, de-saturation could be better, imho. --Laitche (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Laitche. Oversaturated and the sky is very noisy. --Code (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Latiche. An image I'd just love to love, but the oversaturated sky (been there, done that, believe me) just kills it for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edvard Munch - Madonna - Google Art Project (495100).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2015 at 04:37:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Edvard Munch / Google Art Project, uploaded by 4ing, nominated by Pokéfan95 -- Pokéfan95 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't forget to support Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Edvard Munch - Madonna - Google Art Project.jpg. -- Pokéfan95 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality digitization. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per the English Wikipedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Common crane grus grus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2015 at 06:36:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Merops - uploaded by Merops - nominated by Merops -- Merops (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Merops (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bird looks fine overall. I like the shimmering on the ground and on the legs. --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to @Pokéfan95: It was NOT featured. Read the rules. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: Whoops, sorry about that. I forgot that a candidate needs atleast seven support votes to be a Featured Picture. Well, I just thought that it just need atleast a 2/3 majority (as this nomination page is 100% support). I will be careful with closing FPC next time. Pokéfan95 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to @Merops: Try renominate. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014.09.19.-03-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Gemeiner Beinwell.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2015 at 11:23:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is not ideal (distracting bright spots, also preventing you from making the rest of the image brighter), the arrangement of the blossoms feels chaotic and the backlight doesn't help them (they are quite dark). Many areas look blurred by noise reduction or compression, only very high contrast edges are somewhat sharp. The composition is ordinarily centered. — Julian H.^✈ 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because of your view in terms of the background and the arrangement of the blossoms a picture of this plant could hardly get a FP. This is its natural look and environment I want to show. Also there is blurriness neither by noise reduction nor by compression(?). Certainly using F2,8 would be sharper than F16 but then I wouldn't have achieved enough DOF for this blossom cluster. The bright spots is the sky shining through the higher vegetation in the evening. The former version was to bright for me. The colours are better now. But it's OK that you don't like it. --Hockei (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some algorithm's result to me but ultimately, it doesn't matter. The result is not sharp and other images here show that it's possible to get much sharper results. Regarding your opinion that a picture of this plant could hardly get FP status: I'm sure it's possible to find such a plant with a slightly less busy background. But even if not: There is no guarantee that every subject must be capturable such that it deserves FP status. If that's not possible, that's ok and changes nothing. In total, the vast majority of subjects is hardly material for FP photos. — Julian H.^✈ 14:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several pictures that I not find sharp enough and they got FP. It's your opinion. But never regarding nature ... In total, the vast majority of subjects is hardly material for FP photos. is something what I see so. The nature is no building! --Hockei (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support To me the limning of the plant offsets the potentially distracting background. Anymore than that, I can't say why, but I did look twice at this one while scrolling through candidates. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I see no chance anymore for this picture. --Hockei (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista de Tarazona, España, 2015-01-02, DD 21-23 HDR.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2015 at 15:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info HDR view at dusk of the old town of Tarazona and Queiles river, Aragon, Spain. Poc o² 15:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 15:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A typical blue hour photo with some remarkable aspects: reflections from the red wall on the water surface in the otherwise rather uninteresting canal and nice street tree lights right behind. Beautiful colours overall, good atmosphere. --Tremonist (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's a quite overdone HDR I think... - Benh (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The walls of the river are lightened up, isn't it? --Laitche (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a bit too cold, the buildings in background left are too blue. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disagree with Benh this time, nice HDR of dusk imo, and if it was in blue hour, every thing looks like bluish but it was not I agree with Christian. In any case I support this except when the cheating was :) --Laitche (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overdone and unnatural. Never seen a river like this...--Jebulon (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think sea and river become like this ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) espcially with long exposure :) --Laitche (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen this in photographs, but never in real...("unnatural")--Jebulon (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photograph! hahaha. --Laitche (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to ridicule other persons here, it is a boomerang behaviour in general.--Jebulon (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding about my comment Jebulon. I mentioned the river with long exposure, wanted to say this is not in real :) --Laitche (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with Laitche. There are other problems with this image IMO but the river looks like this simply because a long exposure was necessary, not because there's a problem with the technique. It's not always possible to photograph a scene the way the eyes see it (and anyway, in low light, our eyes don't perceive colour very well, would you argue that we should desaturate a photo to better match our eyes?). We can try to match our mind's eye and it's great if we can succeed, but in this case I don't think it's possible. We have to accept that the camera sees things very differently to the eye. Diliff (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the other problems, Diliff. I'm interested. --Laitche (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that it is completely unnatural and overdone. Short: ugly (my taste. Same value as yours)--Jebulon (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the HDR has perhaps been pushed a bit too far. The sky looks a bit strange. It has the coolness of the blue hour but doesn't have the tonality that I would expect from the blue hour (a deep blue sky, bright incandescent lighting and deep shadows etc). Nice lighting is really important for a night/blue hour photo and I think this might have been taken a bit too early when it wasn't at its best. It feels a bit dull and grey. And apart from the church and the tower on top of the hill, there doesn't seem to be much of historical interest in the scene. Most of the buildings seem fairly modern. Compositionally, it's also missing a 'je ne sais quoi', for me. Diliff (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment das ist mir zu viel HDR für ein (s) aber zu hübsch für ein (o) --Ralf Roleček 09:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moody blue hour shot of a historic area. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per my comments above. Diliff (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much tonemapping on the sky for me, sorry. — Julian H.^✈ 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose HDR is overdone here. --Code (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Will retry it after a new development Poc o² 14:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Bartolomé, Gavín, Huesca, España, 2015-01-07, DD 05.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 13:58:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Church of St. Bartholomew and surroundings, Valley of Gavín, Huesca, Spain. The church, located near the Spanish Pyrenees, was built in the 10th century and is of mozarabic style. All by me, Poc o² 13:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 13:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Subject and surrounding has definitely wow, but direct frontlight makes the whole image too flat and sharpness could be better too. --Ivar (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ivar. --Tremonist (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very well-done, QI for sure, the harsh light might be forgivable, but frankly the composition doesn't generate sufficient wow for me. And then there's that distracting stick up front ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Daniel Case, unfortunately. The flat light is what makes the composition not work in my eyes - there is very little depth in the scene through shading. — Julian H.^✈ 07:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very harsh light - Benh (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Jüdischer Friedhof -- 2015 -- 4973.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 15:30:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice idea, but sorry, the main object are out of focus: unsharp. Light situation not perfect: too dark. Sky too bright. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree to Alchemist-hp. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only per Alchemist but I don't think this shot would work at all for FP in these conditions (cloudy sky, bare trees, snow cover). Just too routine. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very strong contrast, would need different light to work. — Julian H.^✈ 07:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think I should made a decision: Thanks for your reviews. I withdraw my nomination and nominate another image. --XRay ^talk 07:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parapente - 168.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 23:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info --O dear: light it up! (edited version uploaded) Still blured and sharpening won't help. Sting (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sting. --Tremonist (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And even if it were crisp, this "light-colored chute against clouds" thing doesn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ridala kiriku vahevõre ja kantsel 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 21:47:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Amadvr - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective issues need to be solved before this image has chance even for promotion as QI. Furthermore no wow for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2015 (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: Perspective, top crop, very far from our current FP standard for churches. Yann (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2015 (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:Night aerial view, Las Vegas, Nevada, 04649u.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 23:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Carol M. Highsmith, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Color noise, streaks in the sky --Ralf Roleček 23:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too much noise, CAs. Sharpness isn't good.--XRay ^talk 06:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Never mind. Yann (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alte Bibliothek, Bebelplatz, Berlin-Mitte, 150926, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2015 at 08:07:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
Info The Alte Bibliothek (Old Library) at Bebelplatz in Berlin-Mitte was built for the Royal Library of Prussia in 1775-1780 in the baroque style. All by me. -- Code (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blown illumination lights on both sides could have been more white instead of grey, otherwise it's very good. --Ivar (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp and detailed, nice HDRi. I was trying to be picky but couldn't find the stitching errors :) --Laitche (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Maybe that's because there are none? --Code (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any in an external view from such a distance. I assume you used a pano head but you could probably even use a regular ball head and be fine. :-) Diliff (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support clearly --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nicely done, although I don't like the grey-white overexposure in the lights. Might be worth using an adjustment brush to deliberately overexpose them to true white. Diliff (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for the lights. I actually wanted to comment on them but retracted before submitting my review. - Benh (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the hint. That was something I didn't see when processing the picture. I will try to improve the colour of the lights this evening. Regarding the WB I'm quite sure that it's good the way it is, but I will have another look at it, too. --Code (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ya wanna be picky, I'm ganna give ya some : maybe wb is on the cool side, but that's subjective. - Benh (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really impressive. grendel|khan 01:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with David's comment about the lights noted. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I tried to make the lights a little bit whiter. I hope you like it better now. --Code (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A good improvement IMO. These bright lights are a common problem in HDR photography and sometimes it's better to just accept that they are blown and show them like this. There's no important detail to see in them and our eyes naturally perceive them as 'blown' anyway. Diliff (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ralf Roleček 09:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sky colors are way beyond some natural. Software HDR, I would insert sky manualy. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC) p.S. I was wondering, was HDR necessary in this case ? I have feeling this could be done in single shot, and bring natural tones.[reply]

HDR was necessary. The illumniated windows would be blown otherwise. The sky looks perfectly normal to me, what's your point? Do you think it's too bright? It was almost sunrise. --Code (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- Fenerli1978 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 19:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View at Gimsøystraumen in Vågan, Lofoten, Norway, 2015 April.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2015 at 12:44:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created and uploaded by Simo Räsänen - nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice panoramic view of a grand landscape. --Tremonist (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)̈[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful mountains (fjords?) and the bridge. I prefer a bit crop the right and bottom (8300x1600px). --Laitche (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much different snow colors than last time. --Mile (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pleasure! Thanks. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A detailed and beautiful Arctic landscape in panorama. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ralf Roleček 09:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Fenerli1978 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --~~Slightly overexposed imo (need levels adjustments)~~ (edited). Composition may also have been better with a PoV a few steps at the left and front to put the clear grass really in front of the mountain, leading to it (and leave the small tree at the right). Sting (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I felt exactly the same as Sting about exposure, the snow is a bit too white but details are there. --Laitche (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Info --I thik the whites are ok as none is burned. I was thinking more about the washed out shadows. I uploaded a slightly edited version. Sting (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sting: Your version is more clear and good for the monitor though I can't say which one is better for the print (I know about the color profile, this does not mean about that). I think if you have the raw file, you can do much better. Thanks anyway :) --Laitche (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, I made the edit for monitor diplay. For printing it would need printer profile, type of paper, ... impossible. When I edit images here, I only correct what I think are flaws and try not to modify the "style" of the photographer, even if I don't agree with it. Or in that case I upload them under a new name. ;-) Sting (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Lmbuga (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nomination! :) --Ximonic (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support --Isasza (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palazzo Giusti Cannaregio Venezia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2015 at 15:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI for sure, very well-done technically, but as I've said it's another front view that lacks wow. Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks ok to me. --Tremonist (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The midday lighting is unappealing. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of Jungle Crow, Tennōji Park, Osaka.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2015 at 07:56:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am always skeptical when I see here "Portrait of (animal)". Animals don't do portrait, at least not this wild one, with faces you can not recognize among two of same specie. Terminology should be "Close-up of...". --Mile (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mile: Ok, I've changed the description. --Laitche (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality is good, crop not so, perhaps crop per note would bring you some more. --Mile (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right, I nominated your suggestion as an alt :) --Laitche (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark background for a black bird. -- RTA 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative is better, but this here isn't bad either. --Tremonist (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Mile's suggesting crop. --Laitche (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think its best in this composition. --Mile (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see why you called it a portrait—if birds could pose, they could hardly do better than this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 20:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good detail, but image is underexposed. --Ivar (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivar: Yup exposure compensation is -2.0. It was strong sunlight and taken in midday (12:28), even this shot the brightest parts of the beak are 255-255-255 so I had to use its exposure and needed a fast shutter speed. Do you have any good idea? --Laitche (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the exposure is exactly as it should be. — Julian H.^✈ 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Jungle crow (Close-up of the head area), Tennōji Park, Osaka II.jpg

File:Schlossplatzspringbrunnen Schlossplatz Stuttgart 2015 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 05:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created & uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high quality und very good composition. --Code (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors, nice water. --Ralf Roleček 09:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never seen a fountain like this in real... but nice! --Laitche (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thank you @Tomer T for the nomination. — Julian H.^✈ 15:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Fenerli1978 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Pretty much perfect in every way ... one of the best noms here in a while. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not so enthusiastic, but FP.--Jebulon (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice - Benh (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Edmund blair leighton accolade.jpg (delist), not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 01:40:50

Info Replace with File:Accolade_by_Edmund_Blair_Leighton.jpg; it's higher-resolution, uncropped and has better dynamic range. (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- grendel|khan 01:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that watermark in the bottom left corner of the proposed alternative is kind of a deal breaker for me – it goes right across the painter's signature … --El Grafo (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is a problem. --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, darn it--I hadn't caught that. I've found a version which looks identical, but without a watermark. (I've updated the suggested replacement; please look at it again.) How does that work for everyone? grendel|khan 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's slightly different, but at least it doesn't have a watermark. I usually don't vote on paintings because I'm never sure how to judge the artwork itself. But in this case it has already been established that the painting is featurable and the proposed alternative seems clearly better, so I guess that's a Delist and replace from me … --El Grafo (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Tremonist (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Do we have now the whole and definitively complete version ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace — Julian H.^✈ 19:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Kruusamägi (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist , without replacement (if possible). This one is uncomplete, and the proposal for replacement is really not featurable, as of very bad quality IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=6|oppose=1|neutral=0|featured=no|category=|sig=--[[User:PetarM|Mile]] ([[User talk:PetarM|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)}}

@PetarM: above result is bot's bug of delisting nomination. Voting period ends on 9 Oct, Regard. --Laitche (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Litomyšl (Leitomischl) chateau - by Pudelek.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 22:13:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok for me that right wall is in shadow and want a little more space both of right and the left sides for the two point perspective though overall nice :) --Laitche (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole thing looks distorted to me. The outer-most walls are leaning out at the top – they should be vertical or even leaning in a bit. Also, that little overhanging roof along the facade is curved (especially the left one) – looks a bit like barrel distortion? --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially the left one? I think it's right... --Laitche (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The curved facade is also confusing to me. — Julian H.^✈ 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Stairwell 3, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 16:24:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Serene. Looks like it belongs in a scene from Harry Potter. --Pine^✉ 18:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different from Diliff. Excellent. I did not know that a "Supreme Court" existed in the UK. What does it judge ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's complicated, like anything involving the structure of the United Kingdom and the four countries that it's comprised of. ;-) As per the Wikipedia article, it's actually a very recent creation (2009) but the building it inhabits is much older. It's the highest court for "all matters under English and Welsh law, Northern Ireland law and Scottish civil law" but not criminal law in Scotland, which has its own criminal Supreme Court. Also, "Because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament. However, it can overturn secondary legislation". So, to answer simply, I don't exactly know...! Diliff (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, something british with non understandable rules, like counting points in tennis, or rugby laws (this, I understand and I love)...;)--Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, re:tennis: apparently the French are to blame... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - 😇--Jebulon (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love this one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job. There's so much potential in staircases, beyond the "looking up the well of a spiral staircase" type of image we get more often. Glad to see someone taking advantage of that. Gladder still that it's you. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 19:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support good staircase --Mile (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 15:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2014.07.18.-26-Schwarzbach Woellnau--Kleiner Blaupfeil-Paarungsrad.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2015 at 15:51:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Libellulidae_.28Skimmers.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The bright spots are too disturbing to me to support. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice light but a bit oversharpened to me. --Laitche (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Uoaei1, sorry. They just draw so much attention. — Julian H.^✈ 18:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The detail on the insects is great, but the background just gets in the way a little too much for me. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would crop some bottom. Flower is taking too much focus. --Mile (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition. --Tremonist (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this better. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2015 Malaysian GP opening lap.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2015 at 15:48:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created and uploaded by Morio - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI but not FP. There are a lot of things you can do in motorsports photos to create wow, but I don't see any of them here. It's a very chaotically arrayed group of cars without any symmetry or any eye-pleasing pattern. And I think the photographer outsmarted himself with the exposure ... the cars are standing so still in it that they might as well be on the parade lap or under caution. Ultimately I think this tries too hard to do too much. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good spot. --Mile (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very chaotically arrayed group of cars without any symmetry or any eye-pleasing pattern (As Daniel Case). Upper side too tight or bad composition--Lmbuga (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, just the usual F1 starting scene. --RX-Guru (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ayuntamiento, La Coruña, España, 2015-09-25, DD 44.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 20:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created/uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great building! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, Miguel, for this nomination. I was really impressed by the beauty of the building and got lucky to have good lighting and no people in María Pita square Poc o² 12:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect ... oh-so-slightly distorted, and the harsh light—but the building's so irresistible that it overcomes not only them but demands to be shot from the front. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, white balance, take it from the white windows top --Ralf Roleček 23:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 07:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one of 5DS although upper part looks leaning to the backward. It's only me? --Laitche (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ¿vacía? ¿cómo es eso? --Kadellar (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good timing, I guess, Kadellar :) Poc o² 18:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Oktoberfest 2015 - Impression 8.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2015 at 13:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Impression of Munich's Oktoberfest 2015: Traditional Chair-O-Planes ride at Oide Wiesn. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the crop on all sides is too tight for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version! Thanks for your suggestion, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠. There isn't much I can do on the left side, but the right side, the bottom, and the top are significantly less tight now. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I still don't like the crop, especially on the right. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this, but could you fix the artifacts in the sky? Yann (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Yann: I've tried to address the issue. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colours and composition. --Code (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Martin but the atmosphere is not so pleasing and I cannot feel a fun from the colors, like this one. --Laitche (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alright, thanks everybody, it was worth a try though. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a pity, I think it is OK now. To me it looks like a giant drive shaft... Yann (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK,Yann, convinced. I'll let the nomination live for a while longer... feel free to support now! ;-) Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to @Martin Falbisoner: Try renominate. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pluto-01 Stern 03 Pluto Color TXT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2015 at 09:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by NASA, uploaded by Adam Cuerden, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info High-resolution enhanced color view of Pluto on July 14, 2015, taken by the spacecraft New Horizons.
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of course. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grubby ball. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Laitche (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 14:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! Also high and great quality. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Pokéfan95 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Hyles euphorbiae - Spurge Hawk-Moth 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2015 at 09:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info all by Zeynel Cebeci (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zeynel Cebeci (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me nice and ok for FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be sharper, but rare sight. --Mile (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors evoke the Burberry plaid. Love the irridescence on the black areas of the larva ... that's detail. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mile. J e e 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, cute, and very good--Lmbuga (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 12:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juist, Altes Warmbad -- 2014 -- 3632.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2015 at 08:00:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unrelated: Nice job by whoever put that column there. /s — Julian H.^✈ 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a little lack of sharpness but good composition and nice colors. --Laitche (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just right. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Laitche. --Code (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oktoberfest 2015 - Impression 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2015 at 06:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Riders seated in the gondola of a drop tower attraction at Munich Oktoberfest after falling almost 80m. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supprt The reason of weak is a bit too low angle. (crop out the ferris wheel and the moon might be better, imo.) --Laitche (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nothing special in the subject neither the composition. Sting (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Cropped as suggested above (pinging Tremonist, Laitche...) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better, I think. --Laitche (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little unsharp on the shaft but not enough to offset the striking display of form created by the crop removing the only distraction in the image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea, but a few steps to the left could have brought you perfect symmetry, so this one doesn't really cut it for me. Also, the speed of the free fall platform doesn't really come over. Maybe panning the shot with a slower shutter speed to blur the the tower/shaft could have helped there? --El Grafo (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pespective issue needs to be solved, this is leaning to the right --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uoaei1... or so it appears. The problem is that I wasn't standing in the middle, i.e. in front of the shaft, as I couldn't unfortunately. So there's no symmetry. But the shaft's right side is totally straight. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nothing special in the subject neither the composition. Sting (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others. --Yann (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010-09-02-trickser-by-RalfR-3-extended.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 19:41:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

On set for filming the RTL series "The Trickster": Reiner Schöne, Anja Nejarri, Mirko Lang & Gregor Törzs, leading actors of the series

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info On set for filming the RTL series "The Trickster": Reiner Schöne, Anja Nejarri, Mirko Lang & Gregor Törzs, leading actors of the series - all by Ralf Roleček with editing of User:Colin (extended to the left from other picture of the series)
Support -- Ralf Roleček 19:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect (DoF could be better, and lighting on the third guy) but overall it's like an image one would get in a TV listing magazine, so far better than most celebrity photos taken by amateurs on Commons: hence FP. -- Colin (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And i thank you for the editing. --Ralf Roleček 21:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically not perfect, and no wow for me (I have no clue who these people are) --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but only one person is really sharp, f/4 wasn't a wise choice. --Ivar (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How sad it was shot too wide open. The lady is OOF... a bit of a shame. - Benh (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great pose and I agree with Colin's praise. But, while I could deal with a little DOF-related unsharpness, the above opposers are correct in noting that this is unacceptable for FP. The guy at left is unsharp all over, in particular. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ok, right, the Criticism is justified. --Ralf Roleček 19:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arbre gravé - 141.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 16:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any wow here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good photo, but about what exactly? If the people whose names we read were well-known somehow at least... --Tremonist (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomb of Horatio Nelson on Saint-Paul Cathedral.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 12:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by mhx - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmm, I'm not sure. It's an interesting shot and not a place that many people get to see, but I'm put off by the HDR tone mapping used. It has hints of bad HDR, although I admit they don't completely spoil the image, they're mostly visible as the overly weak shadows, too much microcontrast and the haloes of light in the darker areas. Diliff (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Fenerli1978 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Diliff. This is an image that does so much right, but the HDR, while nowhere near as egregious as it can get, still leaves this looking misty and noisy in too many places. I might support a version without it, or with those effects mitigated. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a little bit artificial, but the composition and the quality are FP-worthy, I think. --Code (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not my best friend as a Napoleonist...This is a crypt isn't it ? However it makes me think of a hall of a commercial air-conditioned complex in the Emirates. My conclusion is that something could be wrong with HDR...--Jebulon (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Oppose.~~ It's a great shot and both the technical quality and composition are excellent. But the tonemapping makes it look too strange in some areas in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈ 06:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Julian, if you look the file history you will find that I was trying solve this problem. If you give me more information about what areas look too strange, it could be ussefull to improve the image. Thanks for your comments. A hug --The Photographer (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I see your point. And I have a hard time defining exactly what looks strange to me, so I guess it's not fair to oppose. I think compositionally, what bugs me the most is that the columns that dominate the architecture don't actually stand out that much contrast-wise and therefore make it harder to anchor parts of the image in the third dimension. Anyway, maybe I'm just too critical. One thing though: There is a piece of white background form the perspective correction on the lower left. — Julian H.^✈ 06:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not too critical, its your opinion and I like it. --The Photographer (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I feel that this picture is not completely well (please observe the two columns in front, look strange) , especially in the perspective, however, I find no way to fix it. --The Photographer (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puy de Côme - 136.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2015 at 00:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry no wow, uninteresting composition.--Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A little bit too misty overall. The sky is nice and blue though. --Tremonist (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To elaborate on the other opposes, way too much sky (I sort of see what you were trying to do with the tree on the right, but it didn't work). Also it's kind of unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Nysa, Brama Ziębicka 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 19:39:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This place has got nice red-brick architecture. --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral zdjęcie wydaje mi się ciemne --Pudelek (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI for sure but just too busy in the background for me. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per both Daniel and King of Hearts. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pylone TDF du puy de Dôme - 178.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 19:27:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 19:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 19:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow: this bland kind of lighting doesn't really do justice to the interesting view, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's all too greyish in my opinion. Perhaps a crop might help. --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I corrected image. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 17:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo; also very noisy in lower right. Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Innenraum, Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg, 150806, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 04:59:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Interior of the Herz-Jesu-Kirche (sacred heart church) in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg. All by me. -- Code (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Multi-row HDR. More please. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP quality for me. I can see the real on my monitor :) --Laitche (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great color. Great detail. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 21:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the light! - Benh (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 11:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Skulptur-Schichtung-Grugapark-2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2015 at 20:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sculpture Schichtung (layering) by Thomas Lenk inside park Grugapark in Essen

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW. Artwork licensing is no problem? --Laitche (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think licensing is OK. It is permanently installed in the public space thus I see no problem here - FoP Germany. See also category Category:Sculptures in Grugapark Essen. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks :) --Laitche (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In addition to its aesthetic qualities, an excellent demonstration of the creative possibilities afforded by freedom of panorama. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Fenerli1978 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dizzy artwork. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Underexposed ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks fine to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, call me an art-snob but I really don't see the "wow" in this. --El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: Hi, Mr. Art-snob I think the photo is artwork hence the artwork is a part of the artwork. 3D made 2D in this case and this artwork was made by stacking of 2Ds :) --Laitche (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some halos around the trees in the sky and around the hole of the structure in the centre. Maybe some more careful editing could weaken those? — Julian H.^✈ 19:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with El Grafo, but I find the whites and shadows are very well managed together.--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Tower buildings Kreuzberg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2015 at 16:05:48 (UTC)

Info created by Denis Barthel - uploaded by Denis Barthel - nominated by Denis Barthel -- Denis Barthel (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Denis Barthel (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting reflections of a rather uninteresting building. --Tremonist (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For this sort of photo (very ordinary subjects) I think needs more complete symmetry or ideal composition like this :) --Laitche (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Withholding !vote until we get this nomination formatted properly. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Laitche (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Daniel Case & Laitche. The form made the formatting and as a newbie I didn't want to change it. C&P-ed it now from another nomination and hope this fits now? Else your help/advice would be welcome. Denis Barthel (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now I can say I like this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you used set nomination's input box so why don't you make new nomination page Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower buildings Kreuzberg.jpg at Commons:Featured picture candidates#Adding a new nomination and copy all votes and comments. This is not a set nomination Regards. --Laitche (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Laitche, you are right, I made that wrong. Corrected it now, thx for the hint. Denis Barthel (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs lens distortion correcting. I uploaded the derivative, it's not perfect unfortunately but better, I think. --Laitche (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Th reason of weak is above my comment. --Laitche (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uniek door eb en vloed steeds wisselend kweldergebied. Locatie, Noarderleech Provincie Friesland 26.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 04:51:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Unique by tides ever-changing marsh area. Location, Noarderleech Profince Friesland in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request I think this needs a little bit of counter-clockwise rotation. --El Grafo (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, seems a tiny little bit tilted. --Tremonist (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Correction skyline.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a QI, but not enough wow for FP. I think this image may be trying to do too much by taking in so much area. You might do better to show us this area's uniqueness by focusing in on a smaller area (perhaps with background showing us the sea and horizon), like one of those pools, with some birds. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely "wow". --Kikos (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see Daniel's point, but to me this image is all about composition. It's that strong diagonal in combination with the horizon what makes this a great shot imho. The fact that there's not much else going on in the frame only helps to make this a clear and simple, maybe even minimalistic scene. That single airborne bird is the icing on the cake for me – it couldn't be positioned any better. I would even go so far as to call this one of the best landscape shots I've seen here in quite a while. --El Grafo (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me that diagonal is not strong enough. If it were I might have !voted otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support How did you ask the birds to make a horizontal line --Laitche (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: these are seabirds.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dominant compositional element leads the eye out of the picture. — Julian H.^✈ 19:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly tries to, but for some reason that doesn't matter to me. I don't know why, maybe it's that airborne bird on the other side of the frame that draws my eyes back into the frame. --El Grafo (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isasza (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remember the Brazilian Sertão. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2010-09-02-trickser-by-RalfR-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 21:45:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info On set for filming the RTL series "The Trickster": Reiner Schöne, Anja Nejarri, Mirko Lang & Gregor Törzs, leading actors of the series - all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm close to support. There are some flaws: the DoF is shallow at f/4 and only the 3rd person is sharp and he's a little in shadow. But the lighting is good, they are posed well and in costume/on-set. However the crop on the left is unfortunate. I have uploaded File:2010-09-02-trickser-by-RalfR-3-extended.jpg which extends the left cropped part a little, using contents of another photo you took in the set. I suggest if you agree then to make that the proposed nomination, which I'd support. -- Colin (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, you're right. I can say it at evening, have in moment only a tablet. The lens is a 1.4/50. f/4 is so as 8 or 11 at a "normal" lens. --Ralf Roleček 10:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your Alternative is better. --Ralf Roleček 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, i nominate the version of Colin with brightening the shodow of 3th person. --Ralf Roleček 19:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Планина во Маврово.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2015 at 12:58:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, heavily overprocessed. The mountain looks painted, the sky is oversaturated and there's lots of banding. The subject might be featurable if you rework the RAW from the scratch, although I don't think that f/5.6 was the right choice for this kind of photo. The composition is nice, however. --Code (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversatured colors, and the forest area at bottom is a bit darky. Zcebeci (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting way of framing the mountain, but overprocessed to the point of unnatural colors, and unsharp in too many areas. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2015 (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 unanime opinions of opposers. In adfition, many chromatic aberrations in the trees left and right.--Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2015 (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:Statue located inside the Armenian Church in Dhaka.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2015 at 18:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Mahosha - uploaded by Mahosha - nominated by NahidSultan -- ~ Nahid ^Talk 18:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~ Nahid ^Talk 18:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Washed areas at the base of statue. Disturbing white region on top left corner.The framing seems a bit left skewed. Zcebeci (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (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 far from FP current criteria (light, tilt, crop of the pedestal, trivial subject, bad composition etc.)--Jebulon (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2015 (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:19° International Jazz Festival of Punta del Este - 150111-1924-jikatu (16077494677).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 20:41:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Jimmy Baikovicius - uploaded by Clusternote - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, this is the sort of b&w jazz shot I was talking about in the other nom. Love the sweat on his forehead. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background not ideal composition, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Eissprossenzehner, Schloss Rothestein, Hessen, Deutschland, IMG 2430 31 32 33 34 35 36.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 15:44:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info c/e/u/n by Christoph Braun (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Niiiice. I thought it was a coat of arms at first. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Horns look a touch oversharpened, but overall great. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 19:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened (dark contours visible) and no wow for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Photograph is ok but the subject is leaning to the left... --Laitche (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Court 1 Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 16:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. I took this (and the photo below) during the recent Open House London, in which various commercial and governmental buildings in London are opened to the public for the weekend. This courtroom is the largest of the three rooms of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. -- Diliff (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great sharpness and color, but there's a lot of perspective distortion. Is this something that can be fixed? --Pine^✉ 18:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not something that can be fixed - it's completely dependent on the angle of view really, and it takes an angle of view this wide to show the interior properly IMO. It's no wide than hundreds of my other interiors. Diliff (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff if you did a panorama with multiple photos, or took multiple photos from different points along a horizontal line and then stitched them together, would that make the perspective distortion less of an issue? --Pine^✉ 19:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support High quality and educational value. As a lawyer I have to support of course. --Code (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like Diliff's clear images like this :) --Laitche (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Angle is fine, though if there were a balcony I'm sure the results could have been much better. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fine extension of your church-interiors franchise . Funny thing ... because of the rafters and, perhaps, the mounted deer head below I thought at first glance that this was a ... hunting lodge . Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit mess of composition while IQ is good. Problem is front bench is taking too much space and focus, chopped painting on right - if you would move back a bit. But I would get rid of front bench with crop per note. --Mile (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. It wasn't a scene with many position options because there was so much furniture in the room and the wide angle of view means that it's hard to avoid it. I couldn't really get further back because there was another bench that I was shooting over and if I moved further back, it would be in the frame instead. Also, the room looks empty but actually it wasn't - there were lots of people walking around and if I moved further back, my tripod would have been right in the middle of the doorway to the room, so it wasn't really an option. Your crop suggestion could work although it would make the image a bit 'top heavy' IMO. Diliff (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No for me. The ceiling lamps are distorted in foreground and straight in background. No need for a lesson, I know it is unavoidable. But it looks ugly and does not work for me. Idem for the streeeeetched paintings on the lateral walls.--Jebulon (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 19:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might have benefited from a higher vantage point, but I guess bringing a ladder into the Supreme Court of the UK is not an option. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. It was difficult just to get this photo. Some scenes are much harder to photograph well and I think this is one of them. As I said above, there were many people walking around in the room and it was only through patience and careful timing that I was able to achieve an empty room image. I even had to leave the camera and go to the back of the room to fix the rotation of one of the chairs as someone had decided to sit on the chair and take a 'selfie' and then left it in an awkward position. Diliff (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Jebulon --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abbaye Notre-Dame de Ré, Ré island, Charente-Maritime, France.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 21:05:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abbaye Notre-Dame-de-Ré dite des Châteliers, cistercian Cultural Heritage in France-- Jebulon (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any difference from last time. --Mile (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No difference, really ? This nom of another picture is not for you of course, but for those who found a lack of sharpness and a wrong WB balance.--Jebulon (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance, compo is same. Its really not so interesting view. --Mile (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support its a good pic and very differnet to the other. --Ralf Roleček 22:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Milder oppose than last time. It's been improved. Improvements are always good. But I did not think then and do not think now that its composition makes it an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daniel Case: ...But you support the compo just above, which is amost the same...--Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that building isn't a ruin. Not that you couldn't photograph a ruin at three-quarters and come up with an FP, but the juxtapositions of the remaining pieces come into play. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

😛Of course I did not expect that you could admit to be wrong

--Jebulon (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's not an interesting composition or angle to me. — Julian H.^✈ 19:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good IMO, Sting is not good IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Julian --Σπάρτακος (talk

) 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Like it --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just reaching the FP bar for me, can imagine the before ruined. Support for the retouching skill :) --Laitche (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Retouching skill ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Means good processing. --Laitche (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Controversial ! Thanks to all for interest, supporters and opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Atractomorpha crenulata at Sambisari Temple Complex, 2014-09-28 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 01:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info all by Crisco 1492. Note that there doesn't seem to be a category for Orthoptera yet. -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, a bit tight crop and hard light though. --Laitche (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a crop is needed, plus it does not only focus on the organism, but also the camouflage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokéfan95 (talk • contribs)

Sadly, it's quite hard to avoid such light on a bright day here. I don't usually look for insects on cloudy days — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I've voted an oppose... --Laitche (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Mile (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Camouflage! --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weird that it's not facing us, but nice and I like the green on green. - Benh (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, would prefer it a bit darker though: That would make the background less prominent and the subject more vibrant. — Julian H.^✈ 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, tight crop and poor subject angle.--Fotoriety (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The eye (or at least what I regard as the eye) is not well focused --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, shading in ventral side, weak focus on the eye.--Zcebeci (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sure it is enjoying the harsh lights. Jee 05:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. There's a reason these guys mostly come out during the dry season. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Pokéfan95 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Monasterio de la Oliva, Carcastillo, Navarra, España, 2015-01-06, DD 10-12 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 14:18:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Main nave of the abbey of Santa María la Real de la Oliva is an still active Cistercian monastery located in Carcastillo, Navarre, Spain. The abbey was founded in 1150 when the king, García Ramírez of Navarre, died. The temple is inspired in the abbeys of Morimond and Escaladieu. All by me, Poc o² 14:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 14:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --I think the image, with the HDR process, lacks blacks: the alcoves should be almost black. Imo the color balance is also well off, even with the incandescent lights, and should be closer to how it is in the apse. Sting (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sting for your comment, I cooled the WB and darkened the shadows a bit. Please, let me know what you think Poc o² 19:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better for the darks. About the color balance I'm not sure: I tried to work on the jpeg file and came up to a result about like yours, which didn't satisfy me (but I don't know the place neither how are your original images): the blue light from the windows becomes well present while there's still a strong and weird yellow (may be also with green?) cast, particularly around the alcoves. You worked on the already HDR-processed file, right? I would try to rework the colors during the HDR process (reducing only the yellow channel?), or may be even on each original file before the HDR. Sting (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Semplice ma bella --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a little bit (0.35°) tilted ccw and needs perspective correction (both sides of the pillars are leaning to the inward) like this. --Laitche (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Laitche for your reworked version and your feedback, I've uploaded a new version following your adivce. Let me know if there is still room for improvement. Poc o² 19:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's much better :) --Laitche (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice but per Laitche. --Code (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --The Photographer (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 19:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 11:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2015 at 22:18:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 22:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and the mood of Las Vegas, strong sunlight and cables are ok in this case, imho. --Laitche (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person below the sign is very disturbing. Don't you have a version without her? Otherwise very good. --Code (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought, she is a good reference for the assessment of the signs dimensions (especially for WP-usage). Wolf im Wald 14:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Laitche says what I like about this image. I'd like it even more if we could find some way to reduce the CA on the wires near the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vegas baby! Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support how much did you won in the casinos? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lost 20 dollars :-( Wolf im Wald 17:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not the best hour to shoot, there is shadow in the main object, and this is a luminous sight... About composition, not that centred, with a little bit of tilt, this could be better execute, for me, it's just a snapshot... -- RTA 04:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a fan of the strong vignette, but I actually think the hard light works here somehow, what with it being Las Vegas and all. Quality is certainly excellent. — Julian H.^✈ 06:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Eleven metal poles in dusk.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 14:07:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Subject location. (And can see 360° what is in the reflections.) c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea! I particularly like the varying bands of the different colours. The effect might have been even stronger had the metal poles been polished. They have quite some scratches here and there, what is interesting in one way and maybe a little bit distracting in another, depending on the viewpoint. --Tremonist (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I liked the other one and was sad when you withdrew it. But if that cleared the way for this one, then it was a good thing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Daniel, the other one's quality was too low for an FP but I like that composition and reflection patterns then I will try the same or similar composition of this level quality :) --Laitche (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IQ much better. But that red part ? I think you should crop above and raise EV. --Mile (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC) p.S. I wouldn't remove red now, would be sea of gray-black and underexposured.[reply]

@Mile: If you have better crop, I don't mind crop and nom an alt, please do so

About exposure, this one is a dusk shot then I think this level is normal. --Laitche (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This color (red) is a symbol color of this temple. --Laitche (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Level adjustment and new version uploaded. --Laitche (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing of real interest to catch the eye.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mile: This brightness is much brighter than real but I think for this kind of photo, that editing is allowed so I raised EV and uploaded new version :) --Laitche (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about upper crop and actually did first, Even now the main subject is locating upper than center so above crop made unbalanced composition. --Laitche (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EV is OK, but crop not. I put you derivate, you can put as altenrative. --Mile (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I feel of a bit déjà vu... But no problem :) --Laitche (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not as interesting as the previous attempt IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon, it's ok your oppose, but the concept is totally different from the prev poles photo so cannot compare the two photos, I think... This photo is not aiming interesting at all but the previous was. --Laitche (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Mile's crop. --Laitche (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Laitche (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I go for this. Poles are much more in focus. Colors make good contrast. --Mile (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my reason above.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSame as above.--Jebulon (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. --Tremonist (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:1144 230, Wien Praterstern.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 06:43:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created and uploaded by darkweasel94 - nominated by Pokéfan95 -- Pokéfan95 (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pokéfan95 (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and very detailed, interesting reflections on the train and elsewhere, good resolution. --Tremonist (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't stand out from other train pictures despite QI-level detail and color, and those crops at the lower left are just too tight. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case, sorry. — Julian H.^✈ 07:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it´s QI for me, but not FP. --Hubertl 15:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not yet a QI, in Consensual Review !--Jebulon (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pokéfan95 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Älvsborgsbron September 2015 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 07:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info The Älvsborg Bridge seen from the historic schooner Ingo. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual, striking view. Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow !--Jebulon (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compositionally very nice. I like the colours and I like this place. Years ago I took a similar photo. --Code (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Deambulatory north Saint-Eutropius romanesque Basilica Saintes Charente-Maritime.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 17:19:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The northern part of the ambulatory of the underground romanesque (11th c.) crypt of the Basilica of Saint-Eutropius of Saintes, Charente-Maritime, France. See the pittoresque detailed capitals, all different. -- Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not quite sure about the composition, and it falls a bit short on quality. I would have preferred a wider FOV.- Benh (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the light and the composition. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose gl: Nin sequera é QI IMO --Lmbuga (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- gl Por que ? Non é suficiente...--Jebulon (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colors (green is a pleasant surprise in a stone interior) and the composition. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, green is due to moisture and kind of lichens. It is an underground crypt.--Jebulon (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject and composition. Quality (DoF/sharpness) was probably better if you would have set the focus on the third row of columns. --Code (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The right side is too narrow to me. --Laitche (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I try to get this crop/composition for over a minute, and did open this frame often this days. I don't like it. Crop on right side especially. Above, maybe crop to next colonnade would work better. Perhaps point of view should be different. --Mile (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2014 -- 3808.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 15:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --(for now) Please set correct color balance (to cloudy) in the raw file: this one much too blue (see grass color). If you don't have it I already have an edited jpeg version on my PC. A little bit of sharpening would also be welcome (little!). Sting (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Sharpness and colors improved. Thanks for your advice. --XRay ^talk 04:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the blue cast is too present. I propose bellow an alternative, corrected in that way (but may be too much for your taste): there, the autumn colors shine! Sting (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice autumn colours! --Tremonist (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really stand out from other autumn pictures with trees and water. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but improved the colors again. It should not be during the nomination, yes. But Sting is right, the colors were not the best. --XRay ^talk 05:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Color balanced (less blue) and a bit more sharpened. Sting (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Néboa na costa. Peirao do Freixo de Sabardes. Outes. Galiza.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2015 at 17:09:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting phenomenum, very nicely catched, excellent light and sharpness.--Jebulon (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this one works. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty cool! Poc o² 19:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters :) --Laitche (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neutral I will change my vote if dust spot is fixed (see notes) --The Photographer (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Thanks, The Photographer. It was a dust spot that I've not seen, sorry--Lmbuga (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isasza (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sony A77.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2015 at 14:23:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical devices
Info Featured picture on 3 Encyclopedias.created by SkywalkerPL - uploaded by SkywalkerPL - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 15:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice but requires to remove the contoured bands at upper background region. Zcebeci (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can practically smell it ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the not in focus shutter button bothers me, the lack of metadata also, in full screen do not seems to be a wow image... see the difference, specially in the α: File:Sony-Alpha-A700-Front.jpg -- RTA 03:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Солидно! Жалко, что правда нет метаданных, непонятно каким фотоаппаратом снят был этот фотоаппарат. I can translate the second phrase, if needed. --Brateevsky {talk} 16:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --There's a slight magenta color cast. It's particularly obvious when compared to the front view. And like RTA wrote: no meatdata = no color profile. Sting (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meatdata? Sounds like an interesting feature

. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice angle. --Laitche (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:San Carlo al Corso September 2015-10.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 17:12:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Side-aisle of the church of San Carlo al Corso, Rome (detail) Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The dark arch on top is a little bit distracting. Could anything be done about that? --Tremonist (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive view, but the image quality does not convince me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colline del Monferrato HDR 2012.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2015 at 01:25:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info: Unesco World Heritage: Vineyard Landscape of Piedmont: Langhe-Roero and Monferrato, Italy
Info created by Incola - uploaded by Incola - nominated by Pava -- Pava (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pava (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the technical quality isn't featured: visible chromatic aberration and the sharpness isn't ok. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy haloing and generally unrealistic look from the tonemapping. — Julian H.^✈ 08:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sorry, it should not have been nominated. Incola (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Wieża widokowa na Górze Świętej Anny 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 16:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as while it's technically perfect I think it would look even better with much of the sides cropped in. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 12:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 10... --Laitche (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
po namyśle za Nie jestem pewien odnośnie symetrii, bo mam wrażenie, że wieża leci, ale ogólnie to niezłe zdjęcie --Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brasilia Cathedral v2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 16:12:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Nominated from here. Created and uploaded by Marcosnardon (edited by PetarM) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This should pass. --Mile (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, stills dark, distorted, and we have a lack of details in the main object. Obs: The edited version did not carried the metadata, and had decreased the volume of dpi. -- RTA 18:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmmm... Lack the details... Maybe due to color temperature. @PetarM: I think color temperature is too strong. See the white columns. Please, could you revert this colors? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, colors are fine, was to warm (yellow walls). RTA dpi ? Irrelevant issue, that's for print only, not your screen. --Mile (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile, this should be a all purpose image, other wise, a 1600 × 1200 would be okay. -- RTA 18:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this is an unusual but fine and interesting church, it has many architectural details. We have FP of churches with some distortion. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - ArionEstar, the lack of details comes from the combination of soft light + not sharp setup. -- RTA 13:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since I supported the last one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caqui chocolate em fundo preto 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 18:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info all by Rodrigo.Argenton 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- RTA 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile browser simulation

Oppose because this is what people with mobile browsers see. Mobile browser usage is the majority for some Wikipedias. Please use sRGB for internet JPGs. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Cropped version.
Support Better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is better. Fenerli1978 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see the current version (18:29, 2 October 2015) is sRGB. My support is therefore conditional on this version remaining sRGB. If altered then I'll oppose or open an FP delist. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the volunteer and open heart spirit, and don't worry, this is the alternative for all the things that you complain about it, this will not change... -- RTA 13:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've be so unbending on this ProPhoto issue, that I suspected this alt image going sRGB was actually a mistake. -- Colin (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ support if the color profile is fixed. Otherwise oppose. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Woodrich, I didn't get, is sRGB the colour profile of this photo, what's the problem? -- RTA 13:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't see the comment (as I'd opened the tab before he added it). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one. --Laitche (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A full, faint reflection is quite unnecessary for a fruit photo.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Caqui chocolate em fundo preto 03.jpg

File:Lech dl Mandl sun Mastle cun Secëda.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 15:54:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Should fix the dust spot noted and we're done. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed dustspot Thanks for the hint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 21:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support though contrast could be dialed up just slightly. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, sorry. The light direction is really not ideal. — Julian H.^✈ 07:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. - Benh (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not FP for me. No wow, but I'm unsure why. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nymphaea Laydekeri Purpurata.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 17:57:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Nymphaeales
Info Water-lilie of Nymphaea. Telezoom stack (not makro), since in middle of swamp. Colors are true, I put OOC jpegs. No other edits in software. I left more surrounding due to interesting habitat. All by (yes Jebulon) --Mile (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The leave in background is too disturbing (foreground too). --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I might have cropped a little tighter but that's not something to quibble about. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I assume Mile is the author/uploader/photographer ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Replaced with croped version. --Mile (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parapente - 166.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 18:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 18:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 18:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info --Uploaded a levels and contrast corrected version. Man, the rendering of your camera looks weird, with washed out colors and contrast. Check the presets (Picture Styles) in the menu. Sting (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one best of these parasailing pictures so far ... he looks like he's sailing or surfing on the landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No Wow at all, technically pretty weak --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because: [1] Unfortunate angle of view, the gliders shape is irritating (appears like an upright surfing sail). [2] Boring centered composition, too static for a fast moving object (crop suggestion added). [3] Cut of horizon does not at all appeal to me (may be a matter of taste). [4] Posterization and red shadows in the clouds. [5] Noisy sky and background, looking as if it the noise even had been sharpened. --Kreuz schnabel 09:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info I uploaded a reworked version with the same corrections but on a 16 bits base. Still working on the original jpeg file ;-). And still no sharpening applied. Reduced noise in the sky. For what's about “red shadows in the clouds”, you may want to check the color value of those pixels because there is no red dominant, only what may appear as an optical illusion where more neutral tones appear to have the complementary color of their more vivid neighbour. Sting (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isasza (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The angle of view could be better. --Zcebeci (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the angle and composition. I would definitely prefer that crop suggestion. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Tremonist (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Singapore Flower-Dome-and-Cloud-Forest-in-The-Gardens-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 16:56:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Flower Dome and Cloud Forest in The Gardens by the Bay, Singapore. Created by Cccefalon - uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive --Zcebeci (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Laitche (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. This almost looks like those futuristic paintings from the past with maglev-trains and flying cars (or both). As the processing is already slightly heading in that direction, I suspect this could be one of those few subjects where some hyper-realistic tone-mapping could work very well. Not too thrilled about the composition (less water, more land might have worked better), but in this case I really don't care. Probably should be added to some sub-cat of Category:Aerial photographs of Singapore? --El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like that the buildings are on the stark border between the busy mostly green land and the plain green sea. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 12:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David Brutus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2015 at 04:06:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Jacques-Louis David - uploaded by Boo-Boo Baroo - nominated by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 04:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- grendel|khan 04:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are those white spots around the lower right? Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A reflection I guess.--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Something wrong at the upper right border crop.--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good to see that Boo-Boo_Baroo provided a higher resolution of David's painting. However this reproduction is rather poor in quality and not exactly amongst Wikimedia Commons' best work. It's not easy to compare this if you don't have access to the original or a better reproduction. Luckily there's another digitisation online, which suffers from compression artifacts, but has richer details, especially visible in peoples' faces and fine cracks in the paint. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Pokéfan95 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:11-09-10-kartoffel-DSC 5410.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 22:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info purple fleshy potatoes, variety Salad Blue - all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could you indicate the size of the potatoes or plate in the description so we have an idea of how big these potatoes are. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and a little noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't agree with the separated placement of the potatoes.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support There are two dust spots on top left background. --Zcebeci (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Ralf Roleček 19:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors but per Daniel and the composition is a little disorderly. --Laitche (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support nevertheless. --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gordon Parks - American Gothic.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2015 at 23:11:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Gordon Parks, uploaded by Davepape, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuts and Bolts sequence.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2015 at 03:29:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any similarities to real life or human likeness is mere coincidence. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good image, but IMO too noisy in the shadows. And the cropped shadow at the right is disturbing.--XRay ^talk 06:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer an interversion right/left for the first picture, according to the following images.--Jebulon (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail. Noise in shadows seems to my eye to just be the texture of the surface. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compositionally very good but it's a pity that the noise level is quite high and the background gets darker at the right. Still one of our finest, I think. --Code (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good in general but there are noises in the shades, and the background on the left is brighter than those on the right. --Zcebeci (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice conception but per XRay and Zcebeci, uneven light is not ideal for this sort of photo. --Laitche (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. The shades are not the most important part of the photo I think. --Tremonist (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice subject. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my comment, and per opposers. And now it is thrilling: 7/3 !--Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:2012.08.11.-21-Viernheimer Heide Viernheim-Kleine Koenigslibelle-Maennchen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2015 at 11:03:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice work on the insect, but the background creates confusion with the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support We often have confusing backgrounds with insect photos. I tend to ignore that mostly. --Tremonist (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel and ~~overprocessing especially oversharpened~~ looks overprocessed. --Laitche (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, this is not more sharpened than my other pictures. Nothing is over-processed. --Hockei (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK --Laitche (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bombus sylvarum (male) - Knautia arvensis - Keila2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2015 at 05:40:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info all by Ivar (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beauty overcomes the quality. --Laitche (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The butterfly seems oddly positioned and distracting; the bee and photo in general are quite ordinary.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Laitche. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral On the left bottom moth distracting a bit -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ceiling of Santissima Trinità degli Spagnoli (Roma).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2015 at 20:48:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created and uploaded by Livioandronico2013 - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm OK with cropping it this way. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not impressed by the framing. Why does it have to be cropped on the sides? And I'm not even mentioning the ~~glaring~~ stitching errors. Thinking about FPXing it. - Benh (talk)

~~And can't believe this is a QI... It may have potential for, but it's definitely not as it.~~ - Benh (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"glaring stitching errors"? @Benh: what do you mean ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jebulon, Livio just fixed most of them (but not all). Look at the first version. - Benh (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God ! Yes indeed ! Incredible horrors ! But I must admit that the corrections in the second version are very well done. I only found one strange sector...--Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well done. I think it's still an issue because 1. we can see a seam between a blurred and sharp area, not very nice. 2. well a line is broken :) And I've already mentioned this several times but I suspect Livio goes too hard on NR. Fine details are not there. Or is it the lens? - Benh (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really impressive. --Tremonist (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geometric. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 19:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hollywood Sign.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2015 at 14:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Laitche (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never seen the sign so clearly in my 14+ years in the LA area. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More Hollywood Sign. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm inclined to support the crop you created. Could you add it as an alternative to this nomination? Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. I've seen some defect at the antennas :) --Tuxyso (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very flat image, this amount of not interesting sky overcoming the main object is bad, bad hour to shoot, nothing special here... -- RTA 04:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, iconic, but not extraordinary. A good QI, but nothing more to me, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info added by request -- Wolf im Wald 17:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though I think the version above is better. The sky isn't too much for me, really not. --Tremonist (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

The chosen alternative is: File:Hollywood Sign.jpg

File:Neues Schloss Schlossplatz Stuttgart 2015 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2015 at 14:55:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info New palace in Stuttgart just when the blue hour lost its blueness, all by me. — Julian H.^✈ 14:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 14:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure but I prefer wide angle version despite a bit dark and noisy. --Laitche (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll add it as an alternative. Didn't initially choose that one due to the quality deterioration towards the edges. — Julian H.^✈ 16:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A large part of the foreground is useless, it needs a serious crop out IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alternative much more impressive. --Tremonist (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Same place, almost same time, three frame panorama. — Julian H.^✈ 16:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above my comment. --Laitche (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great details, especially the concealed Audi, the broken lamp and the open window on the far left. There's also some sort of white dust spot (see annotation). Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, also for the annotations. I fixed the CA you highlighted. The white spot should stay in my opinion, that's Venus. I don't think it's too distracting. If it is, I can remove it. — Julian H.^✈ 18:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ This is not an alternative, but another completely different picture.--Jebulon (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Jebulon, the main contentious issue with using an Alt for an image that isn't from exactly the same RAW file is that one might abuse the system by nominating more than two at a time. Is Julian in a habit of abusing FP by a continual stream of FPC along with alts? As far as the resulting image is concerned, the original nomination looks very much like a crop of this large panorama, even if technically it isn't. So I think the spirit of an Alt nomination is here, even if it fails your legal test. The drawback to an Alt, for Julians's POV, is that only one can be featured. And I think that is fair here, as we don't really want to go about featuring images along with what appears to be a cropped version also. So I think an alt nomination is by far the best choice here, lest we get into a mess with two potential FPs. -- Colin (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin, this is NOT an alternative, sorry. Do you really think that a picture should be or not an alternative regarding the usual behaviour of the uploader ? I guess (and hope) it is not the case...--Jebulon (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jebulon we have discussed this at length e.g., Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 14#Alternative ? (again), and you have failed to establish any official rule nor consensus for your interpretation of "alternative". So this is just your opinion, not a fact. I know you are fan of rules, but others prefer to allow some give-and-take and are strongly opposed to rules that prevent good-faith no-harm-done actions. Forget for a minute how this image is created and just look at the two images: one is a crop of the other. In this digital age, where we take numerous photos just by holding the button down, and a large proportion of images at FPC are composites of several raw frames take over a period of minutes, it really does not make sense to have some rule that insists alternatives are merely different processes of one raw file. You misunderstand me wrt "behaviour". The alternative restriction (which is merely undocumented convention, that has long since forgotten) was created to prevent abusive behaviour. You have contorted it into something that prevents desirable behaviour simply because you are stuck with your old view of what the rule was. The only fact is that Julian has offered this as an alternative candidate where only one can succeed. To me that is the best process for dealing with two images that are essentially different crops, regardless of how they were made. I note that the original image and the three-frame panorama were taken with the same lens and exposure values and a minute apart. The original could have been merely the central frame in the three-frames that make up the stitch, but if it isn't then who cares. In a composite image, one doesn't really get concerned with which raw files made it. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colin, about your reference/quote: I did not fail in anything, I just asked a question, there was not any vote, just a debate. Fan of rules ? Yes, it is necessary here, as everybody tend to establish his own rules for his own purpose or " success " in nominations. Sorry for my "old view", but it will continue. What is the problem of another nomination ? I dislike "alternatives"in general for other reasons too, difficult to explain in a foreign language. Short (but not exactly my feeling), you are psychologically obliged to chose: this or that. Not a vote for "the best of Commons", but a vote for "a better between two candidates". This is the purpose of VI. Sorry for poor english and my "old mind" which is younger as you believe, be sure ! --Jebulon (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem with another nomination is that Julian must choose either to withdraw this one and gamble on people preferring the other, or run both and hope he doesn't get oppose votes simply because people have supported the first one and don't want both promoted, or worse, that both get promoted but one clearly the favourite. It all gets messy when one's intention is that only one should be FP. I've never felt the pressure, with an alternative nom, to "choose" one. I'm quite happy to dismiss both. I've seen enough "prefer this but still not FP" comments to feel happy that others can do this too. Wrt vote vs debate, I much prefer a discussion as Commons votes too early before anyone's brain is engaged in trying to understand all the sides. The discussion clearly showed that we are all of different minds on when one should use an alternative nomination, so that's the conclusion. By and large, it seems to work fairly well, with people mostly knowing not to propose a radically different image. There are many ways to gain an unfair advantage that are worse than this possibility here: like going through the existing nominations freely offering one's support to win friends prior to nominations. Or never opposing so as to avoid making enemies. There is no perfect system and you only have to look at how governments try to create rules around benefits to see how creating rules to catch the cheats can also harm the poor and disabled. I appreciate you see negative aspects to alternatives, but there are positive aspects too. -- Colin (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Jebulon: Sorry about the mess, I should have nominated this version initially, or maybe withdrawn this and started a new nomination when I recognized that this version is more popular. The alternative was probably not ideal procedurally, although I agree with Colin's points because it is essentially a crop. But any of these actions would make things more complicated now than just keeping this nomination running as it is, while having no real benefit. In the end, the purpose of all of this appears to be a fair voting process and as little work as possible. — Julian H.^✈ 06:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality and wonderful light situation but I whish there was less ground and more sky. FP anyways. --Code (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- +1: more sky, less ground. Obvious here.--Jebulon (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and as per Colin, an alternative taken at (near) the same time, by the same author of same subject is not only a good alternative but thanks to him to allow us more choice. Very good alternative. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And rules shall be there to help resolve issues, not create them. - Benh (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than the original nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong support Extraordinary blue hour! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New version with a tiny bit more sky and significantly less ground. Better? — Julian H.^✈ 06:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's too tight at the bottom. I won't support this version (you don't need my vote anyways :) ) - Benh (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Significantly better IMO. As for the discussion, I thank participants, nothing really "new" for my "old view", but I find it very interesting neverheless.--Jebulon (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good indeed. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Neues Schloss Schlossplatz Stuttgart 2015 02.jpg

File:Square pyramid skylight window of the ceiling with Abeno Harukas in sunset - HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2015 at 18:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Square pyramid skylight with Abeno Harukas (The tallest building in Japan.) in sunset. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting composition and good light. I like this picture very much. --Code (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Dark parts are too dark~~. Nothing extraordinary in the composition.--Jebulon (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version uploaded. Brightened dark parts. --Laitche (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a shadow image ... too dark. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for all your reviews, I will retry this subject :) --Laitche (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reworked this photo with original (the first) HDR and reopened the nomination then re-review please. --Laitche (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was not far to support and I'm happy you reopened, the composition is very eye catching, and the pyramid stronger than the shadow from my point of view. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Better indeed, but...--Jebulon (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination again. --Laitche (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montagne de Bange - 197.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 10:10:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The cut bridge doesn't work. Either include it all, or not at all. Et je connais plutôt bien l'endroit. Désolé. Yann (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Yann: I followed your advice and I cropped differently.--Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to

Neutral. Quite nice, but I am not sure it is special enough... Yann (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Yann. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special enough for me ... makes me want to go out and hike to it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I miss any Wow. No excellence at all. --Hubertl 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kalmar castle (by Pudelek) 03.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 11:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A pity the dark parts are really too dark. Could you maye brighten selectively ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, but it looked unnaturally. In my opinion this version is not bad --Pudelek (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark area is a real distraction, and even without it this is no better than QI for me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acacia baileyana 3, Canberra ACT.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2015 at 10:01:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Acacia baileyana (Cootamundra wattle) in Canberra, Australia. Created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice color, but seems a little oversharpened. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors and well composed but simply quality issues, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination If there's a consensus that there's quality issues, then there's quality issues. This was shot as JPG with a too-high sharpness preset, so there's nothing I can do to fix that. In future I'll be shooting RAW. Thank you for your comments. Thennicke (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Traffic light (animation).gif[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2015 at 08:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info To kill monotony of jpegs. Traffic light animation. All by --Mile (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very dark, making it hard to see the traffic light structure. But generally, I don't think animated GIF is an appropriate format for 2015 FP. We have better quality video formats, which allow the user to control when to play. The video is a bit on the slow side -- is the timing accurate (ignoring the time spent on green or red, which must vary with the junction)? Without accurate timing, one might as well just show a series of cartoon lights to explain the sequence, which has other advantages too. -- Colin (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Da, I did put longer intervals where they exist, to get feeling of cycle. But I didn't go into complete scaling, why ? Because would last some 2 minutes. And I know videos, animations should not be that long, people loose interest after 20-30 seconds at such occasion. Unless some more dynamic presentation, which is not the case here. Neither I saw semafor animation with complete cycle in 1:1. Will one wait 30 seconds to wait for green or will think animation is over ? That's why, pack in more tight if you want the audience. --Mile (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really good idea though! --Tremonist (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:ABOU KARIM IV (ship, 1978), Sète 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 08:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info A livestock carrier is going to leave the harbor. Created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this photo has great potential, can you edit this to be more attractive? --Laitche (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laitche:

Done thank-you, better? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better.

Support good composition and nice mood :) --Laitche (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isasza (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots of wow! Very impressive picture. Lovely colours. --Code (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ordinary daylight image of this ship would probably not impress. --Ivar (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is way out. Is it about ship or port ? --Mile (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a landscape (or seascape), neither ship nor port :) --Laitche (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you better to change the category to Places/Architecture/Cityscapes or Natural phenomena (twilight) or something. --Laitche (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I changed to Natural phenomena. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great mood, but the composition doesn't break the mold for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great light, very good quality, but not a composition that works in my eyes, sorry. — Julian H.^✈ 11:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Argynnis paphia - Silver-washed Fritillary - Cengaver 12.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 12:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created & uploaded by Zcebeci - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks Tomer Zcebeci (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whatever's going on with the petal tips just does not work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's nice and I like it. --Tremonist (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 19:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting combination of subjects, including that snail. But I don't like the lights. Not much detailed and the considering the small 3.5 MP. (It seems Zcebeci switched from his/her Nikon to a new Canon. And a tele lens used here instead of his/her macro. We have a few insect closeup FPs in 300-400 range. May be he can improve by experience.) J e e 14:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hard contrast, I preffer the alternative cut (see notes). --The Photographer (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schokland Netherlands Goat-in-Middlebuurt-02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 07:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
A he-goat (Capra aegagrus hircus) in Middelbuurt, Netherlands

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and cute, but I don't fing here anything more than a good QI. ~~Furthermore I think that the light comes from a wrong direction.--Jebulon (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)~~I revoke the second part of my first comment, after improvement.--Jebulon (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute is enough for me here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fofo! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very cute indeed but, sadly, per above.--Fotoriety (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Jebulon. _{unsigned vote by} --Yann

Question The light comes from top left side. In a studio setting we call it hair light to bring up volume and definition. I do not understand, why this kind of light is wrong for a goat but I am interested to hear the explanations. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with opposition, light is problem, head is in shadow. --Mile (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I do agree with CEphoto, Uwe Aranas about the lighting scheme which is often used to bring out shapes and give a candid mood. Except I don't find it's successful here. - Benh (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cccefalon with a little bit of edition, this could be away better. This is a very raw edition (3min editing) using your JPEG, but you can get the idea: [4]. And yes, we use this light to do that, but we also use a bright light to highlight the eyes, you can do that also in post production. -- RTA 04:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do agree with Daniel. --Tremonist (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I brightened up the dark side of the moon. Pse, Jebulon, Fotoriety, Yann, Mile, have a look again. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Jebulon (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the change, but surrounding light is still too strong. --Mile (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose new version is better, but the image as a whole still doesn't really convince me. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ansamblul bisericii evanghelice fortificate din Archita MS-II-a-A-15596.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 23:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Silvia Nichita - uploaded by Silvia Nichita - nominated by Mihai -- Mihai (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well rounded picture which was uploaded in context of the Romanian version of WLM 2015. It has no legal problems (FOP and personality rights not violated), it has great artistic value (the photographer was lucky that the herd passed by at that moment in the foreground, bestowing dynamic value to an already great setting, while not overshadowing the background) and it's also good from the technical standpoint (sharp, focused, undistorted, nice colours etc.). It's also shot with a non-DSLR camera, which sends out the nice message that gear isn't everything.-- Mihai (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha!, the Sony DSC-RX100 II costs as much as an entry-level DSLR + standard zoom lens. It's a little beauty, combining Sony's sensor genius with Zeiss optical genius. I want one, but Santa doesn't seem to be getting the letters I write to him every Christmas. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colin, I'll write to Santa on your behalft. :P--Mihai (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a good photo and well-caught scene, and I'm close to support. The camera is tilted up a bit, which means the verticals aren't straight. I'm not at my PC so can't experiment with perspective correction -- sometimes that distorts things too much. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a perspective correction IMO. The building on the left seems to lean backwards and the tower on the right is leaning to the left. It's also quite small for a 20 MPix camera. Compositionally very nice, however. --Code (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support If perspective correction done. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Daniel. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel also. --Tremonist (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the photo is not going to be tinkered with (aka perspective correction) -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows are to dark, perspective problems. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have done a moderate perspective correction and also removed a dust spot I'd missed, near the left upper corner. --Mihai (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mihai, I hope you asked Silvia Nichita for permission to edit his photo -- this is a WLM nomination. Your edit looks ok, though. -- Colin (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no need to ask the photographer for permission, the images is freely licensed. As a jury member in WLMRO, we don't have any issue with the image being edited, we are already past it's evaluation stage.--Nicubunu (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicubunu: Though the edit seems ok and I personnaly see no issue here, the licence allow you to upload a different file with a modified version but don't allow you to overwrite indefinitely the image with a new version. See : Commons:Overwriting existing files. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this falls under Minor improvements: minor and uncontroversial color correction, noise reduction, perspective correction etc., which are allowed. --Mihai (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicubunu, you are wrong. The licence says nothing about overwriting files on Commons, which is the issue here, vs someone uploading an alternative that is not in the competition. You may feel you don't have an issue, but consider if the image wins a prize and someone else complains that this image was given an unfair advantage -- that someone other than the photographer manipulated the image to an advantage (or disadvantage) and possibly after the deadline for submissions. When running a competition (and I was involved in WLM UK) you have to be seen to be completely fair, more than just feel you are fair in yourself. For myself, if someone else had fiddled with one of my WLM images during the review process, I'd have had very harsh words for them. We have no shortage of filenames and there is no rush to submit to FP. Mihai, the guideline says "it is strongly recommended that users wishing to make improvements to photographs first contact the creator, whether on Commons or elsewhere." I can't put it any more simply than that. It is the polite and respectful thing to do. -- Colin (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, let's not forget the scope of this discussion: it's not about whether minor improvements to a photo are a disadvantage to other contestants in WLM, which is a totally different issue, but whether this image is good enough for the featured picture status at Commons. Had you expressed these objections from the start (I've mentioned WLM from the start), instead of requesting improvements, I would have postponed the nomination. --Mihai (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, the image was already evaluated by the WLMRO jury in its original form.--Nicubunu (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its a bit oversaturated and contrast too high, not big in size. But Romania is not seen often here and subject is nice. True Romania, more Valachia. --Mile (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support might have opposed if it weren't for the sheep. Thanks @Mihai for going easy on the perspective correction instead of forcing straight verticals, which could have killed the image for me. --El Grafo (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The persp. cor. as it was done is very good IMO, and adds to the picture (per El Grafo). Very good light, very interesting view.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Castillo de Sagunto, España, 2015-01-03, DD 12-14 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 14:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Dusk in the interior castle of Sagunto, Sagunto, Valencia, Spain. The main subject of this image is the old archaeological museum situated within the walls of the castle and built in 1925. All by me, Poc o² 14:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 14:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting angle. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Pudelek (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works quite well for me. If this is indeed an HDR (as suggested by the file name) it is very unobtrusive. --El Grafo (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent quality, nice composition. There is a bit of a halo around the building and tree though, and I don't think the amount of darkening in the sky looks natural or is really necessary. — Julian H.^✈ 11:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little crop at bottom, at the top of the small ramp (see note) could make a stronger composition IMO. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it out and I agree with you Christian, new version uploaded Poc o² 22:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Famberhorst (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cayenne Victor Schoelcher statue by Louis-Ernest Barrias.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 13:36:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info Cayenne, capital of French Guiana, square Victor-Schoelcher. Artwork created by Louis-Ernest Barrias (1841-1905) - image created, uploaded and nominated by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The monument shows Victor Schoelcher (1804-1893) with a liberated slave. In France, slavery was abolished in 1794 (French Revolution), reintroduced in 1802 by Napoleon I, to be definitely abolished in 1848 via a decree prepared by Victor Schoelcher. The monument was erected in 1896. It is listed as Monument historique since 1999.

Support -- Cayambe (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chapel ceiling of Brežice castle (Slovenia).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 21:56:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Chapel ceiling of Brežice castle (Slovenia). All by --Mile (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support We're getting better at this all the time ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 15:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 19:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dagsvikbukta (Vefsnfjorden), 2011 June.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 16:41:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by Simo Räsänen - nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better in Natural phenomena. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --There are two stitching errors in the middle of the bridge. Sting (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beside stitching errors Sting mentioned there are problem with borders in sky, suppose WB didn't keep same temp. --Mile (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might need to rework this. I think I can handle the stitching error too. Let's see if I have the time tomorrow. --Ximonic (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some stitch errors have been fixed and it's overall a redone version. I kept the shorter crop. --Ximonic (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed to Natural phenomena. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the sky doesn't work with the fog. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hochtausing vom Spechtensee 02.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 15:46:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info The Hochtausing mountain in the Totes Gebirge viewed from lake Spechtensee near Wörschachwald, Styria. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea and I can't say I wouldn't have taken this one myself, but shooting almost into the sun resulted in a bit too much CA and unnatural colors on that side of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow and per Daniel Case. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Partially per the opposers. --Tremonist (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. — Julian H.^✈ 11:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 19:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sasplat Dënt Innerkofler Grohman Cin Dëic y Saslonch dal Col Rodela.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 15:24:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info --I think the snow is pretty grey and the contrast washed out: I uploaded an edited version correcting that, sharpened a bit the foreground and reduced the noise in the sky. But for this last one there are some faint "color patches" in the original file I can't help; may be with other settings during the de-raw? Sting (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not very happy with your modifications which look pretty unnatural (I'm very familiar with this evironment). I reverted the upload. It would have been nice if you asked or uploaded them on an other file. Are you sure that the previous supporters would agree with them? Anyway thanks for your effort. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I unpleased you, but I didn't anything you couldn't undo in one click, did I? That was the point: proposing an edit and if you don't like it, simply revert it, without need to multiply derivative and unused files (that's now what happened here). Btw, no saturation was added, it only came from the enhanced contrast; may be I could have reduced it a bit to compensate. Anyway, I didn't knew that in some place on Earth grey-colored snow was falling. But I understand also that's the natural look when you wear good and dark sunglasses ;-). Sting (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tuxyso (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Wolfgang, I think Sting's edit was oversaturated. --Laitche (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bel lavoro,sarebbe in italia? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Italianissimo al confine tra Alto Adige e Trentino, grazie--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I admit I liked the colors in Sting's edit more but Moroder's works for me as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, well done my friend --The Photographer (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Sting that snow is a bit grey. - Benh (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Moroder: IMO Sting's corrections were too strong, but I tend to think that yes, the snow is really grey. --Jebulon (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grey snow is not acceptable, this is a common beginner mistake, check this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-H2IbHluLg. -- RTA 04:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers, the snow should be white. --Ivar (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "It should be white" but it is never white --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that link and this one could help you to rebuild from raw a alt version. --The Photographer (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - See the video. Or keep not learning. -- RTA 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It shouldn't be of course pure white, but it shouldn't either be almost medium grey. Sting (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It isn't grey, it only might appear so. --Tremonist (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- With a threshold level of about 170-180, you're right, it isn't grey: it is almost medium grey:
  
  175 level grey
  That's exactly how half of the well litten parts of the snow (not in shadow) really is in that image. Lol. Tremonist, you're really funny. Sting (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will see almost gray, but I see it almost white. :P --The Photographer (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"almost gray": yes, sure... Sting (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

gray is a color similar to grey and similar to white --The Photographer (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see snow is big issue (again). Tight crop above. --Mile (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support love Italy !!--Pava (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

I edited the photo using the JPEG to bring the a white snow, if the author want, he can send me the raw file to a more properly edition. -- RTA 04:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort but the colour of the mountain and sky has also changed, it looks washed out. This is a stiched picture on jpg files plus I have done also some cloning work. Still I insist that the rather gray colour is natural. It might be the effect of UV light on high altitude (2200 mslm). Snow is "never" white --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wolfgang, do what you want, this is not a good photo, seems to be a sunglasses view, and what you are saying do not makes sense, see several examples of top of the mountain: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], none of them have this grey feeling. -- RTA 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I preffer the natural version, also this version has a hard sky noise artifact ( Se the middle top just in peak top). A rebuild from RAW file could be the best practice --The Photographer (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ow really? "if the author want, he can send me the raw file to a more properly edition." ~~Smart Aleck~~ The Photographer should be reading more, and talking less... -- RTA 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version uploaded. --Ivar (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the above version more. --Tremonist (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not bad Ivar, but you lightened the image by sliding the levels right slider to the left. That's not a wise way when you already have some (few in this case) pure white pixels in the image like here as you will loose information very fast in the highlights. This leaded also to reveal, by posterization, a color problem with green, already present in the original file on the snowy slope at the right of the mountain and along the tracks below, around the houses. Sting (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2[edit]

Info --You were all right: my previous edit let the sky be too saturated (good to look back to images one or two days later). Because this page became popular, I uploaded a reworked version under a new name: the snow is the same as in my first one, about 10 points brighter than in Ivar's version and without burned areas. Improved contrast and sharpening compared to the original; sky slightly more vivid; reworked noise in it, but because the original used jpeg images to make the panorama, that's the weak part of the image: color/luminosity patches are still visible. Sting (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 11:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pokéfan95 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I wanna know what white is, I wanna feel what white is. I know @Moroder: can show me, I don't know if you can face it again, maybe it gonna take a little time, you only need rebuild it from RAW. --The Photographer (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I gotta take a little time, a little time to think things over, I better read between the .... manuals --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Sasplat Dënt Innerkofler Grohman Cin Dëic y Saslonch dal Col Rodela.jpg

File:Stift Altenburg Bibliothek Fresko Nordkuppel 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 15:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Fresco of the north dome at the library of Altenburg Abbey (Lower Austria) by Paul Troger (1742): Theology and Jurisprudence. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see wide angle is not so good (sharp) at long end, you can still apply some sharpening. --Mile (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice,very nice --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent, but I miss a true symmetry, which is not there. @Benh: ? Symmetry, mmmh ? --Jebulon (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like to see it centered too but it's beautiful enough artistically and well-done enough photographically as to make it irrelevant in the case of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes photographer was not properly centered. - Benh (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, even with minor asymmetry. --Tremonist (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 19:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fv86 road crossing Gryllefjorden into tunnel, Senja, Troms, Norway, 2014 August.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2015 at 17:55:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created and uploaded by Simo Räsänen - nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oversaturation?--Jebulon (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parapente - 153.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2015 at 00:57:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, but too noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deutsches Museum Munich 2014 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 07:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Main building of, according to en.wp, the world's largest museum of science and technology. All by me. — Julian H.^✈ 07:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 07:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality and wonderful light. --Code (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 07:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition; nice mood! -- Thennicke (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Laitche (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of pictures I always wanted to take --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Code and Thennicke. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong support Per all supporters. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little ringing around the smokestacks and leaves in the far distance but that's such a small part of the overall image. Beautiful mood. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Borggrevenhof -- 2015 -- 5417-9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 05:49:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Please add a category above. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgotten. --XRay ^talk 19:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Technically well-done and I love the perspective, but unfortunately those trees at left make it just a QI. Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Especially this long tree shadow makes it both interesting in a way and strange-looking. Besides, I like the view. --Tremonist (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination The shadows are a (small) problem, yes. I think an image without shadows (and sun) might be better. --XRay ^talk 15:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Umbrellas at Caudan Waterfront Mall.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 09:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Colorful umbrellas at Caudan Waterfront Mall, Port Louis, Mauritius. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pretty sight, no glaring technical issues. dllu (t,c) 09:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Laitche (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and very colorful. Makes happy !--Jebulon (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Irresistible (Didn't we have a similar batch of hanging umbrellas over a street in Qatar or something a while back? Only they were all red, I think). As for the noted issue, I think "what happened" is simply that the man's pant leg is in enough shade as to almost blend in with the background (that's what I got out of it, looking closely). Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yup, Diego's pictures (1,2) were in fact a bit of an inspiration --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add that to "source" description --The Photographer (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and nice colours. --Cayambe (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Piazzetta San Marco Venice BLS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 23:52:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info: View of Piazzetta San Marco toward Grand Canal of Venice, at dawn, with Doges' Palace on the left and Biblioteca Marciana on the right. The two columns are, from left to right, Saint Mark's, protector of the city, and Saint Theodore's.
Info created and uploaded by Benh - nominated by Pokéfan95 -- Pokéfan95 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pokéfan95 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pava (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Julian H.^✈ 08:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. --Laitche (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the nom Pikatchufan95 - Benh (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm very happy I got it empty like that (piazza and piazzeta San Marco are insanely busy, as you probably know). Now to tell you everything, I cloned out a few (homeless?) people who were sleeping next to a light post. - Benh (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you have to use the {retouched} template in the file page... Retouches should not be deceptive.--Jebulon (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes agree. And I think it's not (I bet no one could have told I did something). But you're also right I should have used the retouched template. Done - Benh (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder why no one seems to have recognized the totally blurred and strange-appearing banner on the left. It spoils the impression a bit of an otherwise wonderful vista. --Tremonist (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like any banner on a windy day in a long exposure, nothing unexpected or strange to me. Sure, it's not ideal there, but it doesn't ruin the picture in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈ 17:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spot-billed duck, Tennōji Park, Osaka, October 2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 23:01:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Isasza (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anyway a bit dark for my taste. Especially the deep shadow parts. --Hockei (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockei: Yes, this scene was actually a little dark in a cloudy day. Please see the exposure time :) --Laitche (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. I didn't use any lens filter. --Laitche (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support very good composition --Hubertl 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Pokéfan95 (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bergtocht van Vens naar Bettex in Valle d'Aosta (Italië). Bomen langs bergpad in dichte mist 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 19:46:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Mountain hiking Vens at Bettex in Valle d'Aosta (Italy). Trees along mountain path in dense fog. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 19:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like to like it, but it's a bit too colorless (even for an image taken in a fog) and cluttered. Cropped tree on the right doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I would suggest cropping out the bits on the right. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: do you mean cut tree right?--Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ralf Roleček Thanks for the nomination.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 19:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beromünster - Blosenbergturm2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2015 at 20:28:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Switzerland
Info all by Wladyslaw. The Blosenberg Tower (217 meters) was from 1937 (year of erection) until 1978 the tallest free standing structure in Switzerland. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support minimalist but simply grand! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tower is left tilted. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I have proofed it and not found anythink aslope. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tower has CCW tilt (vertical line from top to bottom shows it clearly). --Ivar (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Starkly minimalist. Tilt might just be an effect of the camera position, but if it is there of course it should be corrected. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 13:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bière route 2015-09-10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 13:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by KlausFoehl -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One great roadscape deserves another. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear composition. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not wowed, sorry. The colours are a bit flat and I find it hard to find the subject interesting. — Julian H.^✈ 11:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Idem.--Jebulon (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel Saint Petersburg 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 10:29:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded by Florstein - nominated by A.Savin, --A.Savin 10:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose I commend you for avoiding the noise issues we often see in photos like this, and it's definintely a QI. But ... the composition is just too formal for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question The water looks a little unreal, doesn't it? --Tremonist (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the photographer. But I think I know what you mean. Perhaps it's normal for a Nordic city like this. --A.Savin 14:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. --Tremonist (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks over-enhancement to me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Water look strange to those who weren't there. I can confirm its natural looking more or less. Can be seen on some similar from St. Peterburg. Perhaps infloat of Neva river help some in it. --Mile (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Отель немного страшненький, но в целом фотография очень качественная. --Brateevsky {talk} 12:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the technical work is far behind of that, Florstein usualy is able to realize. --Hubertl 13:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:London July 2015-6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 17:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Composition with the BT Tower, London. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO FP. But the file name could be describe the content.--XRay ^talk 17:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vertical perspective correction required ;-) -- Colin (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something wrong in the perspective indeed. And tilted (the flat façade is not horizontal)...--Jebulon (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right Jebulon. I fixed most of it but a very slight assymetrical barrel distortion remains, which I believe does not affect much the wow factor :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It affects my capacity to support, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, now that it's done I give you a vote. --Tremonist (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer with no cloud but nice (the quality is acceptable for me.). --Laitche (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, unusual angle. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad time of day for this in my opinion, for two reasons: The contrast decreases significantly to the top, and the backlit cloud is very prominent and makes the building look dark. — Julian H.^✈ 12:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 19:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oxalis-pescaprae-036b-Zachi-Evenor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 16:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Zachi Evenor - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice details but needs fixing for its WB. --Zcebeci (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support I'm OK with it as is, although fixing the WB wouldn't hurt. But I would add that cropping in tighter would probably get more !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good and useful image, but no "wow" for me. --El Grafo (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, with or without crop, but Daniel is right that a crop might help win this election. --Tremonist (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong WB problems --The Photographer (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not centered and the background is very nice, which makes it stand out positively in my eyes. Unfortunately, it's also really small and shows some noise and washed out details even at that resolution. — Julian H.^✈ 21:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sommernat. Høsterkøb.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 14:06:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info painted by Julius Paulsen - uploaded and nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I usually don't give art digitizations anything less than my unqualified support when I do !vote for them (and frankly I think we should review those nominations separately, as "featured digitizations", but that's not an issue to hash over right here). But can we do something about that fringing or whatever at lower right? I can't imagine that was intended to be part of the artwork. Otherwise I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Daniel. Villy, pls fix this! --Tremonist (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not the photografer, and therefor I don't have any raw-file. SORRY. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see. --Tremonist (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angels Melozzo (Pinacoteca Vaticano) 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2015 at 20:56:31 (UTC)
Visit the Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Angels Melozzo (Pinacoteca Vaticano) 1.jpg to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info Selection of musician angels from fresco paintings of the Basilica dei Santi Apostoli, by Melozzo da Forli (Pinacoteca of the Vatican Museums). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Laitche (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Echinocereus reichenbachii by RO.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 23:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by RO - uploaded by RO - nominated by Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice little plant, good illustration for an encyclopedia. --Tremonist (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors adapted with background. There are minor mistakes at stack, but I am aware what stacking of spines make. --Mile (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nothing special here. It is just a nice plant, good illustration for an encyclopedia. Not enough for FP.--Jebulon (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a focus stack of six images, so the clarity of focus on the cactus is not something that's attainable with a single shot. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good technical achievement indeed. I don't say the contrary. I just find the subject a bit boring, sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support While I can see Jebulon's point and indeed was originally going to !vote the same way, I took another look and realized I rather like the clarity and forms here. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm close to support but the crop at bottom is a bit tight... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit tight at bottom, and as Jebulon. In my opinion it's tilted to right--Lmbuga (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good quality of the subject, I suggest tighter crop like this. Either way both of them are ordinary compositions and bottom crop of the original is too tight hence much focus to the subject is better, imho. --Laitche (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor choice of technique. The Focus stacking is not warranted and if chosen so that the light be controlled; which N'e not been the case here. The appearance is very actificiel (check the web normal images of this species). It is not assessible FP but not for VI because the subject is not well described. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without focus stacking you could not get focus on the outside spines and the skin of the cactus. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this object is at least 10 cm. you must close the diphragme more. If you're very perfectionist you can do it in 2 images but no need to do so with 6, especially in light that varied. Test. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this specimen is less than 6 cm tall and 3.5 cm wide, and the light isn't varied; it was full sun directly behind through a diffuser, and the six shots were taken within 18 seconds of each other. You do realize this it a macro shot, right? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The focus stacks in natural light are still very disappointing, precisely because the light is unstable.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry, but this is just a snapshot, no composition, wrong crop.--Hubertl 13:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angaria melanacantha 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2015 at 10:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support enthousiastic. One of the best of your best IMO. Wonderful shell and excellent achievement. Please others, open it and enjoy !--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crazy shell. --Cayambe (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Infinity Edge Pool, Mauritius.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2015 at 07:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Infinity edge pool in a luxury resort, Mauritius. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would probably not have chosen the portrait orientation, but the result is very nice. — Julian H.^✈ 08:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! the tree behind the roof is a little distracting but FP for me :) --Laitche (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The pool was awesome but definitely not the largest ever built. That's why I didn't have much choice, perspectivewise. There was no chance of getting rid of the tree behind the roof - and also choosing anything but portrait orientation simply wasn't possible. Even taking this shot meant holding my precious equipment dangerously over the water, arms painfully stretched... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the most ideal composition, but the limitations noted above should be taken into consideration and frankly, it makes you want to go off and take a tropical vacation. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 13:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't landscape rather than portrait make these shots? Charles (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info see my comment above. Landscape simply wasn't possible here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Toxostoma rufum - Madison, Wisconsin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2015 at 12:40:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by John Benson - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Motion blur and excessive noise reduction, out of focus. f/8 and ISO 200 was a not good choice for this shoot --The Photographer (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In my opinion, needs to decrease the noises on tail. -- Zcebeci (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute bird, but sorry, per the others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015.07.11.-05-Mulde Eilenburg--Grosses Ochsenauge-Weibchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2015 at 15:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Nymphalidae_.28Brush-footed_butterflies.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharpness and light, recommend to crop at bottom and top for a rectangular frame instead of a square. -- Zcebeci (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support Great detail on the butterfly, but I think it would be stronger with a tighter crop. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About crop: It's a matter of taste. Just for remaining look at here where the crop was too tight for the most reviewers. I never choose a static format e.g. 4:3 or 1:1 or what ever. For me, when I look at a picture I don't like a feeling that says to me: "cut it! (or vice versa)". And here I don't have this feeling. --Hockei (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm spoiling the party, but it's really too washed out, I'm missing a lot of detail, sorry. I also find the only flower in the background disturbing. Nothing against you, Hockei, but I'm surprised of all this support here. --Kadellar (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadellar: Please see here ;-) --Laitche (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...but I'm surprised of all this support here... And I'm surprised about your cheap propaganda. --Hockei (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sella Vallon01 2014-01-09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2015 at 17:39:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by KlausFoehl -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
Neutral supporting alternative without CA instead -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
chromatic aberration purple and green --The Photographer (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Alternative image below to find the

chromatic aberration removed. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support The CA isn't enough to ruin the image for me. In fact, it would take a lot more. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good picture, but chromatic aberrations can be improved (see notes)--Lmbuga (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite CAs. --Laitche (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite CAs.--Lmbuga (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think the CAs are very dominant so it doesn't bother me. Seems like a good photograph of a very nice scenery. --Ximonic (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the alt below could be imported over this one, but I rather like this lighter version. --Yann (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Panoramic image restitched from raw (CR2) images, these corrected for CA, also some oversharpening stemming from camera JPEGs now gone. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~There's a dotted line on the bottom... --Laitche (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)~~ Fixed --Laitche (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info There was a dotted line - thank you for spotting what I usually should have spotted myself. The enblend program (nowadays integrated into hugin) spuriously provides for such black dots, they are a known bug. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Sella Vallon01 2014-01-09.jpg

File:2015.07.11.-04-Mulde Eilenburg--Gemeine Heidelibelle-Maennchen.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2015 at 17:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family:Libellulidae Skimmers
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great detail on the insect, and lovely color, but I don't see it as any better than QI because it's not easy to pick it out at first glimpse from the twigs behind it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brasilia Cathedral v2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2015 at 23:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Marcosnardon (edited by PetarM) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again?? Third time already, come Arion, we have more photos and better in Commons. -- RTA 03:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI. Don't really see anything FP about this interior which is a fairly random crop. The sense of scale has been lost compared to the original -- those angels are much much bigger than a person. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Now yes, a consistent reason to oppose. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parapente - 185.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 11:02:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual angle. --Laitche (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I suggest a centered crop. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWhy is this considered FP? It does not seem to be particularly valuable nor of quality/composition higher that QI. Charles (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's sharp, but I don't like the composition. It's disturbing because it seems the image should be rotated 90º because of their position. I assume they're falling and the image is not deceiving (I've seen parachuting exhibitions): in that case, there should be more air below them than above them, and here it's just the other way. I'm missing something to give us a reference of what is up and what is down, neither the light nor the clouds do so in this picture, because lighting is quite dull. --Kadellar (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really so much per others; just there are only so many of these French parasailing pictures we can review before we all lose our capability to distinguish among them. And I think the opposes here mean that point has been reached. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common crane grus grus.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 16:40:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created and uploaded by Merops - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Please don't just re-open a failed nomination a week later without any justification (e.g., if the image has been improved). That doesn't mean an image can never be re-nominated, but doing so like this just seems to be bending the rules. -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Renominate because this has potencial as FP. No opposers in the first nomination. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because nobody opposed doesn't justify a renom. Each image gets it's 10 days to make its case for support. Too many people said "meh" last time but didn't bother to oppose. Simply renominating in the hope that more than four people will support this time is abusing the system. Of course everyone nominating (or supporting) thinks an image is FP, but ultimately you have to accept the consensus. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - +1 : Too early to renominate. --Laitche (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 07:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralf Roletschek: When you support the nomination which got {{FPX}}, please change the template {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}}, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks, this is new for me. --Ralf Roleček 09:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ely Cathedral Nave Ceiling, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2015 at 18:44:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either the ceiling and the photograph are absolutely... Well... FP.--Jebulon (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very good, but there appear to be alignment issues. If you draw a line centred on God's throne (which has a conveniently triangular back) all the way down the picture, it becomes very out-of-centre at the bottom. Also the golden horizontal bars on the middle flat portion of the ceiling are not always perpendicular to this line. The area around Mary holding baby Jesus is particularly wonky. The centre of the crop is also not centred on the nave. Lastly, if you look at very top edge of the image, there is what appears to be a point where the stone meets in the middle, and this is very slightly to the right of the centre of the wooden ceiling (about half a plank of wood). This parallax shift might indicate the camera was some way left of the middle, assuming the ceiling/roof are co-centred. These issues aren't enough for me to oppose, and may partly be a natural feature of the old building, but I wonder if some of the discrepancy is stitching alignment that could be adjusted in the stitching software. Would it be possible to set a vertical control point on the centre of the ceiling, or would that confuse the software as the ceiling is very much not a vertical in reality. Alternatively, perhaps a series of horizontal control points would shift things a little. Some sort of through-the-lens laser sight / distance measuring would be handy here. -- 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can see that the middle of the arch doesn't quite align with the middle of the artwork on the ceiling at the top. Whether that's because I was off-centre or the ceiling is off centre, again I can't be sure. I can also see the lean/wonkiness around Mary holding baby Jesus, but I think it's the building. I re-stitched everything from scratch and I don't think there's a control point problem as it reported almost no errors in alignment. Given that, and the fact that the horizontal lines are horizontal at the top and the bottom but not in the middle, I can only conclude that it's not a perspective/stitching issue, and is simply a quirk of the building itself. I did upload the re-processed image over the top of the old one though, as I managed to squeeze a bit more width out of the top section. Diliff (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The reprocessed one is definitely improved, thanks. -- Colin (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A delight to scroll through. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is cut at top ? I would suggest you plain projection. This kind doesn't work for long ceilings. --Mile (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean the crop of the sides at the top? It's mostly because with panoramic stitching, it's difficult to visualise the projection and the boundaries of the final image. This screen capture shows why it happened. No significant part of the ceiling is missing but I admit the crop is quite tight at the top - it wasn't intended but cannot be helped now. As for the projection, I don't know what you mean. Could you give me an example? Diliff (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I will try to set up mine anytime soon, if possible. --Mile (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Self-Portrait by Huijgh Pietersz. Voskuijl Mauritshuis 955.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2015 at 09:59:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Portrait
Info created by Huijgh Pietersz. Voskuijl - uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Jan Arkesteijn -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution could be a little higher, but it's a good reproduction. --Tremonist (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Oppose Lack category in nomination --The Photographer (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Low size and WB problems --The Photographer (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Isasza (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have many, many paintings on Commons and a 3MP image is far from being "among our finest". -- Colin (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin; we can and should do better with painting digitizations. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sculptures at staircase Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2015 at 15:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info Sculpture of a lion with Habsburg imperial crown, Theseus in background (Theseus defeating Centaur by Antonio Canova). Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, Austria. All by --Mile (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral this a good photo, however could be away better if all the elements was in focus. Obs, Mile, could you pleas remove the CA? -- RTA 00:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CA you saw, I might remove if you show me where. I wanted as it is, it wasn't easy shot (position) but composition and lion only in focus is what I prefer here. --Mile (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- RTA I can assure you that is not CA, nor place where you can get CA. But when moving slider, then I really get CA, not there, but on edges. That yellow cast would be some of light bouncing etc. But that yellow is also on some other places, elbow, on lion. Would say its not part of "optical mistakes". --Mile (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I might remove if you show me where" ... I showed you, you did not saw it, and you presupposed my mistake, funny... and "edges"; between dark and bright areas, as this. I'm not worry about the yellow, but the green... Is so CA, that even Lightroom simple button, not using any fancy colour selection, removed the green. see here, so fix the CA.-- RTA 17:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I cant help you here. Of course it remove green, it will remove anykind of, and put it out on other places where its not present. --Mile (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC) p.S. Thanx for showing comparation. But you simply change the color of whole subject. This is not way to treat CA.[reply]
      - "I cant help you here" - again, ad hominem, trying to diminish my point... And I didn't changed the colour, a just press a button (remove chromatic aberrations at Lightroom) to prove a point... -- RTA 19:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sculptures! --Tremonist (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is blue CA/fringe along the right arm and the body of Theseus. After correction, this nomination in FPC will get my support, as I'm a fan of the composition and of the lion.--Jebulon (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done for both. That was CA, I easily removed. For RTA I had to went to art mode. --Mile (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gives you the feeling of taking them in in the actual museum. Nice color, something that is easy to screw up under those conditions. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support With pleasure.--Jebulon (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and lighting. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:CP GP20C-ECO and GP38-2 at Wilkie.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2015 at 23:03:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Something a bit different for once: Four Canadian Pacific locomotives shunt tank cars at Wilkie, well after sunset. Not sure what it's good for, but I thought I'll upload it anyway.
Comment Sharpness is not be the best and there is some noise, but, you know, moving things in darkness...
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurred, but artistic. Artistically blurred IMO. Amazing, good job --Lmbuga (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valiant effort, but too unsharp for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light and composition but the quality is not good enough for FP. Additionally it's too small IMO. --Code (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful use of contrast, and the reflection on the train is stunning, but the composition (centered horizon) feels jarring. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With crop per note this would come out much more interesting, now I am lost in bottom darkness. --Mile (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is wonderful light and mood. I agree with Mile that cropping bottom might help, but it's rather subjective. - Benh (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great mood, but per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I suggested a crop. I think it works better. --Kadellar (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Kadellar. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for both versions -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment Thanks for your comments! I therefore created this alternative version. Changes: Very similar, but different RAW file with a bit less blur. Horizon put at 1/3. Only selective sharpening instead of sharpening the whole image, thereby reducing noise. --Kabelleger (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. --Code (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for both versions -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and nice mood, the sharpness is ok in this case for me :) --Laitche (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one is better imo. --Kadellar (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- Thennicke (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better - Benh (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:CP GP20C-ECO and GP38-2 at Wilkie v2.jpg

File:Porto de Portocubelo e montes do Pindo. Lira. Carnota. Galiza LI05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 01:14:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even a rocky coastline like this can be impressive. --Tremonist (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice earthy-looking rocks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for me the composition is a bit plain. The rocks in the foreground don't really lead anywhere, and the background is so far away that it looks too compressed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 19:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts --El Grafo (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 14:40:35 (UTC)

Cupola
Ceiling of 1st floor and cupola
Cupola detail

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Cupola and ceiling of Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna. All by --Mile (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose set. I'd support the first picture at FP. It is a nice symmetrical capture. The other two aren't at FP quality. The middle one isn't symmetrical, which I think is essential for this sort of geometrical subject. The third is very noisy outside the central portion. -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I see low response. Obvious sets aren't well accepted here. I will go by one by one. --Mile (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015.07.04.-02-Eilenburg Ost--Blaue Federlibelle-Maennchen.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 13:08:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Platycnemididae_.28White-legged_damselflies.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice photo of a beautiful insect. Even the mixture of blurred and unblurred green areas is somewhat appealing. --Tremonist (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This color combo is interesting. --Mile (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice photo, but this featured picture of the same species is of higher quality. Charles (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks to the supporters. --Hockei (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seidenreiher Little egret.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 11:50:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created and uploaded by Merops - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---- Isasza (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like it, even though some parts of the feathers could be a little sharper. The scene itself surely is promising. --Tremonist (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus plane is slightly behind the bird (check the grass), 600mm + 1dIV should be really sharp at ISO 500 even with 1.4 extender. A bit underexposed too (it's right not to burn the white parts, but post processing can brighten the rest of the picture). --Kadellar (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Arion for nominating my picture. Sorry but I am little bit surprised. Why did you nominated this picture? I think Kadellar is right, and I hope that I have some better pictures like this one. -Merops (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kadellar/Merops. Merops, both the nominator and author of the image can withdraw an candidate, if you wish. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Tremonist, since it doesn't look like the nomination will succeed, but I see something painterly about this, perhaps because of the flaws. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monsanto April 2015-10.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 17:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info Panoramic view from the Castle of Monsanto (Portugal) to the village and sorroundings. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment White balance is too cold, the picture looks bluish. Slightly leaning to the right, too. --Code (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - You are right, thanks. Tilt was corrected and WB slightly adjusted. But not too much because the bluish background is just aerial perspective. Alvesgaspar (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support makes me want to go there --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still wish the background could be less blue, though. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's interesting here is the village which is half cut. Yann (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gates-Hillman Complex at Carnegie Mellon University 3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 23:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 23:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- dllu (t,c) 23:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB off to the bluish end. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment White balance looks fine to me. It is a daylight white balance for a daylight photo. If we inspect the concrete pillars underneath the building, they are actually yellowish. What exactly is too bluish? The windows are naturally supposed to be blue/green tinted. The grey tiles on the exterior of the building are not exactly purely desaturated in real life either. dllu (t,c) 14:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Daniel Case. Additionally there are several stitching errors and I think the sharpness could be better for such a high-res picture. --Code (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked to hear you complain about sharpness for a 142 megapixel image. Let me remind you that this was shot using the Sony Zeiss T* Sonnar 55mm f/1.8 lens on the Sony A7R undisputedly one of the sharpest optical systems you can buy for $3000. Moreover this was shot at f/8, at ISO 100, at 1/300 s shutter speed, which all photographers will agree are the optimal settings for sharpness. The reason for softness is that this is a rectilinear projection (to preserve straightness of lines) which naturally stretches the image in the sides (not unlike perspective correction) -- of course there is going to be loss of sharpness at regions other than the center. But I chose to upload the highest resolution to preserve detail in the center. The next time I choose to contribute a photo to Wikimedia Commons, I will have two options. Either I can upload the full 142 megapixel image, or I can downsample it by a factor of 16 to only 8.8 megapixels. Many photos -- even of architecture! fewer than 8 megapixels sail happily through the FP process without issue, simply because the resolution is low enough to hide any aberrations. When downsampled to 8 megapixels, all the stitching errors you see will become subpixel in magnitude and nobody will notice them. At 8.8 megapixels, everything will be tack sharp and there will be no noise. Look at the picture below, which do you prefer?

When future photographers read Commons:FPC and see people complaining about sharpness in a sharp 142 megapixel image, do you think anyone will still upload the full resolution? Please reflect carefully on the harm that your words may cause. dllu (t,c) 14:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Fortunately, I live near to this place so I will try to retake the photo and minimize stitching errors in the future. dllu (t,c) 14:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have further constructive criticism or comments, please send them to: Commons:Photography_critiques#Gates_Hillman_Complex. It will be much appreciated, thanks! dllu (t,c) 14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matcha chawan and wagashi at teahouse in Japanese garden.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2015 at 10:12:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black-crowned night heron, Tennōji Park, Osaka, October 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2015 at 17:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Laitche (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting creature, but I miss some EV. --Mile (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile, I think you are always missing EV... but in this case it's not underexposure :) I raised EV once but reverted, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Even day time in a sunny day, this point is very dark by the woods and this shot was taken in an almost twilight, so 1/6 sec exposure time was necessary. --Laitche (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I understand about the exposure. However the bird is not well-served by being photographed against a dark background here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I welcome any opinions, even an oppose :) --Laitche (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you actually had original version better enlighted. I would put that one, I made you alternative, but I saw on your page you aren't happy much with people doing it. --Mile (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile, I don't mind any alternatives so please nominate it if you wish :) --Laitche (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Raised EV +0.35 and uploaded new version. --Laitche (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boerderij Arpisson (2327m.) boven Gimillan in Cogne Valley (Italië). Beklemmende leegte boven de boerderij aan het eind van het dal 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2015 at 05:05:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info Farm Arpisson (2327 m.) Above Gimillan Cogne Valley (Italy). Oppressive emptiness above the farmhouse at the end of the valley. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Impressive~~ Oppressive...:) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the sky original ? Something looks strange to me...--Jebulon (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: It was something frightening threatening weather at that elevation sees it so out there.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for nswer.--Jebulon (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Goes a bit soft near the corners, but I like the detail. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed, nice light. --Laitche (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staggering. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light, with the sun weaving in and out. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HMS Belfast and Tower Bridge before sunrise.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 07:42:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created by Aleem Yousaf - uploaded by User:HMSBEL - nominated by HMSBEL -- HMSBEL (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HMSBEL (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove vote from banned sockpuppet. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Kadellar (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Hockei (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning quality --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. --Laitche (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite some posterization (see note). --Mile (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mile is right. And not that sharp as it could be. Excellent composition though.--Jebulon (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small burned out lights, but IMO FP.--XRay ^talk 06:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per XRay; remember it's a 6-second exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Because the nominator is not a valid user. --The Photographer (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck are you talking about?? Even "Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome", so why don't you want this nomination??? -- RTA 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its not a anonymous contributors, its a WMF locked user --The Photographer (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do not matters, if is good or bad, the photo do not have any relation to the nominator user. -- RTA 03:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La Poupée abandonnée, par Suzanne Valadon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 17:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Suzanne Valadon / Google Art Project, uploaded by Zhuyifei1999, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Abandoned Doll, by Suzanne Valadon. Oil on canvas, 129 x 81 cm / 32 x 51 in.
Support I think that's the best we have by this painter. -- Yann (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality digitization. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:CLAAS Dominator 96 Västerby 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 22:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Vivo -- Vivo (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vivo (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little bit overexposed, otherwise good and interesting. --Code (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Code: I made it a bit darker. Does it look better now? Vivo (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better! --Code (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 17:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice for QI, but nothing more. --Jebulon (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made a version with a different crop, is that one to prefer? --Vivo (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination Accually, I think it is.--Vivo (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cathedral St Marija interior Victoria Gozo Malta 2014 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 21:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, and being off-center calls attention to all the clutter that the symmetrical views of church interiors. Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy, perspective not done, not really sharp. The persons are very distracting, too. --Code (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel and Code. --Tremonist (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Karelj (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common kingfisher, October 2015, Osaka V.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2015 at 13:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it! I tried so many tines to get a good shot of these little guys an I know how difficult they are! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"tines"? You should use a camera, not a fork!

Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so difficult: we already have two specimen of this species, and this third is to come... Is it something wrong in FPC page ? I tend to think so...--Jebulon (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- --Isasza (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support That feathers seems sweet! --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice little guy! --Tremonist (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really very colorful. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this one doesn't need a crop. Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps others can have a look, but it appears to me that the background is not natural and has been extensively digitally processed. Charles (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles: I brightened the image but did not apply any digitally processing at all. To swear! :) --Laitche (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Sorry for suggesting it. Apologies. Charles (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The backgroud is green water and grasses and autumn tints plus reflection of these

--Laitche (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

heartbroken oppose I was about to support, but after having a look at the two existing FP of this species (1, 2), I can't really justify that anymore. In my opinion, they both look sharper, have a smoother background, better lighting, and a nicer pose. It's not that this picture is bad, it's just that I feel it's not completely on par with its (very tough) competition. Sorry 'bout that … --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @El Grafo: This photo can ease your heart? --Laitche (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, the others are much finer. Charles (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FP is the "top of the top", the "cream of the cream" of "Commons". We already have two FP of this specimen, and this third is not as good as the others previously promoted.--Jebulon (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:0 Serres Royales de Laeken (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2015 at 14:13:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created and uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Diliff was there... --Laitche (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's very impressive, really well done --Isasza (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CA in upper corners, unfortunately. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support due to minor weaknesses. --Tremonist (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Demoted to 'not featured' due to sock double vote. 4 October 2018. --Cart (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Jüdischer Friedhof -- 2015 -- 4978.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2015 at 15:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the angle is not optimal for this scene. --Laitche (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a very interesting topic, but I also would prefer a different composition. --Tremonist (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Pedro de los Francos, Calatayud, España, 2014-12-29, DD 056-060 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2015 at 11:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Upper view of the main nave of the gotic church of San Pedro de los Francos, located in Calatayud, Aragon, Spain. The original temple was founded in the 12th century by order of Alfonso I, "The Battler" to offer the french people who helped him in the Battle of Cutanda (1120) against the Almoravids and stayed definitely in Calatayud a place to pray, but the current church was built 2 centuries later. All by me, Poc o² 11:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 11:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this perspective doesn't really work for me. The crop at the top should be higher. Therefore more of the chairs could be cropped. Then it should be centered. Nice church anyways. Is the WB correct this way? --Code (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am OK with this angle; do all church interiors have to be like David's? Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. But this one looks a little bit unbalanced to me. --Code (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd power darks or blacks, but very nice and per Daniel. --Kadellar (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as others --Hubertl 13:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carrelet, Esnandes, Charente-Maritime, august 2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2015 at 17:54:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fishing square nets on a pontoon, low tide. One of the landmarks of my native province...-- Jebulon (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isasza (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deserves its QI, but its composition is too cluttered for any sufficient wow, cluttered enough in fact that it's not easy to tell what the subject is supposed to be without reading the description. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors and lighting are too bland for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Typical light from Aunis, very well shown by Louis Suire, a friend of my family (I own some of his paintings).--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the light direction don't help. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed...--Jebulon (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Kalmar castle (by Pudelek) 02.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2015 at 22:47:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Oppose Very sharp and nice light although the almost half of main subject is blocked by the trees. --Laitche (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry. --Laitche (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colourspace is missing. --Code (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, but dark trees in front are too distracting for me to support as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great contrast between the lit castle and the dark clouds, but the dark foreground is too distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trees. --Mile (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Mile. Yann (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nottuln, Appelhülsen, Schulze-Frenkings-Hof -- 2015 -- 5482.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2015 at 04:47:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I think there is maybe just a very little bit too much green at foreground, that distracts a bit. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but per Daniel. I think the framing is a bit too tight, specially the upper crop. --Kadellar (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others: Probably a QI, but no WOW for me. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horizontal lines are fine, but verticals are leaning. Furthermore not sufficient wow for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Kaplica św. Krzyża w Boguszynie 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2015 at 10:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well-done, definitely a QI but not interesting enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting enough for me. --Tremonist (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bottle with Fish, Joseon dynasty (1392-1910), 15th-early 16th century.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2015 at 11:12:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments and memorials
Info Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by "Museum Associates/LACMA" - uploaded by Boo-Boo Baroo - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the background complements the shape of the vase. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --El Grafo (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice, but FP ? Sure ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Monuments and memorials

File:Chester Cathedral Cloister, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2015 at 18:42:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nobody has mentioned it yet, but the inner right side wall is really leaning outwards, it isn't a problem with the stitching. ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if this weren't your nom, many people would point that :) --Laitche (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry, I'm here, and we get the time !--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK for the inside right wall, but the ground ? And the angle of the two corridors ? It is a cloister, so it should show a right angle. Furthermore I find the colors ~~overdone and~~ (no offense) a bit "kitchy". Sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but the colours are not overdone, that's how it looks and that's how the original RAW files look. I know you're just offering your opinion but I do make a strong effort to avoid overdone processing and kitsch so it's frustrating when people second-guess my images and think they're unrealistic or overdone when they're not. As for the angle, I am sure I was directly at the corner of the cloister and the angles of the two cloisters are identical, but the right side passage actually extends into the left side which gives the impression that it is not centred. The right side of the frame does extend slightly further than the left side, but that is not a positional problem, just an issue of framing. For the ground, this is simply what wide angle perspective does to the lines on the floor when viewed from an angle. It's not leaning and it's not something that 'should be corrected'. You're more than welcome to dislike the effect it gives, but it's geometrically accurate. ;-) Diliff (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, of course I believe you. Sorry for frustration and indeed, it is just a feeling. I strike the shocking word. But you cannot convince me about the accurate geommetry (it is frequent disagreement between us both, and with me and Benh). Please have a look to the following rose-keystones on the ceilings, right and left. I'm sorry, the series does not look "normal" for me: strongly leaning in foregroung, almost straight in background. I know that my opinion is not the majority, that's why I don't vote immediately. We know all that an "oppose" at the beginning of nomination may interfere with the normal process (even for your wonderful pics, dear Diliff), then, I feel free to be maybe a bit "harsh": this image will be promoted.--Jebulon (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks too overprocessed --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Popo le Chien ^ouah 11:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Detail portal cathedral Naples.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2015 at 15:38:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Close-up of the main portals of the cathedral. Wood, 15th-century, Naples, Italy.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice. --Tremonist (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ There is distortion; note how the bottom right corner curves up. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry no, no distortion at all, except a normal one. It is a close-up of a 15th-century wooden door !!!! Do you want a perfect square or rectangle ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please Error in {{reply to}}: Input contains forbidden characters.
    - I will withdraw my opposition. However, I cannot support as the crop is still aesthetically unpleasing. After all, if a landscape photo (which is far less orderly than even the oldest door) has a distracting element in a corner, it decreases the quality of the composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you very much. I did not ask for a support, and I see your point (even if I'm not sure I agree ! actually, I disagree with the comparison and the conclusion :)) Your argumentation sounds better now for me, as I understand it. It could be a good reason for an oppose, btw.--Jebulon (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Renée Adorée.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2015 at 15:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Bain News Service, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info French actress who appeared in Hollywood silent movies during the 1920s. Renomination after restoration.
Support Much more work than I initially expected, but I think it is worth the effort. -- Yann (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think so, too, Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good choice Yann, star of silent movies. --Mile (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Justifie d'être examiné au dela de 100%, rien que pour la comparaison avec l'original! You did it, looks like a contemporary WB portrait.--Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice restoration :) --Laitche (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Bufo periglenes2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 02:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info Bufo periglenes (Golden toad)
Info created by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - uploaded by Dllu - nominated by Pokéfan95 -- Pokéfan95 (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pokéfan95 (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See: Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Bufo periglenes1.jpg. dllu (t,c) 10:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although we note that many of the dust specks have been removed in my version compared with the original. dllu (t,c) 10:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ---- --Isasza (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough, one finger cut off. --Tremonist (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it would be pretty sharp to me

. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose crop.--Jebulon (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Being the only image of this extinct species we have, there's no doubt about it's high value. But we have VI for things like this, and it's not up to Commons' FP quality standards. --El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Grafo. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pokéfan95 (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qendra historike e Prizrenitaa.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2015 at 12:46:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by GentiBehramaj - uploaded by GentiBehramaj - nominated by GentiBehramaj (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GentiBehramaj (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it's clearly leaning to the left. Then there is strong posterization visible in the sky. Looks oversharpened, as well. And I'm not convinced by the composition, either. --Code (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Code.--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2015 (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: Per Code. Laitche (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2015 (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:2015 Kirche St. Jakobus Bargau.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2015 at 04:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info St James church and old school house in Bargau, Germany. Created by Kreuzschnabel - uploaded by Kreuzschnabel - nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and colors. --Laitche (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Respect for the creator's intention. --Laitche (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Took me some time to decide whether to vote on this or not. Thanks to Christian Ferrer anyway for the nomination. In no way I want to embarrass you by my vote, so please excuse. Being asked now to review my own work, I strongly feel obliged to apply the same standards I always measured others’ works with. High standards because I always thought that only the very best images, the top of the cream of the crop, deserves my support here. Given that, I do not think this picture really can pass my personal threshold. Well, I know the circumstances it was taken under. A handheld telephoto shot (not quite sharp) in dull weather, cropped to the main subject, rather hazy first, then having been strongly postprocessed to get any contrast into it. In my eyes the result is nice, doubtless of encyclopedian character, maybe QI, but does not really offer enough wow or originality to be FP. Then maybe it’s just me, knowing all this, so don’t feel biased by my vote. If the community considers this one to be featured, I will be happy with the star as well (though I think there are nicer candidates among my recent uploads). --Kreuz schnabel 16:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not trying to poop in our image, you already show up the issues, especially the dull weather, fog is favourable to highlight the main object, however this haze... the green area of the bottom, is also not good. Cheers :) -- RTA 17:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no problem with the foreground, and if that were the only element of the picture I'd be !voting support as long as it was technically well-accomplished. However ... that villagescape in the background is a distraction, and worse, a distraction in exactly the wrong place. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given the conditions, I think you did a really good job! Nevertheless, I'll have to agree with you about the wow. --El Grafo (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Homme statue - 213.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 00:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting composition, but blurred arm in front quite distracting. --Tremonist (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral focus is perfect, I don't find the arm in front distracting. I think it would have been good to see a bit more of his left arm. --Kadellar (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosque-Madrassa of Sultan Hassan.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2015 at 14:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by Mohammed Moussa - uploaded by Mohammed Moussa - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well-composed, but it looks like there was a slight camera shake and the WB is off toward magenta. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per Daniel. Good idea, though. --Tremonist (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acronicta auricoma - Betula pubescens - Niitvälja bog.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2015 at 05:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Scarce dagger larva feeding on moor birch, all by Ivar (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Isasza (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I think it would be even better with a tighter crop. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why is this considered FP? It does not seem to have sharpness/quality/composition of Commons QI. Charles (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Charles.. I can´t see anything extraordinary.--Hubertl 18:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Trivial composition (centered).--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Popo le Chien ^ouah 12:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antarctic-light 065 hg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 18:43:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Hgrobe - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very inspirational to me personally. :) Although it's an old photo the quality is so and so. I kind of think the window should be aligned straight as it's currently not – just almost. --Ximonic (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, per Ximonic --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ximonic. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also per Ximonic. Besides, I like old photos like this one. --Tremonist (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cathedral Antwerp July 2015-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 17:16:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Stained glass window in the Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, great work! Yann (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stained glass windows are always seducing, but this one is really pleasant and nicely captured. Deserves a good and complete description though.--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cervus canadensis nannodes at Tomales Point.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 18:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to repeat myself, this is outstanding! --Ivar (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks a lot for your feedback. I took this image yesterday at Tomales Point, the tip of the Point Reyes peninsula. It was one of my exchange days after WikiConference USA and I had marked the elk rut season on my calendar weeks in advance. As this was a Thursday, only a few hikers had found their way to this remote place. Now, I had hoped for some nice shots of bulls fighting with each other. However, the few male elks that I encountered were peaceful and quiet. That's why I could focus on the cows instead. After reviewing my shots today I felt like the specific colors of that foggy day added some nice atmosphere to the scene. Again, thanks for nominating and supporting this shot. Tomales Point is one of my favorite places and I'm glad I could capture some of the magic of this species, which was on the brink of extinction not that long ago. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Off-topic.The animal appears healthy? --The Photographer (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice simple animal photo. A little noisy on the ground, but so what? Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cropped a little too close on the top, but OK. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, very sharp, high EV. --Kadellar (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support super --Biplab Anand (Talk) 00:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with King of Hearts about the to crop, but this might actually be the first picture of a large mammal since the Smiling Zebra with Rainbow that really made me go "wow!" --El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Henry Clive - Sultana.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2015 at 18:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Henry Clive - uploaded by Brandmeister - nominated by Brandmeister -- Brandmeister (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brandmeister (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you ever seen the real painting of this? I assume the night sky is only blue not with the purple, just an assuming though... --Laitche (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This comes directly from Heritage Auctions which is currently selling this, so almost certainly faithful. Brandmeister (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support OK. --Laitche (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish it was bigger but until we get one, we can take this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Karelj (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful and colorful. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit too kitsch for me, and the resolution is not that big. Yann (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Müürlooga (Arabidopsis thaliana) lehekarv (trihhoom) 311 0805.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 07:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created and uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question It appears quite unsharp, doesn't it? Too little resolution? Nice to look at in general, but definetely not at full size. --Tremonist (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks special, but what's this? What's the scale? English description? Yann (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yann: It's from the image title in metadata "Scanning electron micrograph of trichome: a leaf hair of thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), an unique structure that is made of a single cell.", Regards. --Laitche (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I added that, but I still miss a scale. Yann (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a low quality version of the current FP by same author and same subject. --Laitche (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ulm Germany Church-St-Georg-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2015 at 17:36:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Interior of Catholic Church St Georg in Ulm, Germany. The former garrison church was built 1902 in neogothic style.

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 19:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cccefalon, the dark area pointed, could you make brighter? Is barely possible to see the illustration on this area. Apart from that, congrats, nice shot. -- RTA 23:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I applied partial brightening. The challenge was, that there was not a single light switched on in the church and the corner in the eastern part of the nave was completly in the dark. When processing the image, I was afraid, that too much brightening of this part would raise too much noise, but the result now is imo acceptable. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I already saw this in QIC and found it very nice, but I really wonder about the heavy noise level of the whole picture. Did you brighten it up a lot? Compositionally very nice of course. Maybe HDR would have been a good idea here. FP anyways, IMO. I'm really envious about your lens ;-) --Code (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is already a HDR image. It was really very dark in the church and I didn't wanted to go over ISO 400, so I had to expect some noise of course. The good thing was, that the problem with the TS-17mm flares is not present, when the sky is overcast or no light spots are present. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I didn't know that. Could you eventually provide some information about your HDR processing here? The noise is quite strong IMO. I suppose you used a tripod? Why did you choose ISO 400 then? The top part is quite unsharp, too. Is this a problem of the TS-lens? --Code (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I uploaded a reworked version. The noise should be substantially less. I have only the LR facility to merge HDR. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ralf Roleček 22:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slight oppose Great effort so far but still too noisy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So sorry, but per Daniel. I think interior's bar is so high here. If I didn't look at Diliff's Poco's Code's works, my vote might be support... --Laitche (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frescoes in front are not so sharp, like out of focus. Center part in too dark and crop/composition isn't so well made/chosen. --Mile (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support even when Diliff's and others' may be better, this one is FP level. Btw I can't see disturbing noise. --Kadellar (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharpness and interesting to see the results of a TS lens rather than stitched. I don't think we should require downsized-stitched images of interiors at FP, and this is good enough at 20MP to print flawlessly in any magazine. -- Colin (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Popo le Chien ^ouah 12:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2015.07.04.-06-Eilenburg Ost--Gemeiner Schwefelporling.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2015 at 10:28:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family_:_Polyporaceae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question English description? Yann (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done There are several English names, I don't know which is the most used. --Hockei (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose High EV, certainly VI, but light is far to be FP. Yann (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear for me what you mean with high EV and VI. It was very sunny and the mushroom surrounded by large trees. A few sunrays reached the ground. For me the light is good as it is. Maybe it's a technical thing you mean, not visual. BTW, the EV is 0. --Hockei (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EV = educational value, VI = valued image. Sorry for the jargon. Probably a bit of flash would help to get a nice light. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ganz klar Grünstich und fehlende Tonwerthöhen, siehe hier. --Ralf Roleček 19:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo de Sagunto, Valencia, España, 2015-01-03, DD 09-11 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2015 at 14:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info General view during dusk of the interior of the castle of Sagunto, Sagunto, Valencia, Spain. The castle was constructed in the 10th century although the location had been used already by the Iberians and reformed in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the castle rests from different civilisations can be found: Iberian, Romans, Goths and Arabs. All by me, Poc o² 14:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 14:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice lighting --Pudelek (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Captures the mood without any compromises elsewhere. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this colors of the sky, and 7 :) --Laitche (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caverna Terra Ronca, Parque Estadual Terra Ronca, São Domingos, GO 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2015 at 18:06:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Caioribeirovilela - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Description: Speleologist observing sun rays inside the Terra Ronca cave, Goiás, Brazil. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very big WOW and the quality is very good, too. Definitely FP IMO. --Code (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But please fix the redlink category and add an english description and a geocode. --Code (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dark is too dark, and it needs a strong vertical correction.--Jebulon (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Some noise, but still OK. Yann (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. --Ralf Roleček 23:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, I guess he is posing. I prefer the natural scene but nice :) --Laitche (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --Mile (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Very impressive, but not the best photographic quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~ Stalactites are always vertical by nature !!! That's physics. ~~What I see is just impossible in real and kills all the great other qualities of this picture.--Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

- This is "Commons", not a simple picture contest. I don't understand we could promote a picture which cannot be used in any wikipedia due to the optical distortion. It is not a good message IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon I did some PD correction and rotation. Not sure what is completely vertical here. --Mile (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job ! Than you very much PetarM. Now the picture is really good and acceptable for me, and very useful. I strike my oppose of course.--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @PetarM and Jebulon: Thanks for all! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @PetarM: Opps! Perspective problem. See the note. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Thanks! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Moderate~~ Support per Uoaei1, and also taking note of Jebulon's criticism (update: now apparently addressed to his satisfaction). But I still like the crepuscular ray more. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Finally this WLE-BR brings us one go... wait, it was retouched... well, good collaborative work, not FP for me (some noisy, lack of focus...), it's more a impressive place, and a snapshot combination. -- RTA 07:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rodrigo.Argenton: Obrigado pela revisão! Eu penso que ganhou muitos apoios porque a composição é extremamente rara e impressionante. Uma pena que não se tornou uma das finalistas... :( 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Delosperma cooperi (Délosperma rose) - 97.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2015 at 13:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 13:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could do with maybe a little less of the shadow up top, but it's not important. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why is this considered FP? It does not seem to be particularly valuable nor of quality/composition higher that QI. Charles (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support At least that much. --Tremonist (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, but not FP. Not an exciting composition nor lighting, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:First sun rays in the Harbour of Sète 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2015 at 18:48:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info A cloud and the buildings are lighted by the first sun rays in the harbor of Sète, France. Created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very neat! --Ivar (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Popo le Chien ^ouah 10:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This processing looks a bit artificial for me but definitely a nice mood. --Laitche (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The cloud isn't remarkable enough for me to justify so much attention in the frame. The bottom part is good for me and the lighting nice. -- Colin (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO too much sky, a 16:9 format would be better (for me). --PierreSelim (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice lighting and colors. However, I feel the contrast and saturation are a bit too high, and the buildings are a bit too small. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Happy to see here some of my fellow citizens, they are welcome ! I'm with PierreSelim and KoH here.--Jebulon (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ezekiel airship, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2015 at 14:42:40 (UTC)

Replica of 1902 Ezekiel airship showing empty seats
Replica of 1902 Ezekiel airship showing pilot mannequin
Replica of 1902 Ezekiel airship showing engine peddled by pilot mannequin

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Michael Barera - uploaded by Michael Barera - The Ezekiel Airship was an early experimental aircraft claimed to have flown in 1902 in Pittsburg, Texas, a year before the Wright Flyer flew at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Conceived, designed, and built by the Baptist minister Burrell Cannon, it was inspired by and named after the Biblical Book of Ezekiel. Nominated by Maile66 -- Maile66 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maile66 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, high EV. Yann (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-33.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2015 at 22:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Low-key lighting - all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 22:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Maybe a little bit too much space at the top. --Code (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Akt in low key would be better. --Mile (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The existing File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-32.jpg (NSFW) is featured and there's a purpose to showing the outline of the female form in that photo. Here, the pose is awkward/uncomfortable and the head-in-darkness is just weird. The camera isn't flattering to the model's skin. The huge dark border doesn't serve any purpose. There are better low-key art nudes in User:Destailleur's upload log, including the other FP File:Nude recumbent woman by Jean-Christophe Destailleur.jpg (NSFW).~~Oh, and it doesn't have a licence suitable for Featured Picture anyway, so is currently ineligible.~~ -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's licensed under CC-BY-SA since upload. --Ralf Roleček 04:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CC template wasn't in the usual place, so I didn't spot it. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, while I share much of Colin's criticism. --Tremonist (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Basik07 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the body is nice, but the face is too much shadowed. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roleček 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Spullersee im Lechquellengebirge.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 06:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info The 'Spullersee' is a lake in high mountains of Vorarlberg. c/u/n by Böhringer (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of WOW, but tilted ccw and a little bit noisy due to postprocessing. Maybe you can improve this a little bit? --Code (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

you're right, I liked it so much the better --Böhringer (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Popo le Chien ^ouah 10:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The scene has lots of wow. I can't help feeling it has been a bit over-processed. The dark mountain edge against the white fog seems too hard/sharp compared to the surrounding landscape. It is quite noisy, but at 30MP I can forgive that. Only really the centre circle is moderately sharp, with extremely soft corners. At f/13 it isn't a DoF issue, which is huge, so I do wonder what's wrong with that lens. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. I knew the beautiful landscape surrounding Spullersee but never saw it like this before. Congratulations, Fred! --Plani (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lots of wow, but technically not so good (noise and lack of sharpness). --Ivar (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's been heavily processed, and not very sharp on the borders... but I like it a lot - Benh (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --Laitche (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really a painting. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Arion. Yes, the processing hand was heavy, but for once it is not to the overall detriment of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too beautiful to be real. --The Photographer (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! But please check the location information, I think it should be more to the west.--CHK46 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Salgado's Genesis in color... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good as thumb, but is too spoiled and not sharp at all. Chasing "drama effect" you went far with processing. I doubt noise is on original photo, so why don't you turn it back some. Colin said its 30 MPx hence OK with noise, but Its about fotodiode size not Megapixels. I saw noise should be twice smaller than for instance on my camera. But at this quality I think climbing with compact camera would benefit you more. --Mile (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mile, it is absolutely about MP not the camera. We're judging the JPG not the sensor. We're not concerned here about how the noise got there (which is interesting but not part of FP's job to review whether a different camera is needed - the noise is almost certainly from the processing). When people pixel-peep noise in a 30MP image that is invisible when downsized to 12MP then all you are saying is "Don't be stupid uploading 30MP to Commons if you want featured, upload 12MP instead and you'll sail through no problem". Then all that is harmed is the quality of the image, especially if one wants to explore the landscape in detail or print it large. We have a lot of downsized-stitched images nominated at FP and it is easy to forget what an out-of-camera image looks like even with good equipment. That said, the corner sharpness is a huge technical flaw here, so you're left to judge if the wow compensates. And I agree it is a bit over-cooked. -- Colin (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Colin, but, We can't stimulate the downsizing. This section is about pictures and not about cameras. Its not a contest about photo manipulation, We are talking about composition and pictures well shooted. I dont have money to buy a Canon EOS 5DS, You do not want to turn this into an elite section of expensive cameras with great skills, to lower the size of the photos. This is no time to be right, Colin, you could leave your damn ego aside for a second? --The Photographer (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer, I think you've completely misinterpreted my comments, and I can't understand a word of what you wrote. I don't know what you mean by "stimulate the downsizing". If you want to see what a 12MP version looks like, see this link or simply open the image in IrfanView and resize it. Could you please avoid making personal attacks on FPC, thank-you. Don't you forget that the vast majority of my FPs were created with an entry-level 14MP DSLR from 2010 with cheap plastic lenses. I have not made any comments that suggest one needs expensive cameras. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin I look all, not just JPEG alone. EXIF here seems fine. Downsizing shouldn't be encouraged on Commons. This one isn't saved even at 12 MPx, left part is out of focus pretty bad. Don't know how, but I doubt postprocessing did it. Perhaps focus was on furthest point in photo or lens wasn't clean (condens ?). Anyhow, appearance should not cover mistakes at this particularly , its easy panorama shot. --Mile (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed and unsharp.--Jebulon (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but noisy, unsharp, overprocessed, oversaturated. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---- --Isasza (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stift Altenburg Kirche Orgel 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2015 at 11:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Organ of Altenburg Abbey Church (Lower Austria) by Anton Pfliegler (1775). Above a fresco by Paul Troger (1733): Transfer of the Ark of the Covenant by King David. All by -- Uoaei1 (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not so difficult with a good tripod, but excellent achievement and stunning quality IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 7 --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Total Lunar Eclipse 28 09 2015.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 07:26:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Total Lunar Eclipse 28 09 2015 c/u/n by Böhringer -- Böhringer (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish it was bigger, but very interesting composition and high EV. --Kadellar (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without underestimating the effort/skill that went into capturing this sequence, I don't think the results are at FP level. I don't expect amateurs to compete with NASA but a D800 and 600mm lens is high quality equipment. I guess the atmospheric conditions weren't great where you were. There's really very little detail on the moon -- if it was detailed and sharp and only 2.8MP then I might support, but it isn't sharp at all. Compare File:Lunar Eclipse Montage (21787438935).jpg or existing moon FPs. -- Colin (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Nice concept but it's not at FP level. Might be a VI someday, though. Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea, but per Colin. --Tremonist (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monasterio de San Martín, Santiago de Compostela, España, 2015-09-23, DD 26-28 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2015 at 16:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info View of the choir of the Monastery of San Martiño Pinario, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain. The temple, a work of Mateo López and González de Araújo, was finished in 1652 and the Baroque choir stalls was work of Mateo de Prado. Poc o² 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's a certain fuzziness and lack of sharpness in it, almost like it's suffering from shutter vibration or something, and it isn't really properly sharp until it's downsized at least to 50% size. Not quite FP for me. Diliff (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am sorry, IMHO sharp problem, maybe lens quality? --The Photographer (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a wonderful place ! IMO, the chain of the chandelier must be vertical...--Jebulon (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with opposition. I saw 1st version uploaded, if you have to extract from there...hard task. --Mile (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, I share those comments and take it back. Poc o² 20:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de Santa María la Real, Olite, Navarra, España, 2015-01-06, DD 12-14 HDR.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2015 at 12:34:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info Church of Santa María la Real, adjacent to the Royal Palace (residence of Charles III "The Noble") in Olite, Navarre, Spain. The church was constructed and reformed between 12th-14th century and is one of the jewels of gothic architecture in Navarre. All by me, Poc o² 12:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 12:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The like-washed out sky don't help here IMO. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the view, but per the others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, agree with those comments, I have uploaded a new version with a better management of the sky and of the WB (it was too warm). Poc o² 16:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 16:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angels Sant'Angelo Bridge 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2015 at 19:24:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Selection of angel statues in the Sant'Angelo Bridge, Rome. From left to right: Angel with Crown of Thorns (Gian Lorenzo and Paolo Bernini);Angel with the Superscription (Gian Lorenzo Bernini); Angel with the Garment and Dice (Paolo Naldini); and angel with the Sponge (Antonio Giorgetti). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but the problem is that it is just a "selection". It seems difficult for me to support "some" of these angels, and not "all" of them. "Selection" vs "Collection"...--Jebulon (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info The crop of the upper border of the rightmost photo is some few pixels tighter. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see first time horizontal contour lines, especially on 1st shot. Some smudges presented. You have to redo frame, white border would be better than black. --Mile (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the hints. I will correct the flaws (which are not visible in the original file I prepared) and re-submit. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:13-08-31-Kochtreffen-Wien-RalfR-N3S 7849-024.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 16:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info Five different commercial bread rolls from Vienna - all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 16:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but at FP for a simple subject like this, I'd expect some creativity in the arrangement and presentation. Simply placing six roles on a piece of grey card doesn't win any prizes. Put "Bread", "Rolls" or "Bread basket" into Google Images and you'll see what I mean. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ralf Roletschek: no offense, but are you sure they are "five" oder "fünf" ? (Idem in the file description page).--Jebulon (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the right is a "double roll", see here. --Ralf Roleček 18:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just two rolls that have been placed too close together in the oven. In the UK our "batch bake" rolls are all stuck together like this and are pulled-apart leaving a soft fluffy edge. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this are "Doppelbrötchen". --Ralf Roleček 18:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine for me, thanks for explanation. Guten Appetit.--Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nothing against the current arrangement, it looks fine and nice balanced. A banal subject (is it so banal ?) is eligible for a nomination in this page. The quality of the picture is excellent and deserves the FP status IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hummy! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Man may not live by bread alone, but I think this arrangement is good enough given the color and detail. Daniel Case (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 05:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From a Commons FP of this type I expect more than high technical quality. The arrangement looks kind of random, the grey background doesn't really help to make this more interesting. Perfectly fine for a Wikipedia article, but I wouldn't hang it on my kitchen wall – simply because to me it has no WOW. --El Grafo (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang it on the kitchen wall ? What a good idea !! :) --Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea to feature a Doppelbrötchen. --Tremonist (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish background wasn't gray, some white perhaps. Food and gray back aren't so lucky. --Mile (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As the other opposers. And I don't like the luminance squiggles. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that's from the surface of the tabletop. --Hockei (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. There is missing some wow. -- -donald- (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Popo le Chien ^ouah 11:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2015.07.11.-15-Mulde Eilenburg--Nachtkerzenschwaermer-Raupe.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2015 at 13:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Sphingidae_.28Hawk_moths.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good work on the insect, but similarities in tone and form in background deprive this of wow. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are several (minor) issues: Focus seems to be more on the rock in front of the head than of the animal, and as a result despite f/13 depth of field isn't seep enough to have most of the body in focus. The fibres (?) on the head are distracting to me, since they are so much brighter than anything else in the frame. Overall, it looks a bit under exposed. But I like the background in general, that's something new compared to all the grassy greens we usually get. --El Grafo (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting animal, but per the others. --Tremonist (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ralf Roleček 15:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC) zu geringe Schärfentiefe. Daß das Tier getarnt zwischen Steinen erscheint, ist eher als positiv zu werten, scheint eine natürliche Umgebung zu sein.[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brillenkaiman Caiman yacare.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 17:00:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created and ploaded by Merops - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More good photos from the Pantanal. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I'm missing Exif data. --Kadellar (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, simple profile shot of a reptile. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support want a little more space on the left though nice photo :) --Laitche (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might this photo be a better close-up. See what you think. @ArionEstar, @El Grafo, @Tremonist, @Σπάρτακος, @Laitche, @Daniel Case, @Isasza, @Kadellar Charles (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same lens with slightly worse body camera and I think it could be much sharper, it looks like there's detail missing because of jpeg in-camera compression artifacts, as if it hadn't been taken RAW, which would be complete nonsense which such good equipment ($3500). --Kadellar (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me sure --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture was taken RAW, but this Wikipedia version is, as you say, from jpeg. Charles (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two very different pictures (poses), can't see why we couldn't feature both – this is not VIC after all … --El Grafo (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Popo le Chien ^ouah 11:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Green kingfisher (Chloroceryle americana) male.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 16:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the trip to the Brazilian Pantanal but I prefer this one. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise reduction; too busy and distracting background. --Kadellar (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have uploaded the raw file with no tweaks at all for others to judge the quality. Wikipedia doesn't accept the .CR2 format that comes off my Canon, so I saved as a jpg. Charles (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background, per Kadellar. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It looks quite nice to me, some minor aspects, but that's it. --Tremonist (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---- --Isasza (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:View to Austnesfjorden from Støvelhaugen in a cloudy morning, Austvågøya, Lofoten, Norway, 2015 April.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 14:12:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
Info created and uploaded by Simo Räsänen - nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support So beautiful scenery! --Laitche (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong support Totally per Laitche. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back to usual Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another spectacular Norwegian Arctic landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and sharp, but sorry, I don't find anything extraordinary here. Another good mountain landscape, but with a flat light.--Jebulon (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Jebulon --Hubertl 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2015 at 02:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good quality, colors and light (HDR?). I think it's typical your touch and probably an FP but I won't support since this cramped composition does not meet with my taste though nice photo for sure! Regards. --Laitche (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no HDR here ... I'm not sophisticated enough for that yet

. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Type of photo which isn't interesting as thumb, but I enjoyed scrolling thru photo while open. Pure colors, simple but nice. --Mile (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant light! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it looks like posterization and over processed to me. Visible on the plants and stones. --Hockei (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed, plants are looking unnatural with washed out details, blue spruce has grey top (blending error?) and saturation level is too high for me. --Ivar (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously leaning to the left --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Ivar and Uoaeo1. --Karelj (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Demoted to 'not featured' due to sock double vote. 4 October 2018. --Cart (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chamarel Falls Mauritius 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2015 at 07:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Chamarell Falls, Mauritius. I took this picture using an ND1000 filter, resulting in an exposure time of 10s. All by myself,--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very beautiful and good light but I don't like the crop. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- what do you suggest? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - A centered crop. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - After taking another look at the raw, I've come to the conclusion that there's no way to arrange a centered crop that is also still properly balanced in terms of aspect ratio, composition etc. Sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apparent oversharpening and blurred sections understandable due to long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also for the composition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made derivate, you can put as alternative. --Mile (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - please do so if you like! I'm away from my computer at least until tomorrow (I'm typing this line on my cell phone which is a real hassle...). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ------Isasza (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally prefer a little more sky than below. As the sky is not blank either but has some clouds and therefore adds to the whole. Matter of taste it is. --Ximonic (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a version between this both versions will be the pest --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support Croped, +contrast, +vibrance. --Mile (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm fine with this one too. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delightful. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, Mile! Your version is a tad more "aggressive" than my own development - which doesn't mean I don't like it. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am normally a fan of nice, puffy clouds, but in this case they are just a distraction. This version allows us to focus on the real subject. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per KoH. Yann (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Chamarel Falls Mauritius 2.JPG

File:Cupola of Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2015 at 14:43:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Cupola of Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna. All by --Mile (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Livio, why don't you come back here unless with a trouble... --Laitche (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dark is too dark. Please try something with curves.--Jebulon (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Jebulon's comment; as is it's an oppose but he reminded that all might not be lost. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, Daniel Case I did set up EV best as possible and to screw it before upload, so not to become disturbing for eye. More or less this is original appearance (check here: [10], [11]). Contrast to outer part is strong, but this is the case with almost all domes-cupolas, wheter church or not. Other option is HDR, which I dislike. There is one "problem" I met, at thumbs many photos look much better when oversaturated and with high EV, but when you open it in full size later become more problem than benefit. --Mile (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK PetarM, Thanks for answer. I'm convinced as I was there.--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support well composed --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 11:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reseda alba, Frontignan 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2015 at 11:57:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info Reseda alba (White mignonette), created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great, great detail. But in the end only a QI because the background is not uniform enough to easily focus on the plant, and frankly the plant doesn't look as special as the execution of the image would have us believe. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista de Tarazona, España, 2015-01-02, DD 45-47 HDR.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2015 at 16:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Blue hour HDR view of the old town of Tarazona and Queiles river, Aragon, Spain. The outstanding tower belongs to church of St Mary Magdalene, built in the 12th century. The tower was reconstructed in the 15th century (Mudéjar style) and 17th century (Mannerist style). All by me, Poc o² 16:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 16:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because I dislike the water, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because I like the water. -- Wolf im Wald 21:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, das ist mir zu viel HDR, unnatürlich. --Ralf Roleček 22:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, nice mood, and you improved it over what you had originally uploaded. But despite the strong verticals in the image it still seems to me like a horizontal image is fighting to get out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bell tower seems to have the same window on all four sides. So at least for the top window you should be able to look through the tower. Hence, the window behind the bell should have about the same blue color as the sky around the tower. Looks like maybe the HDR algorithm got confused by the metal mesh visible here? Also, the water looks more like tar or an oil spill. --El Grafo (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
El Grafo: I understand what you say but I don't share your expectation about how it should look and that it is a problem of the sensor. I could easily edit it and "fix" the problem, but you cannot compare a daylight shot with a night shot because the room where the bell is located is strongly illuminated and this does affect the resulting color of the background Poc o² 17:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh, yeah, I guess you've got a point there. But I'm still not really convinced by the HDR as a whole. As Ralf said in German, it looks a bit too unnatural. I don't have much experience in processing HDR myself, so I can't really put my finger on it, though. Maybe it's just a bit too bright for a night scene (especially the sky)? --El Grafo (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, because I like the mood, but I agree very much with Ralf and Daniel. --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest, I've no clue how I could have taken or processed this picture in a way that you would have supported it, guys. The water looks they way I would expect for a small current with a long exposure. Regarding the fact that it is a portrait, I could offer a landscape version (see here, is it FP-worthy?!) but the problem seems to be rather the usage of HDR in a scene that actually needs HDR, because the dynamic range was notable. Poc o² 16:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That other image isn't from quite the same spot, and it's cropped really tight on the right. But I could see something more like that coming out of that night. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like long exposure shots and the effect on the water. And this one has a nice composition on top of it. Wonder about WB, but it's always tricky on night shots. - Benh (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What HDR processing are you using now Poco? You know I've said in the past that I didn't think your processing was ideal (exposure blending using tufuse?) but I think you've started using Lightroom HDR merge now? Anyway, regardless, I agree with other opposers generally. The water probably does look 'correct' for the exposure length but it does look a bit unnatural and strange. The ripple effect must be the result of something under the water causing turbulence. Also, in addition to the strange sky through the bell tower, there also seems to be a ghost edge on the right side of the tower, just above the roofs. Other parts of the image seem a bit low in contrast. It's hard to say one single thing is the reason for the oppose, it's just the collection of lots of little problems that make it not FP for me. Diliff (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I re-read the thread with El Grafo and I think the mesh would explain the brighter patch in the window through the tower due to the illumination, as you said. There are still the other issues though. Diliff (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I had another think about how to explain the issues that I regularly see in many of your HDR images (and perhaps others too, although I don't want to speak for them). Some of the images seem to be missing a bit of contrast. I had a look at the histogram for this image and there is empty space on the left side. In some situations, this would probably be a good thing because it means you've avoided black clipping, but it can also mean that by using HDR, you've preserved every single pixel of shadow detail and that isn't always what the scene needs, particularly a night scene where there should naturally be very dark shadows. Just because you can show the full dynamic range in mid-tones, that doesn't mean you should. A small amount of black clipping is often a good thing. I think this image could benefit a little from increasing the black point or contrast. I had a quick attempt on my computer and I think the result was slightly improved, with the buildings looking a bit less washed out and more natural looking. You could either apply it globally or 'paint' extra contrast where it needs it using using an adjustment brush in Lightroom. Just some thoughts that might help in future. Diliff (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Diliff: thanks for your comments. Yes, I have started to use, in addition to Enfuse (blending procedure), the HDR algorithm of Lightroom and I decide then which one of both looks better and (actually, also) more natural. That it is not convenient to lighten up the shadows too much to get rid of the black clipping is clear (washed out result, lack of contrast), that has never been my modus operandi. Still, I agree with you that in this case there was some improvement (see new version, please, let me know what you think). In this particular case I opted for the Enfuse version, as the HDR looks more unnatural, although in this case the difference between both is not as much as in other cases. Poco² 12:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi Poco, sorry I didn't get back to you before you withdrew, but in any case, yes I think the updated image looks a bit better. It's still not the most attractive composition for me though so I probably wouldn't have supported it, and there is still a ghost-like line on the right side of the tower, although I can see that it might be a rope or netting as it seems to come from a pole at the side? Strange anyway but maybe it was really in the scene. I would also suggest that you make extra sure that your camera isn't moving/shaking at all in your HDR work because sometimes I think I see some blurriness that might be because the different HDR frames were not aligned perfectly. With such a high res camera, you need to take extra care with stability. It's not a major problem in this scene but it does reduce sharpness a bit perhaps. If you don't already, shoot with mirror lock up / live view as the shutter vibration is much less than if the mirror slaps. Anyway, just something to think about in the future. :-) Diliff (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 11:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:O Fanal, Ilha da Madeira, Portugal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 02:38:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Jnvalves - uploaded by Jnvalves - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- RTA 02:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What do you think? I like the mood. :)-- -- RTA 02:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, however, another donwsized picture. --The Photographer (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- downsized, right?? Its inside the limits of the guidelines of size and resolution... And yes, they scaled down, it's bad, should be a rule in this contests to have the maximum of resolution, however stills a very nice pic. -- RTA 03:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its a nice picture, of course yes, however its a Nikon D600, I want see more!. If we begin to support the downsizing, we are encouraging bad practice that affect the long-term quality of the images selected here. In addition to fruits, this is probably one of the best nominations I have seen you. Thanks RTA --The Photographer (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

itsy-bitsy level of Support awesome picture, deplorable downsizing... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice mood, but imho too much downscaled for a landscape image (from 24 MP to 2,4 MP). --Ivar (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the opposers --Σπάρτακος (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great ambience, but size is embarrassing. --Mile (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood and the light. If this photo would not be featured because of downsampling and small file size, better to delist the 2nd place in POTY 2013 (its original size is 8949x4850px, Assuming the metadata is correct) or to change the rule about resolution, like "lower resolution than 4 million pixels are typically rejected". IMHO. --Laitche (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but a 2.4MP landscape would need to be more than just "nice" to gain FP. Clearly downsized-for-the-web. It's rather over-processed, with a clear glow round the dark tree trunks (too much Clarity?). The right two-thirds are nice but the left part with the wide tree trunk doesn't appeal, and looks distorted. Being "inside the limits of the guidelines of size and resolution" in insufficient to escape criticism. On WLM UK 2014 we set a 5MP lower limit, reasoning this was sufficient to print A4 magazine page at high quality; I think other WLM/WLE competitions would do well to follow that. It helps avoid these "looks nice on Flickr" over-processed images that can't really be used in print. There are images that are justifiably small resolution and pass FP, but this isn't one of them. -- Colin (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC) the downsizing i'm not interested, to me the photo is featured[reply]
Support per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. --Code (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidentally the 2nd place in POTY 2013 is one of the resson of my proposal about POTY election, That photo is very nice therefore I voted support for that but when I voted, suspected too aggressive downsizing perhaps about 40MP → 2.66MP but I thought that one deserve to be an FP then I voted support. However I think too aggressive downsizing is big minus factor, I guess regular members of FPC notice that downsizing, so what if there was 12 support votes of POTY candidates bar (or sort of) at that time, that photo wouldn't have been a candidate. And public vote (I remember someone call the POTY election public vote) members would never notice that heavy downsizing. Sorry for the off-topic. --Laitche (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have been totally fine with the downsampling in general. But then I would expect a perfect image, which this isn't: There are some disturbing halos resulting from the otherwise appealing post-processing. They are more pronounced in the automatically downsized/sharpened thumbnails, but still quite visible at "full" size. Could have lived with that at the original 24 Mpx, but not at this size. So basically: Per Colin. --El Grafo (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the opposers --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support UAU! Mas a resolução... Hummmmm! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

File:SkiLines.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 02:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ptahhotep - uploaded by Ptahhotep - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- RTA 02:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice concept, some mistakes, a WLE winner... -- -- RTA 02:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ------Isasza (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a description in a second language. A geocode would be nice, too. The crop at the top is not that convincing, but I don't know if I would oppose just because of that. --Code (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the file name is a second language... --Laitche (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, nice idea and good composition :) --Laitche (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Laitche. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fenerli1978 (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why black and white ? Something to hide ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WTF??? Photographers could not choose to take a Black and White photo? Holly shit, this is crazy dude... -- RTA 05:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1) "World is colorful". 2) Please moderate your language (="Holy", with only ONE "l").--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although Jebulon is right about the unnecessary language, I love the B&W contrast in this photo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You don't know how much I moderate my language... ArionEstar, it's not unnecessary, it's a human way to talk, not this robotic way that Wiki like... -- RTA 04:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Rodrigo.Argenton: Eu particularmente não me importo, mas para evitar transtornos com outros usuários, é melhor você seguir essa linguagem robótica. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this might be a prime example of when B&W has its advantages over colour: This image is all about form and texture, and adding colour would only distract from that. It wouldn't even tell us anything new: We don't need colour to know that the conifers are green, just like we don't need a stereo image to know that the smaller trees in the background are further away. --El Grafo (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per El Grafo. Yann (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support B&W makes sense here. Shot against the light, the colours would be dull anyway. The shapes are what matters. — Julian H.^✈ 12:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CH Amanita muscaria.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2015 at 11:44:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created by Philippe Moret - uploaded by User:Pmo83 - nominated by Pmo83 -- Pmo83 (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pmo83 (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo has some large blurred areas that are all too dominating. A crop should be considered. --Tremonist (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even the mushroom itself is unsharp...--Jebulon (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tremonist and Jebulon. A crop would help but would not improve this to FP level. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting foreground and lack of DOF, sorry. -- Wolf im Wald 21:54, 22 October 2015 (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: Crop. Yann (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2015 (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:Anhinga (Anhinga anhinga) female head.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2015 at 23:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created and uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --great image -- Merops (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 05:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great... potential. Sorry, the crop doesn't work for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cropped a little of the bird's body bottom left as it is naturally blurred and, I think, distracting. Charles (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin, sorry, the crop of the neck doesn't work imo. --Kadellar (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop/compo. I suggest rotation to left diagonal, would suit better, with this you also get rid of what you cropped in the beginning. --Mile (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. Shame because this looked pretty good otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:15-07-15-Centro histórico de San Francisco de Campeche-RalfR-WMA 0819.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2015 at 22:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Restaurant in the City of Campeche (World heritage), Yucatan, Mexico, all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 22:05, 22 October 2015 (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: No suitable licence for FP. -- Colin (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2015 (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.

Comment to @Ralf Roletschek: Well, if you want to make your image a FP, you must dual-license it under CC-BY-SA (or FAL). --Pokéfan95 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just out of curiosity, why you don't like cc license? --Laitche (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the possibility of the license change against the will of the author.

I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roleček 09:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:13-05-23-penz-johann-02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2015 at 21:05:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Johann Penz, President of the Landtag of Lower Austria

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info Johann Penz, President of the Landtag of Lower Austria - all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry Ralf, I don't think this is FP. You missed the focus (his ear is sharp, but his eyes and beard are slightly soft, and his nose is way out of focus). Also, I don't think the framing is ideal. Too much space above his head IMO and not enough of his left shoulder (camera right). Diliff (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination **You're right. --Ralf Roleček 09:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC) *{FPD}--Jebulon (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC) the fpxed nomination is now withdrawn.--Jebulon (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gripsholm castle (by Pudelek) 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 10:21:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good view of a famous castle, but perspective is a little unlucky (gate and front door overlap much) and the shadows on the right hand side might not be considered optimal. --Tremonist (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI. The lighting is harsh with shadows very dark. This viewpoint isn't a good one of the castle. It is very hard to see its overall shape. The visible portion is dominated by a less interesting part of the castle. See File:Gripsholms slott 2008.JPG for comparison. -- Colin (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin, who goes into better detail in the "QI but not FP" vein than I could. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /★Poké⁹⁵ 13:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Purple beautyberry, October 2015 - Stacking.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2015 at 19:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again colorful! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yummy looking! Great color and detail, just enough focus. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vivo (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 10:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Merops (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Bombus sylvarum - Arctium tomentosum - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2015 at 11:11:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info all by Ivar (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice macro shot :) --Laitche (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Laitche. --Tremonist (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Laitche. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sakhalinio (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Didn't think I'd !vote support until I clicked on it and saw the detail (Love those pollen grains!) However, if it were cropped in a bit tighter it wouldn't hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vivo (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Charles (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diphaglossa gayi, f, side, chile 2014-08-04-18.17.33 ZS PMax (14732584979).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2015 at 05:27:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info created by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab - uploaded by Geo Swan - nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice insect. --Tremonist (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not interested by this kind of picture/subject in general, but this one is simply excellent.--Jebulon (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon. --Laitche (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. But please have a look to the image. There is a small white spot at the bottom. Please remove it. --XRay ^talk 15:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad!! ;) --Kadellar (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the quality! -- Wolf im Wald 21:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 09:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Drottningholm Palace (by Pudelek) 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2015 at 12:58:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. A pity that there's this yellow hydraulic ramp in front of the building. Would be even better without it. --Code (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but he did not want to leave ;) --Pudelek (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

could be cloned out...--Jebulon (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sakhalinio (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chrumps (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisp. And I don't mind the hydraulic thingy. Daniel Case (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment judging by the flag pole, it looks like it could benefit from a bit of counter-clockwise rotation? --El Grafo (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think now is enough good --Pudelek (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lord Bishnu-Shesh Narayan.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2015 at 05:42:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Ksssshl - uploaded by Ksssshl - nominated by बिप्लब आनन्द -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 05:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 05:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual subject, nice colors and composition, good quality, high EV. --Yann (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I realize that the photographer wanted to show it in context, but that increased EV came at the expense of its featurability. It has a nice symmetry, yes, but the complex background competes with the putative subject for the reader's eye. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but unbalanced composition, unattractive (flat) light, distracting background. --Laitche (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche. Hard to get an excellent photo in this light, admittedly, given this background. — Julian H.^✈ 12:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per object.-- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 06:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Mauritius Seven Colored Earths 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2015 at 09:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info To quote en:wp: "The Seven Coloured Earth(s) (Terres des Sept Couleurs in French) are a geological formation and prominent tourist attraction found in the Chamarel plain of the Rivière Noire District in south-western Mauritius. It is a relatively small area of sand dunes comprising sand of seven distinct colours (approximately red, brown, violet, green, blue, purple and yellow). The main feature of the place is that since these differently coloured sands spontaneously settle in different layers, dunes acquire a surrealistic, striped colouring." All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI perhaps but composition is too ordinary to make it an FP. Perhaps an image showing the seven earths more exclusively in some way? Also, looks a little towards the overprocessed end to me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me ok. A nice image from Mauritius. We need more ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I feel like a stronger composition was possible here. The sky is not as interesting as the earth tones. Additionally, the light direction makes the ground look very flat and fails to highlight the interesting surface undulation. — Julian H.^✈ 12:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Port of Barcelona.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2015 at 07:51:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created/uploaded/nominated by Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop below.--Jebulon (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ~~Arion~~Jebulon, and frankly I'm not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Arion!?! ;D 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, corrected. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there are better places to take this photo. --Ralf Roleček 23:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zicht vanaf het water op de Alde Feanen van het It Fryske Gea. Waardevol natuurgebied in Friesland 38.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2015 at 18:46:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Created and uploaded by Dominicus Johannes Bergsma - nominated by Code -- Code (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saw this in QIC and found it simply overwhelming. Beautiful colours, nice mood and very clear composition. -- Code (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Code. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I saw this in QIC as well and thought, the quality is not so good but maybe an FP :) --Laitche (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice postcard, but not a FP for me, a normal good picture. Short: no wow, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving up trying to understand your FP criteria. --Code (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So did I for yours a long time ago.--Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Horizon in the middle (an usual no-go)

-Light not extraordinary

-Boring subject

-Composition trivial (empty water for a third part). etc...--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jebulon + unbalanced composition: too much water in the foreground. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 23:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Das läuft wohl auf eine Geschmacksfrage hinaus, mir gefällt es.[reply]
~~Neutral~~ for now. A tighter crop might help here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Good. IMO too much water.--XRay ^talk 10:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon and Alchemist. Great mood, but that isn't enough to carry it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Photo cropped.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Jebulon and Alchemist. --Karelj (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Jebulon --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Famberhorst: Now it's completely tilted, look at the horizon. --Code (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would'nt say that... There is no horizon, but a coast line. How can you be sure it is parallel to the photographer ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the file version from 18:09, 20. Okt. 2015. The actual version is fixed again. --Code (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The almost-but-not-quite-silhouette aspect of it doesn't convince me, nor does the composition. — Julian H.^✈ 11:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allegory of Salvation by Wolf Huber (cca 1543).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2015 at 10:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
Info Allegory of Salvation by Wolf Huber (cca 1543). My photo and edit. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmm ... do we really need to have the frame in the picture? Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, and never ending enigma for me. Frame give that esthetic value to painting (aura of high art). I even prefer it with a bit of wall as nice background. --Mile (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't have enough FP pictures of paintings taken by "commoners". It is a very difficult work (far much more than any landscape), the painting is interesting and the photograph very good. As for the frame, I think that at least a part of it shows the evidence that we see the whole (uncropped) picture. That said, everybody can make its own crop.--Jebulon (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we should judge an image by who took it. But nice painting and good reproduction. I wish it could be bigger. Yann (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Agree, it is just a comment. But "who" means "somebody" in my mind (i.e. not a Google tool)--Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yann size is 9+ MPx, that's not small by any mean, you get all details from painting in very good quality. Jebulon mentioned we don't have enough paintings here, agree. One reason is no tripods are allowed in museums, but my tourist cam has 5-axis IS, and it brings 3,5 stop advantage (to cope in low light handheld), so I can deliver some from museums in fine quality. Problem is art is so underrated on Commons. --Mile (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- +1, 100%--Jebulon (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, it is nice, but for me, that's a very minimum for a quality reproduction. My recent FP nom. has over 31 Mpx, and it didn't received enough support. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw it. It feels chopped and tight crop. Perfect case why frame should be present. --Mile (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Honestly, I don't think this is a good faith argument. Do you argue that Google doesn't know how to properly take a picture of a painting? Yann (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - But maybe a lot of us found Valadon's work ugly enough ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do they know ? I hope they are almighty. So why did you put Tower of Babel edited nomination by user Dcoetzee and not original by Google ? I guess wasn't so eyecatching (saturation and brightness). But guess what, we made mistake. When I was standing in front of it I realized that. I suggest you to make "replace" of it. You cant know till you stand in front of it. And again, you can evaluate why paintings wont pass frequently here, in your behavior of choosing, simply, your mind went for photo, not painting. Poor Netherlandish can say. --Mile (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:CLAAS Dominator 96, John Deere 6620 Västerby 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2015 at 19:09:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info All by Vivo -- Vivo (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vivo (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wanted to complain about... but the description is correct, the vehicles are standing. --Ralf Roleček 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and sharp, but very static and geommetric. This front view, the horizon in the middle, the line in the middle of the ground, the too soft colors make the picture a bit "flat", in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ralf. --Tremonist (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Jebulon, sorry. -- Wolf im Wald 22:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:CLAAS Dominator 96 Västerby 03b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2015 at 19:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info All by Vivo Replaces withdrawn nomination.-- Vivo (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vivo (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool green harvester, nice sky. Well focused with a short DoF, that highlights the subject. Top visual quality. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very well-done QI but, at the end of the day, it's just a good picture of some farm equipment in use. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice farm equipment in use. --Tremonist (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 13:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case, and per my previous opinion, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ymmv, but I think the editing isn't ideal (could use a little more contrast, feels slightly tilted). Would not be a problem if the image wasn't already on the tipping point between QI and FP for me per Daniel Case. — Julian H.^✈ 10:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laon Cathedral Organ 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2015 at 06:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Organ and west rose window of Notre-Dame Cathedral of Laon, Picardy, France. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice image. IMO sharpness could be better.--XRay ^talk 15:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per XRay. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 05:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Mary's Pro-Cathedral Interior, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2015 at 17:51:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I preffer without people, however, the quality is like ever. --The Photographer (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer it without people too, but unlike most churches I photograph in England (Anglican), this one (Catholic) is actually quite busy and it's very difficult to find it empty! I waited about half an hour and this was the quietest I could find it. These people were deep in prayer and didn't move the entire time (and the longest exposure was 10 seconds, so you can see there was almost no movement). Diliff (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I underestand your problem. The best option is to send a letter to the parish house with permission to take photographs when the church is closed. --The Photographer (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More Ireland! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Merops (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the textures, and I don't mind the people in this instance. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sakhalinio (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 10:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ringed Kingfisher, Rio Sararé, Mato Grosso, Brazil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2015 at 19:01:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Merops - uploaded by Merops - nominated by Merops -- Merops (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Merops (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good DoF. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! -- Wolf im Wald 21:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Support upper half but oppose lower half... Support --Laitche (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Note: the bird is sitting on a bridge. The Kingfisher in the Pantanal often uses bridges for hunting and that gives the photographer a good chance for a picture with blurry background. Merops (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Can you add the template {{Photo Information}}, then I would change my vote to support, "I promise," Regards. --Laitche (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Even if this was taken by digiscoping, I think that's no problem :) --Laitche (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Merops (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Arion. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sakhalinio (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support bridge not ideal, I prefer a branch, but voters didn't like the natural background of this image. Charles (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acorns on the marble bench, October 2015 - Stacking.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2015 at 15:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but I don't think that's a proper surface for this kind of picture, too distracting. --Kadellar (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Kadellar. As incongruous as photographing some bread rolls on grey card. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was walking in the park and saw this, I thought kids put these on this bench then forgot and came back to his/her home. I just took this, an autumn day --Laitche (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I agree with opposers, except for one point. I don't think photographing some bread rolls on grey card is incongruous ! ;)--Jebulon (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, please discuss about incongruous bread rolls and grey card in this page... --Laitche (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessary, thanks for care. Already discussed by private ways.--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problem with this background—it contrasts ably with the natural tones of the acorns. My only suggestion would be cropping in a bit more on the acorns. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Popo le Chien ^ouah 11:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case. --Code (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Arrengement isn't so lucky. You could put right one to lying position. Crop is preferred. Background could be natural. --Mile (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cropped following the suggestion and uploaded new version. --Laitche (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange choice of surface material...visual works! --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 05:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar. — Julian H.^✈ 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benny Trapp Podarcis waglerianus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2015 at 00:41:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Benny Trapp - uploaded by Benny Trapp - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 00:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 00:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The green color jump out the image. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think this angle is very good for an illustrated encyclopedia of animals but not for Commons FP. imho. --Laitche (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the first part of Laitche's sentence. --Tremonist (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laitche, and despite this having been the English WP's FPotD a couple of days ago. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Is the green natural? I've seen many reptiles and this seems the brightest. Charles (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:M209B-IMG 0557.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2015 at 00:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 00:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 00:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose. Bad file name. I don't know what I'm looking at.This is an enigma for me.--Jebulon (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well M209 actually is the machine's name. In any case, we're judging the image, not a file name (which can be changed, eventough it is already properly documented on the description page). Popo le Chien ^ouah 11:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popo le Chien The Commons:Image guidelines for this forum require an image should "have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages". These things aren't always checked thoroughly, but do form part of what we should be proud to feature. Having said that, I agree that "M209B" is meaningful, if a bit too terse to be helpful, and the "-IMG 0557" is not much different to all sorts of ID suffixes that filenames often contain. Changing a filename isn't always easy (unless clearly wrong or utterly meaningless), more so once the file is heavily used, which may occur if it is featured. For example, changing it to "M209B Cipher Machine-IMG 0557.JPG" would be more meaningful but some admins won't permit such a helpful change. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin I know, I know, thanks for the reminder though. But at the end of the day, considering how easy it is to rename and how tedious it is to run a nomination / vote process, I'd rather discuss the quality of the image than what is, IMHO, a bureaucratic detail. This being said, we could simply rename it M209 Cipher machine.jpg, that'd be just as good. Popo le Chien ^ouah 12:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ask Rama, as the creator has more persuasive power at our very restrictive Commons:File renaming policy. Personally, I'd rather face a hard FPC than do battle with some of our admins over filenames. The best solution, is to encourage clear and helpful names at upload-time. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reached out to him. Popo le Chien ^ouah 13:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for nominating this image, I am flattered. I have renamed it to a hopefully more explicit name, I had not realised how confusing the contatenation would look. Jebulon, je te mets la moyenne pour la blague sur Enigma et la citation de Lénine (excellente !), mais c'est bien payé, la M209B est quand même un classique. Cheers! Rama (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah quand même ! Enigma... Quelqu'un s'en aperçoit ! Je commençais à désespérer (mais sans trop m'étonner, hélas...)--Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Popo le Chien ^ouah 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Popo le Chien: Pas "bureaucratique", mais juste procédural. En droit, le non respect de certaines procédures peut entraîner la nullité de toute une affaire, la procédure garantit contre l'arbitraire. “La procédure est soeur jumelle de la Liberté.”(Vladimir Ilitch Lénine (pas mon meilleur ami, mais...)--Jebulon (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great detail, undeniably a VI and QI. But doesn't wow me enough overall. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop doesn't work for me. Also, for an studio shot of this object, I expect more sharpness. It would have been a wonderful challenge to do this image with focus stacking. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nearly exhausted sulphur vat from which railroad cars are loaded, Freeport Sulphur Co., Hoskins Mound, Texas, 1a35438v.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2015 at 21:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Industry
Info created by John Vachon / US government, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the composition and the colors are special here. Also high EV, we have very few pictures of industrial process (so much so that I couldn't find the right category), and high quality for a 72-years old picture. -- Yann (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted on enwp, "exhausted" is probably not the right word. I could not find any explanation. Yann (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it's 60 years old and the yellow and blue colours are contrasting very well (which are both reasons for me not to oppose) but the sharpness is not sufficient (which is the reason not to support). Of course I don't expect a pixel-sharp picture like it could be made with a modern DSLR and a good lens but in this photo, nothing really seems to be in focus. --Code (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Code and Daniel Case: I don't think this is fair. If you look at this at a reasonable resolution (around 6 Mpx), it is quite sharp, IMO. Yann (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to have about the same level of sharpness all over the scene from the foreground up until the people. I'd say the perceived unsharpness might be due to the aperture being stopped sown quite a bit in order to get a sufficiently large depth of field. I've read some older instructional books on photography and it seems to me that back in the days people didn't worry as much about diffraction as we do today. Stopping down to, say, f/16 seems to have been a pretty normal thing to do (is that still proper grammar?), as prints usually were not that large. My monitor is about as big as a double-page magazine print would have been, and when I view the picture at the maximum size my monitor allows for without cropping it, it looks more than sharp enough. Just as good or better than most of my recent 35mm film shots look at apertures around f/8, and with much finer grain. --El Grafo (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice for its age. --Tremonist (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question sorry for german. Das Bild hat doch einen deutlichen und behebbaren Gelbstich. Siehe andere Version. --Ralf Roleček 15:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-German speakers: Ralf says this picture is too yellowish (I agree), and the one he linked show it's fixable. In fact, I would be more likely to have supported that nominee. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case and Ralf Roletschek: Sulfur is yellow. See File:Yellow formations of sulphur crystals on White Island.jpg, File:The sulfur miner of Kawah Ijen Mountain, Indonesia.jpg, File:SULFUR PILE AT PLANT - NARA - 542540.jpg. Yann (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what color sulfur is, thank you very much. Do we know for sure it was this yellow in the original image? Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Maybe the film has deteriorated over time or maybe the photographer used a filter to make it appear more yellow. Personally, I'm not a fan of "fixing" something by guessing how it could have looked like. --El Grafo (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Automatic white balance in GIMP results in something that is in-between the original and Ralf's version. Looks more credible to me because it still has quite a bit of yellow in the sulfur … --El Grafo (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have balance the neutral gray to various points into the "white(?)" clouds. --Ralf Roleček 17:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case and Ralf Roletschek: I made a new version with a better white balance, but that doesn't change the yellow color. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uniek door eb en vloed steeds wisselend kweldergebied. Locatie, Noarderleech Provincie Friesland 18.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2015 at 05:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Unique by tides ever-changing marsh area. Location, Noarderleech Profince Friesland in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but just not striking enough visually to be an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh and reflective light: a typical application for a polarizing filter! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done New version uploaded with warmer colors.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 05:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp. — Julian H.^✈ 10:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympus E-M5 with 45mm F1.8.jpg[edit]

Oppose Lack nomination info, not enough DoF, WB problem, Yellow channel satured... --The Photographer (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No nomination info. --Tremonist (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2015 (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: Per above comments --KTC (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2015 (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:Emamzadeh Esmaeil roof.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2015 at 08:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Monfie - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by Monfie -- Monfie (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Monfie (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp in too many places. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs a better symmetry.--Jebulon (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel and Jebulon. --Tremonist (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Various grains.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2015 at 10:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Peggy Greb, USDA ARS - uploaded by Thuresson - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Random composition IMO. The crops are not good.--Jebulon (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and blown highlights. --Cayambe (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good composition and i see no blown out highlights but unsharp bread in background. --Ralf Roleček 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ralf. --Tremonist (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Because of too many opposers with various rationals now, without any other support than the one of the nominator.--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it ok? I think FPX is also a vote so this FPX is double vote or not? --Laitche (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. Two completely different things. This is not a vote, but a finding. Additionaly, nobody can strike my oppose vote except me, but everybody can strike the FPX with a support vote.--Jebulon (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jebulon: But now, we have double votes. Please fix this. Yann (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support a bit lack of sharpness and cut off the subject is no good but good proportion. --Laitche (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baden-Baden 10-2015 img41 Pump house.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2015 at 20:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created, uploaded + nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great color and detail but unfortunately not more than a QI due to composition. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Daniel --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gefällt mir, lieber Geisterbanker! ;-) Wolf im Wald 22:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Just at the edge of what I'd consider special enough for FP (composition, light, distractions, subject combined). — Julian H.^✈ 10:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coesfeld, Lette, Windmühle -- 2015 -- 5768.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2015 at 15:49:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Industry
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Please add a category above. Yann (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten, sorry. --XRay ^talk 16:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well composed, good quality, interesting subject. More than QI, I think. --Code (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good positioning choice for this subject and nice colors. --Laitche (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Striking and well-done enough, but I wonder if something more couldn't have been done about that dark area at left. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nor the subject, neither the too strong lateral lighting make this image featurable for me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 05:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, essentially per Jebulon: The strong shadows on the already dark subject are not ideal. I would also prefer a non-centered composition for a directional building like this one. — Julian H.^✈ 11:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alopochen aegyptiacus - 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2015 at 15:31:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info head of Egyptian goose (Alopochen aegyptiacus). Created, uploaded , nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merops (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Laitche (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support might look at exposure on 'forehead'? Charles (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cold cuts.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2015 at 10:29:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
- Info created by Monfie - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by Monfie -- Monfie (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Monfie (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to support this since I'm very hungry now but the front side is too blur and a bit tight crop, focus stacking could be help this. --Laitche (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I promotted it as QI, but I don't think the technical qualities of this picture are worth a FP.--Jebulon (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like to see an FP in this vein, but this is not it. In addition to the issues pointed out, I see some CA in the back. I agree with Laitche that this is a job for focus stacking. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all others. --Tremonist (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fucus vesiculosus at Lyngen fjord, Troms, Norway, 2015 September.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2015 at 09:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really a lovely scene. I think it asks for a focus stack though -- the background is too nice and prominent to be out of focus. The foreground objects are too close to the bottom and partly dark to be the only thing in focus. Might change my mind, but so far this is it. — Julian H.^✈ 22:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really a nice image, but what does it illustrated? The seaweed or the fjord? If it illustrated the seaweed as the name of the image say, I would like to see more of them. Merops (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per other neutrals... --Laitche (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Kadellar (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beersheba, Monument to Negev Brigade, Snake 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2015 at 20:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Daniel Baránek - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not a QI but I think this composition is FP level. --Laitche (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Exceptional composition, but the quality is definitely not here, IMO. Clipped whites, chromatic aberrations, DoF could be better...--Jebulon (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC) (sorry I forgot to sign at first)[reply]
Neutral I agree with both, Laitche and Jebulon, in parts. --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slight oppose Per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfetto --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 05:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. — Julian H.^✈ 10:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Caracas.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2015 at 18:37:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info Coat of arms of Caracas, - uploaded and nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please notice that there is a current edit war regarding this picture.--Jebulon (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol its not edit war Jebulon, hi's my friend like you. Please, you can read (spanish) the details here :) --The Photographer (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I read the history of the file. My mistake.--Jebulon (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: Comments like this is the best way to kill a nomination from the start... :( Yann (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Oh non mon ami, il y en a bien d'autres, j'en subis parfois... Mais ça ne devrait toucher personne cependant: tout le monde ne s'intéresse qu'à l'image ici, en dehors de toute autre considération comme il se doit, c'est bien connu !

--Jebulon (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Jebulon, repelez-vouz que Je suis Wilfredor aussi. J'ai pensé que ce ça soulemente une incompréhension de vouz, j'en comprends --The Photographer (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks like a nice and well-done coat of arms. --Tremonist (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't see any issues. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a bit puzzled by the tongue (not really heraldic), but I've found several other pictures with it. I think it is a good version, and a good achievement and work. And I like it.--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Atsme☯^Consult 12:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Alte Brennerei Löhning -- 2015 -- 8677-81.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2015 at 15:41:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why is the interior so red? -- Colin (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* There is a lot of red inside. You can see it at File:Dülmen, Alte Brennerei Löhning -- 2015 -- 8654-8.jpg --XRay ^talk 19:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful colours. --Tremonist (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Tremonist. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose The bottles are beautiful and I like this still-life approach, but on the whole the aesthetics do not come together enough (I might just say it's the non-rectilinearity of the window sill, but I feel it's more than that). Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Daniel Case, plus I find the colors overdone, even in comparison with other pictures of the place. I like the still-life choice too, it is not so usual here, and I appreciate.--Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wery good colors and composition. I like this photo. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a still life, I dislike the lack of geometric harmony. Ok, I'm not sure if this is the right expression. What I mean: The perspective gives the impression of a tilt to the right even though it's upright, because of the dominant angled L-shape. May just be me. — Julian H.^✈ 10:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the "geometric harmony" --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 11:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delightful. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Nueva Esparta Map English.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2015 at 18:39:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info Nueva Esparta Map English - uploaded and nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did you really travel along the complete Venezuelan border with you GPS (small map in bottom right corner)? How did you manage to get those Isohypses (elevation contour lines) from a GPS? Please make sure you have listed all your sources. Also, the "other versions" section should probably use {{Derived from}} instead of {{Derivative versions}}. --El Grafo (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Did you really travel along the complete Venezuelan border with you GPS"

Of course not!, Its not Venezuela country, its only a small island. :)

I was talking about the small map in the bottom right corner. --El Grafo (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"How did you manage to get those Isohypses".

When I did that, there is no google maps or NASA datasets (2006). Point by point with a GPS from a Tracklog

Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems you had a lot of work with this and you did it well. Congratulations! --Tremonist (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best all-purpose maps I've seen here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Daniel --The Photographer (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 02:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredo W Wilfredor: Sunken ship → Shipwreck --Mile (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks :P --The Photographer (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What means "Secondary road land" (symbol equal to administrative boundary). Unacceptable unconsequences in placenames - mixed spanish and english. Some symbols in legend don't mach map. --Kikos (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Secondary road land" is fixed. Thanks for your coments "Some symbols in legend don't mach map", however, it would be helpful if you could be more specific. BTW, it's "match" and not "mach" --The Photographer (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor road, Dirt road, Ferry route (line symbol must be shown). Boundaries must be shown together and more distinguishable. "City" symbol is ellipse. Town and Small town symbols are not logic - small towns look more important as simply towns. National park boundary is not included in legend and not separated from administrative boundaries. etc. --Kikos (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks. --The Photographer (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not "done". Check/compare please all these features in legend and in map! There (in Featured pictures community) are wery harsh demands to pictures (photographies etc) to nominate them - they must be at high professional level. This map is far from such conditions. Have You compared situation on Your map with Google satelite? Or with articles in Wikipedia? I think "never". --Kikos (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could be more specific. Btw, "my map" look more complete than google maps. :) Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets continue there. --Kikos (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "lighthuse"->"lighthouse"...--Jebulon (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --The Photographer (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yacare caiman (Caiman yacare) 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2015 at 22:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created and uploaded by Charlesjsharp, nominated by Yann -- Yann (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone mentioned this, and I agree it is FP worthy. -- Yann (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fenerli1978 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated and bad composition/crop. --Mile (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We could change the background and low the saturation like that ? --The Photographer (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are funny guy Wilfredo W Wilfredor. --Mile (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC) what a sweet little animal, good composition and crop in my eyes[reply]
Neutral Per Ralf Roleček but too much chroma noise to me. --Laitche (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice scene! -- Wolf im Wald 22:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may seem oversaturated Mile, but that's the colour off the camera, not Photoshop - the image was taken in late afternoon light and the sand enhances the warm colours. Charles (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles that's Canon tendency. --Mile (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May be someone's told you that Mile, but it's nonsense with the 70D. I see you are not a Canon user. Charles (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The chroma noise is unnecessary in my opinion, and I dislike the crop on the right showing just a hint of the leg. — Julian H.^✈ 10:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parapente - 167.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2015 at 10:09:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The parachutist in the foreground seems to be in focus, the scene is well captured. The parachutist in the background, though, is blurred and the landscape a little greyish. --Tremonist (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work like the paragliding images I have supported did. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't seem FP to me. Charles (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support. That's one with a good quality, and a nice composition. Yann (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's a good composition (it's not bad, it's unfortunate), because the person should stand out by being above the horizon in the image. Here it gets too confused with the ground. --Kadellar (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torre de Hércules, La Coruña, España, 2015-09-25, DD 35-37 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2015 at 11:41:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info View of the Tower of Hercules and the surrounding area during sunrise. The spot is located near the center of A Coruña, Galicia, north-western coast of Spain. The 55 metres (180 ft) hight tower, an ancient Roman lighthouse, is the oldest (almost 1900 years) Roman lighthouse in use today and the second tallest lighthouse in Spain (after the Faro de Chipiona). The lighthouse was rehabilitated in 1791 and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2009. All by me, Poc o² 11:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have errors, see note. --Mile (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks Mile, I hadn't seen it. Poc o² 13:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clone out the two blurred birds a top please? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christian: Done Poc o² 17:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support One might like to see a little less evidence of sharpening, but it's not important when this picture gets so much else right. Also, Diego, do you think you could add a location template to the description? It seems people want that in an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Geodata added Poc o² 20:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Madre mía dónde vas sin resolución. I think it could be even better with some more grass or ground at the bottom. --Kadellar (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sakhalinio (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pastel colors. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shot. I like the colors and the framing. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H. ^✈ 15:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot. --Hubertl 09:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Potsdamer-Platz-Hochhaeuser-2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2015 at 21:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

High-rises at Potsdamer Platz in Berlin in backlight: Kollhoff-Tower, Forum Tower and Bahntower

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haha, funny. Look at my photo that I took the same day some hours earlier! Yours is better, of course. --Code (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Code, your's is different. The detail quality of your photo is stunning, also the morning light is nice. What about a nomination? Potsdamer Platz in the morning and in the evening :) --Tuxyso (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I also made this one and I'm not sure which one I find better. I'm also not sure whether I should nominate any of them - this would possibly result in a competition between our pictures. I'll have to sleep on it. --Code (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment both are fine, imo (though in need of minor perspective corrections). If I had a choice, I'd prefer the second one though. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Code, I'd prefer the first one :) Feel free to nominate it as separate nomination. I do not see a competition between the photos because of the different motive and light. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I prefer the morning light and mood :) --Laitche (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seven Seas Voyager (ship, 2003), Sète 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2015 at 17:48:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info The Seven Seas Voyager in the harbor of Sète, France. All by Christian Ferrer -- --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Merops (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail and mood. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zcebeci (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I know it's very hard to take that huge ship although the composition is a bit ordinary to me, nice anyway. --Laitche (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sakhalinio (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl 09:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not tilted to the right? --Pudelek (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The ship is leaning to the right I think. — Julian H.^✈ 20:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed it's the boat but I can do nothing. I think I right the vertical of all that is fixed to the ground (lights, fences...). May be it is the supply of fresh water, diesel oil and food or it can be straightened with the inertia of the movement when in use, don't know...--Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I wanted to say. In retrospect, what I wrote was meaningless/obvious. Sorry. — Julian H.^✈ 22:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:13-04-23-reiserad-RalfR-08.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2015 at 21:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Touring bicycle - all by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. Yann (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. Shame because the bicycle's done so well. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support despite the background. --Tremonist (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No pun intended but I really fail to see anything special here. Dull lighting, distracting background (the lamp post appearing to stand on the saddle as well as the dark stripe behind the handlebar), the bike is not even quite sharp at the resolution given, boring upside-down view, and poor composition (there’s more space behind the bike than in front of it). --Kreuz schnabel 18:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Ralf Roleček 14:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nizwa Fort Detail.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2015 at 09:07:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Detail of Nizwa Fort, Oman, built in the 17th century. Currently it is Oman's most visited national monument. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info with no FoP in Oman. This image must be deleted now :-( --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment imo it doesn't - I don't see any copyright infringement here. I mean, the fort doesn't really represent contemporary art or architecture that still might be protected... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the color and the interplay of shapes a lot, but the parapets are too unsharp to support. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Verde78 (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice colours, really! --Tremonist (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can´t see any FOP-Problems. The Royal Decree 65/2008 of Oman says, that after 95 years everything is free. In this case, we have more than 300 years. --Hubertl 19:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]