Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2019

File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 65.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 22:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Primates_(Primates)
Info Young Chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) playing around, Chobe National Park, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Understandably not perfect given the high zoom, but overall more than good enough considering the difficulty of the capture. Another good one from your safari. Cmao20 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --BoothSift 03:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral now per below--BoothSift 04:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry for being the party pooper again, but long focal length or not, that looks pretty noisy for a 5DS R at 400 ISO. It's mostly luminance noise, so one might forgive it, but in combination with the over-all softness and remnants of CA (I blame the 2x TC), I'm less than wowed by the quality. It's not bad and actually looks quite OK at screen size, it's just not great. And the same is true for the content: It's not bad at all, but I wouldn't call it outstanding considering what else we've got. --El Grafo (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit per El Grafo, but what is bothering me more is that the two are partly obscured by the tree so we don't get a good view of their play. – Lucas 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition and size/sharpness of the subject. Charles (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The con arguments are good. I'm no longer sure, so I've struck out my vote and am likely to abstain from voting. I like the photo, but I don't know for sure that it should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the branches way too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with the luma noise in the background, but the overall softness is a bit disturbing and I'd also blame the TC for that. --Granada (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does TC stand for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the tele converter. --Granada (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /BoothSift 22:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marmora Formation closeup1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 17:35:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Other
Info all by -- СССР (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting textures. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I like the idea, but the shapes and contours are a bit too small and thin to convey an overarching message to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Other would be better for this since it's too much of a close-up for a place. I think I will skip voting on this since I'm not exactly blown away by it. --Cart (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done - recategorized --СССР (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This would have to work for me as an abstract composition of lines and textures; I analyse it almost as if I were looking at an abstract painting that I want to have a good linear arabesque, though the textures help and make it a bit of a bas relief. It's a great idea, but the lines are not interesting enough to me for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above--BoothSift 04:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. It would make a good background image for design purposes though. Cmao20 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Vulp here 12:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Just a little unsharper than it should be. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination СССР (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taubenturm-mit-Schnee.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 07:19:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by dktue - uploaded by dktue - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dktue (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, the composition feels random to me. The top of the dovecote is cropped out, the pigeons are flying every which way, and I feel like for some balance, there should be more room on the left, too. I do like the view straight into the distance, but it's not enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Only 2 active nominations per user are allowed. See Commons:Featured picture candidates n11. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dktue, per above. Please select the two nominations you wish to keep and {{withdraw}} the surplus or your latest nomination(s) will be deleted for you. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination is this the way to withdraw this nomination? --Dktue (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is totally correct. You are learning. Welcome to the FPC gang. :-) --Cart (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 07:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kyiv Express Tram 757 2019 G1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 11:39:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition and alignment with the road but the light is not good enough and there are distractions like the horizontal wire going across the tram and the sky reflection in the windshield making it hard to read the display. – Lucas 13:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas, the composition is very nice but the light for me is no more than adequate. Personally I think this is a QI but not an FP. I can see why you nominated it though. Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow.--Peulle (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking in wow IMO--BoothSift 02:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary + distractions + the unpleasant reflection on the windshield. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 07:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beautiful Balthali Village.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 06:18:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Balthali is a village in mountain region of Kavrepalanchok District.- uploaded by Sunil kawan - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 06:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 06:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Request I have to say it would be better without the "Beautiful" in the filename and please add a geocode (GPS coordinates), this is very helpful and expected for landscape FPs. – Lucas 07:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striked support per below. – Lucas 07:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a beautiful view but I have a few issues with it. a) The resolution isn't very high for a 2019 FP landscape; b) I find the plants in the foreground a bit distracting; c) Are these colours really natural? I'm not saying they necessarily aren't, but I've never seen a landscape that looked quite like this. Cmao20 (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose idem ̃--Mimihitam (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 12:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no problems with the composition; as far as I'm concerned, this is a beautiful picture. However, as Cmao20 said, it's small for a 2019 Featured Picture nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--BoothSift 05:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not one of the best images on Commons, IMO. For instance, the resolution is quite low for a landscape shot.--Peulle (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Piotr Bart (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative image

Comment Higher version--Biplab Anand (Talk) 06:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sharp enough and probably oversaturated, but if this is the original resolution, you should _always_ provide full resolution at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[No] Biplab Anand, this is not how this should be done. Please just rename the original file, add the geocode there (by copying the code from one to the other) and simply upload a new version (!) with higher resolution and maybe ping affected voters about the change. No need for a new file or an alternative candidate here. Alternative candidates are for substancial edits or other versions that people might disagree over, not for simple corrections. – Lucas 10:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Lucasbosch Thanks for your comment. I'll keep your suggestion in my mind before nominating new images for the FPC. Thanks--Biplab Anand (Talk) 10:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Biplab Anand (Talk) 10:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a potential here, may be with a better processing from RAW. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 07:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Death Valley view from Zabriskie Point with people 2013.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 15:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created & uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support WOOOOOOOOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 15:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, and an exciting view! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank goodness for their choice of color/non-patterns on clothes. :-) --Cart (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excelente --BoothSift 23:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 04:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The people ruin it for me. Charles (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support the people are a feature, not a bug - as they're providing some scale --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I full agree. --Hockei (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are also providing an excellent diagonal counterpoint to the peak up right. --Cart (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I begrudgingly have to agree that the people are well incorporated here. – Lucas 07:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 10:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 23:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wonder if they're watching/photographing an orgy in the sand ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /BoothSift 16:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Periodic table cup cakes 2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 17:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info created by Eatcha - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 17:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test NOM, it checks for redirects

Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 17:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ^{ping me} 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Actually, I would really see this as a featured picture -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Eatcha (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Eatcha (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

test set nom

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 06:58:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Google 2015 logo
Google-Cloud Speech-To-Text-Logo

Google-Cloud Speech-To-Text-Logo
Google-Genomics-Logo

Google-Genomics-Logo
Google Assistant logo
Google Wallet logo
Google-goggles
Google maps logo
Google Pay (GPay) Logo
Google Chrome logo and wordmark (Carlitoscarlos)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info created by Eatcha - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Eatcha -- 06:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info ——— This is a test nomination, I'm trying to automate the sets nomination but no promises.
Question ——— How do you store the sets ? I don't see any sets at Commons:Featured pictures . You can answer here.—— 06:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The files in a set are all displayed in the normal galleries. The set designation is just for the nomination, after that all the files included are treated as normal FPs. Example: The two images in this set are stored/displayed at Commons:Featured pictures/Objects. My guess it that you will not be able to automate this since the process is far to complicated. The set nom is placed in the log and chronological, not visible in Commons:Featured pictures, list and then the files are extracted manually to be labled with the assessment and placed in the right gallery. --Cart (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: , any example where the set had images from different categories ?? Eatcha (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can think of. The idea with a set is that the images belong together and that usually means that they belong in the same category. --Cart (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think any set that required different categories would fail the set criteria. I think that if images in a set could stand alone, treat them as normal FPs, but in some cases special handling would be required for the gallery. For instance, it's something like a 5 x 8 mosaic scan of a very large painting, it would be better to just have a downsampled version of the full painting in the gallery. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination This nomination will be archived by the bot —— Eatcha (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daenerys.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 16:05:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Vathanna - uploaded by User:e.3 - nominated by E.3 -- E.3 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- E.3 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please fix the author information in this nomination (Deviantart never creates anything) and the link to deviantart.com on the file page is broken. – Lucas 16:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like it was taken down by the artist, a reverse image search doesn't reveal it. But as we can see it was published by Vathanna under the correct license in January. --E.3 (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has only 0.8 MP, far below the minimum of 2 MP per the guidelines and there are no strong mitigating reasons. I'm loosely familiar with fanart and this doesn't seem special at all. – Lucas 17:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2019 (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: Too far below the 2Mpx minimum size and there are no strong mitigating reasons. Please read the rules at COM:FPC more carefully before the next nomination. --Cart (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2019 (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 Cart, just to be correct and you likely know this already: when there are "strong mitigating reasons" the 2 MP minimum can be ignored so it should be mentioned in a FPX reason that the nom fails both aspects. – Lucas 20:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, but since you had already mentioned it above, I didn't think there was any reason to bring it up again. To keep things formal per your recommendation, I've added it now. It is now mentioned three times in the nom; a bit of overkill IMO. If you think a text in an FPX template is inadequate, please feel free to substitute it with a text of your own. Improving how this forum works is never wrong. --Cart (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trimeresurus gumprechti, Gumprecht’s pit viper (female) - Phu Suan Sai National Park (46711073485).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 21:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Rushen (Rushenb) - uploaded by B2Belgium - nominated by B2Belgium -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support visually impressive (though maybe a bit oversaturated) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly too green but still very good.--Ermell (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin and Ermell. --Aristeas (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary stuff at this resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mimihitam (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 13:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I so want to move the camera up about half a centimeter. --Cart (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Llez (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. Charles (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support primarily for the head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotr Bart: I don't think this model is supported by the bot. You should use {{s|Strong support}} instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: We tested most of these versions after the repair of the Bot and it counted them just fine. Some testing and tweaking might still have to be done, but it looks as though it's ok to use the strong and weak votes now. The goal is to get them all working. --Cart (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like the images that would have been on the covers of those short hardback science books my parents always gave us at Christmas and birthdays when I was a kid. Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spermophilus lateralis, Bryce Canyon National Park, USA.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 14:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by KipRobinson - uploaded by KipRobinson - nominated by KipRobinson -- Kiprobinson (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiprobinson (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small and cute.--Vulp here 14:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I so wish I could support this, but I don't think the sharpness on the squirrel is quite good enough, especially seeing it's so small in the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Squirrel not in focus --Dktue (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above Charles (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I wish I could support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per others--BoothSift 23:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and too centered composition. – Lucas 08:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose, unsharp area is way too distracting even at thumb. Nominator really needs to take the hint from all these opposes ... Daniel Case (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.05.-34-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Westliche Keiljungfer-Maennchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2019 at 20:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Gomphidae
Info I take pictures from dragonflies since 2011. This Western clubtail I've never seen before and also not after that. It was the single time. I could only take one picture before it flew away. No chance for more tries. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The plant seems to cooperate as it fits with the dragonfly very nicely. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 06:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Llez (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely difficult to find. Good shot. Charles (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mae Carol Jemison.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2019 at 15:42:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by NASA, uploaded by Coffeeandcrumbs, nominated by Yann (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support American engineer, physician and NASA astronaut. She became the first black woman to travel in space when she served as an astronaut aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour. -- Yann (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support So radiant, she is probably the first astronaut who has managed to look good in that dreadful orange outfit. --Cart (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought orange was the new black? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Yez, but look at ze cut, ze lines! No fitting, no flattering for figure. Alors, c'est 'ideous!" --Cart (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- 18:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a great portrait. If it were a portrait of Jane Doe, I'd support it. But what a historically important person, too! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support because she's the first black female astronaut. No other particular historical FP value IMO, since the image doesn't stand out among the others in any other way.--Peulle (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I thought this was a portrait of Michael Burnham. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

same here! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Nezara viridula f. torquata MHNT.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 23:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created and uploaded by Didier Descouens - nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 23:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- BoothSift 23:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite low sharpness/resolution/detail due to crop and diffraction at f/29 I suspect. – Lucas 07:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lucas is right, but it's still OK for me. The insect is only about 12-13 mm in length. Cmao20 (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP sharp. Charles (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: As Cmao20 notes, the insect is fairly small. --BoothSift 05:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is. Charles (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image is interesting for the egg of the fly. It is necessary to notice on the head of the animal a white spot which is an egg of Trichopoda. The larva will parasitize the host and kill him. Thanks to Boothsift for this nomination. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, the egg of the parasitic fly gives value to the image and makes it FPworth imo. --Cayambe (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cayambe --Llez (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /BoothSift 01:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano September 2015-1a.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 12:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Alvesgaspar, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great photo. But why are the trucks at the bottom of the stairs? Was anything special happening that day? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 17:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary work. Cmao20 (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 03:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- --Famberhorst (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, maybe noise in the sky could be improved --Wilfredor (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cachoeira da Velha1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 17:27:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Karen Souza de Andrade Gonzaga - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a pretty basic view and predictable composition with no technical merits. It needs some sharpening, it has some noise, shadows are a bit too contrasty, geolocation is pretty much expected for landscape FPs. – Lucas 19:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't mind this one, yes the composition is pretty predictable but it does show off the waterfall well. However, I agree about the sharpening and the noise. Cmao20 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Cmao20 --BoothSift 02:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. Good compared to an average photo but not one of the best on the site and would have at least a 50/50 chance to fail QIC if nominated there, I think (I could be wrong on that). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per boys above. I'm more incline to oppose though. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Fryš, as per Ikan's comment below, you do go on a bit about "the boys". Please widen your perspective. --Cart (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be more general in gender OR more specific on names next time. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Lucas.--Vulp here 12:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 03:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cascada cip.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 17:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Ciprianpe - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, bad smartphone quality, water is neither frozen nor well blurred, I could go on. Arion, please take more care examining the photos you nominate. I see no improvement in your judgement despite many efforts of us to call you out on this, and pretty soon the main thing to be featured is your username in the administrator noticeboard. You are doing a disservice to the commmunity. – Lucas 19:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't much like the composition, it seems a little bit random. Plus the detail at full-res is not very good, as one might expect from a smartphone photo. It probably really isn't worth nominating smartphone pics, Arion, it's very difficult for them to hit the pixel-level detail we look for at FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not meet my requirements --BoothSift 02:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty strongly Oppose per others. What criteria are you using, Arion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: He probably just looks at the thumbnail and if that looks good enough, then he nominates. At least that's what I conclude from his nominations. --BoothSift 02:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't want to be mean but two 9 and 11 yo local boys in Yukon I'm teaching some photography basics would be able to find better composition, if nothing else, after the first week of practice. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 12:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shooting at 1/350 was the right idea; unfortunately nothing else about this was. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 03:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tari Melinting 3.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 11:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Madereza - uploaded by Madereza - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, her hands and flag (?) are out of focus. This is probably unavoidable due to the aperture but takes too much 'wow' away. --MB-one (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above. Cmao20 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait. --Yann (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a very nice picture. Of course there's some motion blur - she's dancing! She is moving her hands and moving a cloth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MB-one and the white flag in the background sits too close to her. – Lucas ^T 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MB-one --Fischer.H (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Mimihitam (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:68-104-9007 Kamianets-Podilskyi Fortress RB 18 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 23:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle, City of Kamianets-Podilskyi, Khmelnytskyi Oblast, Ukraine. Created by Rbrechko - uploaded by Rbrechko - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The huge lens flare distracts me too much. An angle with raking light and no sun in the picture might work better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I don't wish to vote on this image--BoothSift 05:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Images with spectacular photo effects always do well at WLM, but such lens flares are not a quality mark for an FP. --Cart (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lens flares are hidden enough to not detract me. I wish the resolution was better/less smudgy pixels but I'll let it pass for the good mood. – Lucas 11:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems a bit low on details and somewhat blurry in areas of same colors like the grass. The huge lens flare is huge - don't know what to think of it. --Granada (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lens flare and moody lighting that the sunset yields seem more like (very nice) features to me. Would be quite bland otherwise. - Benh (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sunrise it seems. My mistake. - Benh (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Benh. That's what I thought when I nominated it for FP. Others may of course disagree, but I don't think lens flare should always be dismissed as a technical failing. Certainly it should usually be corrected, but in my view it's possible to use lens flare as a creative effect. Cmao20 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sunset images, a cake full of cream. Who doesn’t like it but you don’t taste the cake --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting discussion ;–). In this particular case, IMHO the lens flares are OK, they don’t distract me. --Aristeas (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 13:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I’m not wowed -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dawning sun is a distraction from an otherwise interesting angle on the castle. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Yes, there's some lens flare, but it's mostly hidden by a nice starburst effect. I think I'd prefer a slightly less centered composition thoug. --El Grafo (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Photo!David290 (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /BoothSift 23:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colonial House in Margarita Island (Interior).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 18:36:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Venezuela
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice to see a photo from Venezuela, but it does not have anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek and the left/right crop is not good IMHO. – Lucas 20:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I disagree with the opposers. This photo has interesting forms in addition to having an atmosphere and serving as social commentary. And I'm fine with the crops, because the result is a composition that's good to move one's eyes around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I did'n get the link to the social commentary. Millennium bug (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's rundown, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per others--BoothSift 05:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 09:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great potential, but the crops at left and right are not very good. If you can't have more, then focus instead on the door and the TV. The plastic chairs do not fit the rest of the scene. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kind of cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Séverine, debout, un poing sur la hanche - Nadar.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 21:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by | - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rather an imperious pose. Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice resolution, it's got wow, great restoration work. Thanks Adam for your contributions, they're really valuable for the project! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow!!! --BoothSift 02:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite excellent, per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per others. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting framing ... looks almost like it was done with a modern smartphone's wallpaper in mind. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good restoration, but I doubt the original picture was that much yellowish. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Gallica is usually pretty accurate with its colours. Check the original. I've corrected for fading a bit, but tried to keep similar colours. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reproduction from the picture now may be OK, but the yellowish tone is not. It is also a bit too dark. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Mapa de Colombia (relieve).svg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 05:21:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Milenioscuro -- Milenioscuro (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info This file is the brother map of File:Colombia Mapa Oficial.svg and it has practically the same sources.
Support -- Milenioscuro (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
needs some work This is one of the best maps I've seen at FPC for a while, but there are some (mostly minor) points that I'd like to see fixed before I can support:

The different strokes for the different kinds of border are missing from the legend (they are explained in File:Colombia Mapa Oficial.svg: strong solid = international border, dot-dash = disputed border, dashed = claimed ...). Either add them to the legend or simplify to a single style.
The file description page of File:Colombia Mapa Oficial.svg is much clearer when it comes to listing the sources. Information about where the elevation and bathymetry data comes from appears to be missing?
Which map projection/CRS was used here? Please at least mention this in the file description, ideally with an EPSG code or some other kind of unambiguious identifier.
There are some avoidable collisions of labels (for example, LLANURA DEL PACÍFICO collides with Cerro Calima and many other peaks of the CORDILLERA OCCIDENTAL). With careful manual placement, most of these collisions should be resolvable. Yes, that's tedious work, but imho this kind of attention to detail is needed for a map that is considered "outstandingly good".
The label Páramo de Sonsón @ 6°N, 75.5°W appears to be partially covered by the 3000-4000m terrain layer.

Otherwise I'd say this is really close to what I'd expect to see in a printed atlas! --El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

needs some work per El Grafo and here are my additional pain points:

~~The use of blurred shadows below the text is IMHO ugly and makes it harder to read especially in smaller font sizes. Text shadows belong on birthday cards only.~~ edit: seems to be an artifact of Firefox rendering
Often the text is colored in such a way to blend in with the background too much, e.g. blue text on water and brown text on high elevations colored in brown
I don't know the unit msnm, I would only use SI unit meter here and put the rest as plain text.
Most of the text is serif which is IMHO not really needed here (helping the eye to stay on the line) and sans serif fits better for graphics.
In general there are too many different fonts used where one would be enough and make distinctions with bolding and italics and size of course.
Typographic nitpick: the author information on the bottom right uses straigh ASCII quote marks ("...") instead of real quotes (“...”) or similar depending on the local conventions.
The legend on the lower left covers up a lot of text along the shore.
On many places text is placed over rivers and lakes that make it hard to read the text because of the many interfering lines.
Some lines around the Mar Caribe area end in nothingness and one dash-dotted line goes off alignment with the shape it belongs to. – Lucas 14:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of Lucas' points, but regarding the first 3 points:

I don't see any shadows around text, neither when I view the original SVG as rendered by Firefox nor in the png previews rendered by mediawiki.
I'll have to disagree with that one. That's pretty much exactly how it is done nall the time for this kind of map in professional map making.
msnm is the Spanish abbreviation for mean sea level - given that the rest of the legend is in Spanish as well I think that's OK

4. & 5. are to some degree a matter of taste and style. I'm not a cartographer myself, but I've seen plenty of printed maps that purposefully mix serif and sans serif fonts to make certain groups of labels easier to distinguish.

New point: RÍO META is labeled twice at ca. 6°N, 69°W. --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the text shadow: I only see it in my Firefox and not when opened in Inkscape. I striked that point. – Lucas 09:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending resolution of above-noted issues. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Until the discussion/resolution is finished--BoothSift 03:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you very much for the feedback and the proposed improvements, but they are too many and I do not have so much time to do them; I will improve it little by little and when it complies with what you have described I will propose this map again. Milenioscuro (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suricata suricatta - Maroparque 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 05:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info Three young Merkats; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose they are cute, but the light is not flattering, boring centered composition and the camera position makes this feel like a too ordinary shot (straight from the zoo even if you were in nature). – Lucas 06:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, sharp enough. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I don't think it's a great composition, and it doesn't help that the sand blends in so well with their fur. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice IMO -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sort of too ordinary, but not enough for a oppose. The sand ruins it for a support--BoothSift 21:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The image is nice and sharp but I don't think the composition is that great. Cmao20 (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough, +1 for cuteness. Yann (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 18:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral.--Vulp here 03:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas and Ikan. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alfredo Edel - Jules Massenet - Le mage.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 14:55:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Alfredo Edel - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary. A beautiful illustration, and pinpoint sharp at 76 megapixels. Cmao20 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. One comment: The file description says "poster or music cover", but the bottom of the picture contains the words "Affiches Américaines" and a name and address. Affiches are indeed posters, so this is a poster and not the cover of the score. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! My French is... fairly bad, so I missed that. I've also copied over the size from the catalogue record. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 06:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Yann (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Madrid May 2014-9a.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 21:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Pipe organ of the Cathedral of Our Lady of Almudena, Madrid. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good image but it looks to me almost like there's been too much contrast applied. The colours look a bit too bold and the blacks a little bit too dark. Cmao20 (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I browsed through the gallery of the corresponding category and, with some minor lighting differences, the contrast in the pipes looks similar. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I'll take you on trust that it looked like this on the day. My rationale for support is more or less the same as your other pic - not necessarily pin-sharp at full-res but fine when downsampled (and a great composition). At any rate it's certainly a lot better than what I could do... Cmao20 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Neutral. I can indeed see the issues Ikan mentions including the red/green CA. I like the picture but I'm not entirely sure it matches up to some of our best church FPs at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 10:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 13:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't love the picture quality (noise/unsharpness), and is that not red/green CA on the ceiling and wall? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, it has smudgy pixels possibly from too much noise reduction and I'm not a fan of the multiple microphone wires crossing. – Lucas 20:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Ikan and Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /BoothSift 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sagrada Familia March 2015-2a.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 21:45:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Ceiling of the Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona, Spain. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 03:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it but in my opinion the technical quality is not up to the standard for church interiors here at FP. General lack of detail and sharpness, blown highlights. -- B2Belgium (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition and the light but imho there is too much noise. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer B2Belgium.--Ermell (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per B2Belgium, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (Can I use this template now? Happy to change it if I can't.) The criticisms about technical quality are valid, not that it's bad but that it isn't quite up to the level of some FP church interiors. That said, I downsampled it to 2200px across - which is 7 mpx and still meets FP size requirements - and it looks perfectly sharp and without any visible noise. On that basis I think I can give it a qualified support considering what an amazing interior it is. Cmao20 (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^{Yeah@Cmao20 18:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)}[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 13:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per B2Belgium --Llez (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per B2Belgium --Fischer.H (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I think we can do better in 2019. If I should guess, it's a hand hold shot at high ISO that has been sharpened, shadows brought up and then denoised quite heavily. The detailes are kind of washed out. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, it's most likely handheld with high ISO just like the other nomination, but with missing metadata in this case. – Lucas 20:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support @B2Belgium: Please also take a look at the 6MP Version --Habitator terrae 🌍 21:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I do like this but there are some aspects, like the highlights, that I would like to know things like the exposure, that are normally listed in the metadata but aren't here, which would help me decide if they were avoidable or not. Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /BoothSift 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trinkende Taube am Neptunbrunnen in Tübingen 2019.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 18:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Dktue (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC) - uploaded by Dktue (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC) - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dktue (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cute picture. I don't know if others would agree, but I don't see what the blurry background on the lower right adds to the photo and would suggest cropping most or maybe all of it out, leaving the photo in portrait format. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Ikan, the quality of the X-T3 is good enough to try a tight crop (a 4:3 portrait has 13 MP, see note). I wish there was even more visible to the left, though. – Lucas 20:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to second Ikan’s and Lucas’ hints. --Aristeas (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with all comments here.--Vulp here 10:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded an updated version -- How do I update this vote? --Dktue (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of the alternative, per Ikan. – Lucas 20:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of the alternative. --BoothSift 02:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- in favor of alternative Piotr Bart (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support Thanks Yann for editing in the alternative and now I'm very jealous of you for this camera ... – Lucas 18:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes. Very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. --BoothSift 02:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The picture is good, but the description is very poor: no species, no geolocation, no EXIF --Llez (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral sharp, but the background doesn't work. Charles (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Llez: I added the geolocation and EXIF as well as the species of the pigeon (Columba livia domestica). --Dktue (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support OK now --Llez (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A successful recording, but still can not convince me.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Piotr Bart (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David290 (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Trinkende Taube am Neptunbrunnen in Tübingen 2019 cropped.jpg

File:2017.05.06.-01-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Listspinne-Weibchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2019 at 14:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family : Pisauridae (Nursery Web Spiders)
Info A back-light shot. I've no idea if you like it. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gives me the creeps, but a good one - well done. Cmao20 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good idea and good implementation with back-light. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 15:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per George. Very nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Llez (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry a good QI, but not enough special IMO, + the shadowed framing is a bit disturbing. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ferrer -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St.Georgen Ordenskirche Orgel 3240051efs-PSD.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2019 at 08:17:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Pipe organ of the Ordenskirche St. Georgen in Bayreuth. all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great as usual, although it's a shame about all the wires. Cmao20 (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, I don't mind the wires, though I'd love to see the bottom of the chandelier - but then it would be a different picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 13:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wires, sorry. – Lucas 18:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Llez (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. We have to blame the resposible people for that wires, not the poor photographer. ;-) --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bratislava Relaxing Park Bench 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 05:50:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
Info Here is something that should make you smile: a relaxing park bench in Bratislava, Slovakia. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so special for me since the wooden parts of many public benches are removed during winter here in Sweden. Disregarding that, I don't think this is the best light/angle to shoot it in, most of the details in the cast iron can't be seen and you get that big distracting shadow upper left. It would also have been very easy to merge two shots of this to get both parts of the bench sharp. --Cart (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart – Lucas ^T 09:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desastre de Brumadinho.gif

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 12:46:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated or Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info created by NASA - uploaded by Chronus - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I shan't consider a satellite image this small an FP, animated or not.--Peulle (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also GIF is not really a very useful format nowadays, I would tend to shy away from using it. Cmao20 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per this ANU discussion. I think a block might be considered now --Cart (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2019 (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: Certainly not at FPC level. Yann (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (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:India Gate - Delhi (37282946605).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 15:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Mike fleming - uploaded by CptViraj - nominated by CptViraj -- CptViraj (Talk) 15:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CptViraj (Talk) 15:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the crop at the bottom isn't OK. Another view may be FP. And the resolution is small for this kind of photograph. --XRay ^talk 17:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IMO not too far off FP, but the crop does bother me a bit. Cmao20 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like this particular composition.--Peulle (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--BoothSift 23:07, 5 June 2019 (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: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2019 (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:Mejsene fodres-4.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 07:25:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Paridae_(Tits)
Info All by me - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should choose one among these 2 nominations. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 FPC is also about you being able to select the best image and nominate it. If you can't decide, please ask some friends or at the COM:CRIT first. This is not the way to do it. --Cart (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support The resolution isn't very high and the highlights should be toned down a bit, but I really like the shot in other respects; well captured, good wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done higher resolution and highlight be toned down. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 08:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice capture but the technical quality is too poor and the background behind the bird is distracting. Charles (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 03:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect image quality but the dynamism makes up for it. – Lucas 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Lucas. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lucas. --Aristeas (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment several believe the picture is not perfect, how to improve such photos? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I've never managed a shot like this (not enough patiience), for me your set up (on a tripod) would involve making sure the background was dark - and reducing shutter speed to allow lower ISO and higher F no. 1/8000 sec is not really needed. You have frozen the wing motion but F3.2 has still resulted in an out-of focus head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) 11:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paalisõlm.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 21:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created & uploaded Jaan Künnap - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good VI, but I am not getting why it should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is very useful, I guess. However, FP is not only about usefulness, it must be somewhat interesting/wowing and this frankly fails to do that.--BoothSift 23:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and Boothsift. Cmao20 (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Also: Without trying to actually replicate this knot, I'm really wondering how you get from step 2 (top right) to step 3 (center). The image is not really doing a good job in explaining the knot to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 08:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tried this myself and the switch from step 2 to 3 is done by pulling the loose end in such a way that it is taught and the loop flips over to the other side. Per El Grafo this is a confusing move and the center image could very well be the starting point (this is how I've always tied this knot), removing the top row. With this arrangement of 5 it's also not 100 % clear what the order is supposed to be for people of different cultures viewing the image. Most importantly, this knot has two variants depending on the loose end being inside the main loop at the end (more dangerous to get opened over time as the end can easily get pushed in by the object the rope is tied to) or outside (safer and recommended version). An image showing the dangerous version should acknowledge this visually and/or in the description. – Lucas ^T 10:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose VI perhaps but I don't think it represents what FP is all about. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2019 (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: too many opposes, not possibility to success Ezarateesteban 18:05, 6 June 2019 (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:李子坝站轻轨穿楼 0023.png

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2019 at 08:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#China
Info created by David290 - uploaded by David290 - nominated by David290 -- David290 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- David290 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fairly good composition, but I'm not impressed by the perspective warp and the fairly low resolution.--Peulle (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and even if the quality were better the composition with a moving train barely inside the frame and the hills obove cut off is not ideal. – Lucas ^T 10:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow and perspective issues (verticals are leaning out) --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the composition and understand why you nominated it. If you can retake the photo at a higher resolution, without overexposing the sky and upper part of the photo, with a more normal-looking view as per others and preferably with more room on the top and possibly below as well, I could see that photo possibly being a Featured Picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan - as he says, the idea behind the photo is quite good, but there are a few technical improvements worth making. Cmao20 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Vulp here 23:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, I don't think the resolution's FP level yet--BoothSift 23:32, 4 June 2019 (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: too many opposes, no possibility to success Ezarateesteban 18:07, 6 June 2019 (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:Brescia duomo Broletto e Torre del Popolo.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 17:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there light yellow/green CA on the dome near the longitudinal lines, or is that coloration really on the dome? Otherwise, the slight noise at full size is IMO no big deal and the way the perspective distorts the shapes of the dome and statues is OK, and I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, I generally admire your photos very much but I honestly think the crop on the left-hand side is too tight here. It just looks a little bit awkward to me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I do not wish to vote on this image--BoothSift 03:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The perspective correction by software or the lens so verticals stay vertical leads to unnatural shapes and overal feeling of being stretched which is not pleasant to look at. This is a fundamental problem of rendering the world as we see it onto a flat sensor plane so I would have chosen to stand somewhere more in front. The left crop is definitely too tight and the cut in half car on the bottom is not ideal either. – Lucas 09:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas: trying to force 100% vertical verticals in this kind of image is futile and led to heavy distortion (e.g. of the dome). --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas and Cmao20. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same. Very boring composition to start with and much of a tourist snapshot feel. - Benh (talk)
Oppose Per others -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OMG. I taught for a second that somebody put something to my lemonade. The distortion is enourmous :) So as per boys. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone else; I think this nomination has passed its expiration date if you get my meaning. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question So what do you want me to do? Drown miself? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could drown the nomination ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's already been done ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--BoothSift 23:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portsmouth Cathedral Choir, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 19:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The choir of Portsmouth Cathedral, looking towards the north east, in Hampshire, England. This is one of the Church of England's most unusual and eclectic cathedrals, taking shape over hundreds of years and incorporating multiple styles of architecture; the chancel and transepts are medieval, the choir is seventeenth-century, and most of the rest of the cathedral was built in the twentieth century in the tradition of Byzantine-Revival architecture (the nave was left unfinished for several years after WWII, and was only completed in 1991). Already FP on English Wikipedia, where it passed unanimously. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 22:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 03:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please have a look to the bottom line. It isn't horizontal. --XRay ^talk 09:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special to me -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Piotr Bart and there's too much empty floor in the foreground. – Lucas ^T 10:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas I appreciate your feedback and don't necessarily disagree about the foreground. I would happily offer an alternative crop (it would have to be an alternative version, since I don't think we should mess with an original image that is fairly widely used and is FP on another project) but it doesn't look like that would make the difference between passing and failing, and I don't think I will complicate the nomination with an alternative at this stage. Cmao20 (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--BoothSift 23:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: За селом 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 16:05:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created by Swift11 - uploaded by Swift11 - nominated by Swift11 -- Михайло Пецкович (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Михайло Пецкович (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Category ? -- Eatcha (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Category Nature-- Swift11

Support - Eatcha (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTo me it looks a bit too artificial. --Granada (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't decided yet, but it's pretty small for a current-day FP nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please, the size increased -- Swift11 17:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak support~~ Beautiful, but it is indeed a little small. This camera produces 10 megapixel images, so I suspect it has been downsampled. Could we perhaps have a slightly larger version? Cmao20 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Tone the saturation down and you have my vote. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tone the saturation downed -- Swift11 17:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I will be neutral on this one, it isn't enough for a support or oppose--BoothSift 03:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Boothsift.--Vulp here 03:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice, but the resolution must be better. --XRay ^talk 09:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Resolution bettered-- Swift11 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Considering that this was taken in the morning hours of a sunny day in October, the colors and saturation look pretty much exactly how I'd expect them to look. Size is a bit on the small side, but still enough for a large print. --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending the question about downsampling per Cmao20. Swift11, could you please explain? – Lucas 14:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please Explain more (per Cmao20?)-- Swift11 17:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Seems much more like the sort of size I'd expect from that camera now. Changing to full Support - thanks Swift11. Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swift11, we are still short of the full 10 MP the camera is capable of with no explanation from you. Cmao20, I'm concerned you are happy being spoonfed 6 MP out of 10 MP when it's not answered whether it's a crop. – Lucas 20:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, I chose to take it on faith that it was a crop. In a situation where I asked for more resolution and someone provided it, I would generally assume on good faith they had uploaded the full file rather than taken the time to create a larger downsample. Of course you may be right that it's still downsampled, but I didn't feel like pressing the issue any further given that this size is adequate for FP for me. I know that we have a rule that prohibits downsampling, but I feel that the FP rules are somewhat contradictory in that sense - they simultaneously penalise for downsizing images and dictate that 'Images should not have distracting amount of noise when viewed in full size', which seems an invite for pixel-peepers and probably encourages people to downsize so as to avoid criticism. In addition, I'd point out that Diliff's church interiors - which I nominate a lot of - are nearly all downsampled to improve quality at full-res, so FP isn't really consistent about this. But this isn't the place for this discussion. For me, 6 MP is adequate for a rather nice landscape like this, but you are of course welcome to disagree. Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Love it but wonder if clarity / contrast wasn't pushed a bit too far. - Benh (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done /clarity downed.../ -- Swift11 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm happy to support if you explain if it was down sampled or if it's a crop. Also, after the nomination is over, please give the file a meaningful name. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. Name foto: «On the edge of the village» -- Swift11 09:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Outstanding! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree. Outstanding composition and light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appretiate all the changes after boys' feedback! Still a bit oversaturated to my taste but nothing that would stop me from supporting. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not speaking for myself in this case, but perhaps you don't know that this is not an all-male group here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm with Benh about too much clarity. It looks artificial. --Cart (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you watch the full size? -- Swift11 12:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, always. You have to look at a photo in several different sizes before you vote. --Cart (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

on Monday I'll fix it... -- Swift11 17:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
/clarity downed. -- Swift11 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking through your uploads, I found File:Polonyna v tumanah.jpg of the same scene taken just a minute earlier and the processing is way more natural than in this so my oppose stays. --Cart (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh and Cart. What did it for me is that tree at left center ... the edges of the leaves against the fog (which also looks like it could have been added as a texture in Photoshop—I'm not saying that it was) really don't look right. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many times have you seen such a state of nature? -- Swift11 17:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look through his uploads if you want to know. He's taken loads of photos of natural landscapes, including many in the Arctic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 3 oppose, 5 neutral → featured. /--BoothSift 23:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aspidomorpha miliaris 03034.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 05:01:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created and uploaded by Vengolis - nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 05:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- BoothSift 05:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive! This insect is only 15 millimeters long, according to w:Aspidimorpha miliaris. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a short comment: 15 mm long is a lot in macro photography! Could it be 1.5 mm? Please note that the common house fly is about half of it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, 15 mm. See w:Aspidimorpha miliaris. And yes, w:Housefly gives its length as 8 mm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: , @Alvesgaspar: Actually, the South African government labels it at 6-7 mm long. Anyways, this is a beetle and not a fly, other fly species can be much larger. --BoothSift 03:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should edit the Wikipedia article about the beetle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was referring to the fly--BoothSift 23:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Outstanding work for that size. Cmao20 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I wish some more information on the description page --Llez (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Llez:

Done I guess--BoothSift 07:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great. Goe reference would be good. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alien landed... ;oD --Yann (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is there a way to reduce the brightness? Anyhow FP level to me for the originality and compo Poc o² 13:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--BoothSift 05:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paul Cézanne, French - The Large Bathers - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 05:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Paul Cézanne / Google Art Project, uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support According to Wikipedia, Les Grandes Baigneuses (The Large Bathers) by Paul Cézanne is considered one of the masterpieces of modern art, and is often considered Cézanne's finest work. -- Yann (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good reproduction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 07:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes to more paintings. :) (crumbs for @Villy Fink Isaksen). --Peulle (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /BoothSift 05:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bald Blue Jay.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 01:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Thcipriani - uploaded by Thcipriani - nominated by Thcipriani -- Thcipriani (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thcipriani (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very good, but please dial back the brightness on the highlights that look blown, so maybe we can see the details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness is just ok (I'd expect more detail) and apart from the issue commented by Ikan, the crop is on the right and at the bottom too tight Poc o² 07:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very useful, but IMO not enough of the bird is sharp and focussed. Cmao20 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --BoothSift 23:07, 5 June 2019 (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: as per above comments. CptViraj (Talk) 05:47, 7 June 2019 (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:Bercerita dengan Wayang.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 11:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Candra Firmansyah - uploaded by Candra Firmansyah - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect but overall I think this is interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! --Yann (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Indeed great. For some background: This man is the dalang, the puppet master, and he portrays stories from traditional Hindu epics by moving the puppets in front of a light source, so that their colored shapes are reflected on the screen and can be viewed by the audience. He also speaks and at times sings in the voices of the different characters and sometimes plays a percussion instrument called the keprak. However, I believe this picture was taken in his house, with him demonstrating how he moves this puppet, his wife is sitting next to him, and the instrument in front of him looks to be some kind of gambang (xylophone). In an actual performance, there would need to be a strong light shining from behind him through the shadow puppet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think anyone who's seen The Year of Living Dangerously will recognize this. A beautiful shot. --Cart (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It'd be nice to have what Ikan wrote above in the file's description. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, that would be nice for what Ikan wrote to be placed in the description. --BoothSift 23:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! -- Wolf im Wald 00:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool. --Peulle (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Bhorley waterfall of Dolakha and Tamakoshi river as seen from above.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 11:46:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created and uploaded by NHkirat - nominated by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MB-one (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It gives me vertigo, but it's an excellent photo. Cmao20 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David290 (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Woah Nelly! It's like looking down into the abyss! :D --Peulle (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice but not 100% sure whether this orientation would be the best one, I got neckage looking at it :) Poc o² 11:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is "neckage"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thought it was a satellite pic of a river delta at first. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support My brain froze a few seconds while figuring out the camera angle. I guess it qualifies as Wow effect. --Gyrostat (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:German Embassy, Prague, back side with garden-6587.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 12:03:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Raymond – uploaded by Raymond – nominated by Draceane — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support If nothing else for then the Trabant statuse... on legs... four of them! -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting branch - Piotr Bart (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the statue but the branches are too distracting and even cross into the building. One bush on the bottom creeps in as well. CAs on branches and parts of the buildings. – Lucas 13:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The branches are just too distracting for me. Plus, the sharpness at the edges is considerably worse than in the centre. Cmao20 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is unappealing.--Peulle (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle --BoothSift 02:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not that bothered by the branches, but otherwise, oppose per Peulle and Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Ikan, branches are not so distracting but the light is boring. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JakubFrys.--Vulp here 12:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let the branches do it. Millennium bug (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much CA and unsharpness, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bennett Lake.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 03:29:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Yukon
Info captured, uploaded, nominated by Jakub Fryš -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light is everything. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't shake the feeling the focus was set too far so the foreground is slightly blurry. In any case it needs more sharpening IMHO. The shadow of the photographer in the lower right is slightly distracting. – Lucas 12:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. You're right. I've got a version without the shadow + a bit sharper foreground. ~~Could you point me how/where/when can I to replace the orginial version?~~ Uploaded. Check it out. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub, the cloning you did is still visible to an extent, most notably there's a brush stroke circle with a sharp contour that is a bit darker than the ground. – Lucas ^T 07:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas: Fixed. Thanks! -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 06:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea of the composition, but that cast shadow on the lake and foreground doesn't render so well in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pelophylax esculentus teichfrosch.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 20:44:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 07:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - despite the somewhat chaotic background --СССР (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 01:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really sharp closeup of the frog, and I don't find the rest of the composition chaotic, only complex. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the background actually works; it shows the animal's habitat quite well without distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stocherkähne in Tübingen an der Neckarfront gesehen von der Treppe vor der Neckarmauer 2019 002.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 18:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created by dktue - uploaded by dktue - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dktue (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please add a geolocation (GPS coordinates). – Lucas 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added geolocation --Dktue (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Quality is not perfect - the detail on the tree at the right looks a little bit blocky, which looks like a fault with the processing to me (perhaps too much noise reduction smoothing out detail?) But downsize to 3500px across and the problem is no longer noticeable. As for the composition, I find it really beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice view but the duck barely having entered the frame, the treetop in front, the treetops in the far distance and house facade all being cut off makes me feel too uneasy looking at this. I would have either included more on the top or focused in the water. – Lucas 20:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you prefer any of these two alternatives: Alternative 1, Alternative 2 --Dktue (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support alternative 2. – Lucas 21:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative 2 is nice, I agree. Cmao20 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alt 2 is good. I'd crop or clone out the branches at the upper left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would support alt #2 as well. Ikan is right with the highlight burns. It's just a little though. You can easily put the whites down gradually from the upper right corner. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dktue, you are new to this forum so we are more lenient with you, but in the future please try to keep discussions about suitable FPC options/alternatives at COM:CRIT. --Cart (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint, @Cart! :-) --Dktue (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All are beautiful compositions, but the brightest highlights look blown in all 3, so I'd want you to dial those down a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would suggest to follow Ikan’s/Jakub’s hint, of course, i.e. dial the brightest hightlights a bit down. --Aristeas (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. --Cart (tAlternatialk) 08:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas.--Vulp here 12:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd prefer the alternatives. Millennium bug (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of composition. Alternative 2 might work. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the way the bright willow stands out against the dull earth tones of the still-bare trees, so very early spring, but it comes through better in the Alternative 1 above. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--BoothSift 23:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 05:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Green and Golden Bell Frog.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 02:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created by Bernard Spragg - uploaded and nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 02:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator-- BoothSift 02:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small but very nice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Really too small, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I disagree. Frogs are not as large as you may expect them to be. I believe that the size here doesn't matter. --BoothSift 03:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 11 cm, but the back is a little soft, too. I think we've had much sharper frogs nominated here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Size is not everything. That's what she said. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Fryš, could you please skip the sexist comments/jokes. Keep it civil, that goes for some of your other (oppose) comments too. --Cart (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerest appologies. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! Yann (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not very high resolution, but sharp and well-composed. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, small, but I'm forgiving when it's wildlife and everything else is great. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 and Podzemnik. --Aristeas (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Piotr Bart (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes quite small, but the main issue is the composition. The frog is looking away and head is shaded. Sharpness not great. Charles (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I quite like the mood but the composition is lacking. Too much blurred foreground where I would like to see more of the background with more lead room to the left. – Lucas 17:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- --Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plaza de la Victoria (frente al sud).mnba.png

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 00:43:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
Info created by Charles Henri Pellegrini - uploaded by Poutourrou - restored/nominated by Ezarate-- Ezarateesteban 00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous nominatiom
Support -- Ezarateesteban 00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose a digital restoration of a unique painting, and two other reproductions look better, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan on this one--BoothSift 05:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the another versions has black points, I removed it in this version @Ikan Kekek: @Boothsift: Ezarateesteban 11:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You didn't pay attention to my comment. I will ignore this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2019 (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: As per above comments. Issue from previous nomination (wrong colors) has not been addressed. Yann (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2019 (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:Antonio Segni and Konrad Adenauer by Giuseppe Moro, August 1959.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2019 at 06:30:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1950-1960
Info Created by Giuseppe Moro, uploaded by KAS-ACDP - nominated by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Italian Prime Minister and later president Antonio Segni with Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, in Cadenabbia, northern Italy, Adenauer's 'summer residence'. The image was taken by the photographer Giuseppe Moro on August 22, 1959. The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung recently acquired thousands of images by Giuseppe Moro, an outstanding, now largely forgotten photojournalist who extensively documented Adenauer's repeated stays on the western shore of Lake Como. I came across this photograph when working on a book. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, highly valuable historical snap - well done on discovering it. Cmao20 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Am I seeing things or is there some strange effect by the lens? Their feet seem so tiny compared to their heads. Congrats on the book btw! --Cart (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The feet are alright, imo. I guess it's just their angle that creates this illusion, plus the fact that both men are wearing really wide trousers. Btw. I don't know what lense Moro used - but since his camera was a Rolleiflex, I'd say it was a decent one. I also checked the negative to be on the safe side and it looked alright as well. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ok then. --Cart (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 23:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What technique is he using to make them dominate the scene so much, almost as if they are in a completely different plane of existence that just happens to be placed in the scene? Is it just DoF or something else? Thanks for sharing the photo and congratulations on the book! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just DOF, using a medium format camera certainly did help. Moro wasn't just one of many photographers during Adenauer's frequent visits to his beloved Villa La Collina, btw., in fact he was granted special access on many occassions. So Moro was able to actually compose images rather than just take random snaps. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1950-1960

File:Mahnmal zu Ehren der Gefallenen des ersten Weltkriegs in Weilburg auf der steinernen Brücke.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 06:44:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info created by dktue - uploaded by dktue - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info The idea of this picture was to show the two orphaned children together with their mom and having the stars as an metaphor for the dead fathers above them in the sky. After mom told this story, the girl at her left looks up for her daddy. --Dktue (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dktue (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Only 2 active nominations per user are allowed. See Commons:Featured picture candidates n11. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I withdrawed another one. Thanks for the hint! --Dktue (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! --Podzemnik (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Lucas 10:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose point of view. Charles (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Doesn't work for me. Leaning too much on both sides. The stars above the woman's head are nice, but the crops on the left and especially the bottom are too close for my taste. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice idea and I can sympathize with the concept, but per Ikan, the leaning sides do not look good. --Cart (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--BoothSift 06:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suzdal asv2019-01 img25 Rizopolozhensky Monastery.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 19:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Russia
Info Robe Deposition Monastery in Suzdal as viewed from the street ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 19:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 19:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting shadows and branches all around and even shadows of trees not visible cast on the walls and doors. – Lucas 20:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect for the reasons Lucas mentions, but it's nice and sharp, and I find this kind of architecture really interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 06:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Отлично! But perhaps the branches on the left could be cloned out without hurting the image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 20:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Makarora River, Otago, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 22:08:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's Makarora River in Otago, New Zealand. I quite like the mood and these two hikers on the right side. They provide a scale so a viewer can actually realise how wide the river is (at this point around 500-700m). The hikers are finishing Gillespie Pass Circuit, 3 days long hike in Mount Aspiring National Park. -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 06:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Somehow with the horizon pretty much on center height and the, to me, less interesting foreground, this is not doing it for me. BTW, I've placed notes about possible dust spots in the sky and on the river. – Lucas ^T 07:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch: Thank you for your comment and your notes. I've removed the spot in the sky. I've also removed these black micro spots, I'm not sure what they were. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing what is special about that panorama. I'm not even sure what the topic is. The ~~lake~~ river? Then why on the bottom right like this? The left cut mountain? The right strangely placed mountain? And I'm neither a fan of the horizon in the middle. - Benh (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edited to replace "lake" by "river" - Benh (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, no need to put extra commentary on edits, especially if you use strikethrough <s></s>. Use the Edit summary if you want to comment on what you did. – Lucas ^T 08:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas: Yes I know. It might not look like but i started contributing before you ;) (unless u used another account... we have that over here). Just wanted to be clear (and not everyone take the time to look at history log)? - Benh (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benh: Lucas was just trying to help, no need for all of the "i started contributing before you" bogus. No need to brag about when you started contributing here since it isn't necessary and nobody actually cares. And the funny thing is that Lucas actually started before you. You meant Lucasbosch, right? --BoothSift 02:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift: I think that's rather a rude comment. It seems to me that Benh was being perfectly polite (as was Lucas for that matter). Nothing about this looked bad-tempered or arrogant to me. (And it appears that Benh is indeed correct that he's been here a long time, I can find photos from Benh uploaded as long ago as 2007). Cmao20 (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: Fine, then I will politely disagree with his comment. Are you happy now? --BoothSift 23:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 09:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You chose to focus on the far bank and make the foreground somewhat unsharp, but the effect is not drastic and the composition and quality are very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- --Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 03:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:P.S. Krøyer, Et møde i Videnskabernes Selskab, 1897, Det Kongelige Danske Videnskaberners Selskab.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2019 at 17:22:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by P.S. Krøyer - photo by Frida Gregersen; Skagens Kunstmuseer | Art Museums of Skagen - uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the largest painting made by Peder Severin Krøyer, height: 266.7 cm (105 in); width: 519.4 cm (17 ft)
dimensions QS:P2048,266,7U174728
dimensions QS:P2049,519,4U174728
--Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Photo: Frida Gregersen", glad to see there is at least one woman involved in this. SCNR ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 23:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Cart ;o) --Yann (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 22:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paradise shelduck portrait, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 21:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Family_:_Anatidae_(Ducks,_Geese,_and_Swans)
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's Paradise shelduck portrait, a duck endemic to New Zealand. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 06:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality. Cmao20 (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice perfect sun in the eye. :) --Cart (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 09:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probably valuable, but not very outstanding photography-wise. It's a close-up with harsh light. - Benh (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh – Lucas ^T 20:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- --Famberhorst (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Fischer.H (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 03:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Family_:_Anatidae_(Ducks,_Geese,_and_Swans)

File:Zorzal litsitsirupa (Turdus litsitsirupa), Santuario de Rinocerontes Khama, Botsuana, 2018-08-02, DD 13.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2019 at 17:33:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info Exemplar of Groundscraper thrush (Turdus litsitsirupa), Khama Rhino Sanctuary, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 17:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots of sharp, high-resolution detail on the bird. I can't pretend I love the background especially, but still a great capture. Cmao20 (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. Background is more active than I'd like, but the bird is good enough that that seems a minor point in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 23:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 22:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pfarrkirche St Georg in Lüsen Kreuzigung Südtirol.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 07:34:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, composition doesn't do it for me, bad crop on the left and right. The entire top half is blurred vertically, looks like camera shake (see top part of the cross). – Lucas ^T 07:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow is of course subjective, and personally I don't feel it lacks on that front, but the blurring of the top half is considerably too serious a problem for me to support. It definitely looks like camera shake, and is visible clearly even when downsized to 3000px across. Cmao20 (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao20 and Lucas, not very wowing IMO--Booth sift 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's not sharp.--Peulle (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hörnchen Hofer Zoo 08062019.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 20:14:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Welcome to FPC! This is a fun picture but falls short on too many aspects we value here. The crop on the left and bottom is too tight while the right side includes distracting elements. Overal exposure is too dark, the camera compensated for the bright background so the squirrel is too dark to see good detail. Noise level is quite high and this high ISO and short shutter speed were not needed. There are visible chromatic aberrations on the top part of the mesh. You might find other's opinions on COM:CRIT helpful before nominating in the future. – Lucas ^T 21:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the reasons specified by Lucas.--Peulle (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2019 (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.

Image:Kleiber (Sitta europaea caesia) Val Roseg.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 06:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Chme82 - uploaded by Chme82 - nominated by Chme82 -- Chme82 (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chme82 (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail and dynamic composition (poised and ready to go). That "Super Trouper (spotlight)" bokeh is very lucky and well placed. --Cart (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 07:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geo reference would be good. Also, I suggest to copyedit that tiny stick or a needle on the left bottom corner. Focusing on the bird would become more straightforward. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for all your reviews and the feedback. I've just made a slight adjustment of the forground and have added the location. I hope that's ok for all of you? Chme82 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I still really don't like the blurred - albeit improved - foreground, but I know that if you cropped it out, a bunch of people would oppose your nomination because of the resulting tight crop on the bottom. And the bird is great and definitely solidly at FP level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Desert varnish - Valley of Fire State Park.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 14:40:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Nevada
Info: all by me -- СССР (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: second nomination - recropped and relit, improved colour -- СССР (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition and the left crop is not ideal, I'd like to see more of the rock there. Light is okay. The resolution is quite low, there is no real detail but just smudgy areas. Sharpening was overdone, everywhere the rock contour is in shadow (=dark), there's a big bright halo around it. – Lucas ^T 15:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but it doesn't look as an exceptional composition to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others above, lo siento --Booth sift 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition I miss anything that gives me an impression of the size of the rock.--Christof46 (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination СССР (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Tschiertschen (1350 meter) via Ruchtobel richting Ochsenalp 016.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 15:46:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural #Switserland.
* Info Dead tree stumps with whimsical curves and overgrown with mosses.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp, and interesting shapes. Cmao20 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao. --Aristeas (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is good but I miss wow here Poc o² 17:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per poco2 Millennium bug (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnarly, man. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agnes has an offbeat worldview, these photograhies that seem innocuous are always very neat and leads us into a quiet and appeased world. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 00:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leptoglossus occidentalis-Amerikanische Kiefernwanze-Western conifer seed bug.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 21:20:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info All by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice quality. It'd be great to: 1) remove a dust spot that I marked, 2) write into the image a technique you used to shoot it (Photostacked? How many frames? ...) None of these points are important enough not to support right away :) --Podzemnik (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Podzemnik--BoothSift 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see some processing artefacts on the bottom two legs: smearing on the left and white haloes on the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing to me, and how do you see white halos on a white background? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The background is close to pure white but not quite and I see some slight vignetting. It should be uniformly pure white. – Lucas ^T 05:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done In this new version I have tried to get all issues fixed. Thanks for the reviews.--Ermell (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 16:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good job, I congratulate you. I do not congratulate you for your caption, which is misunderstood. Heal your captions! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 00:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panaroma from poonhill-2019-BJ.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 16:33:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere. --XRay ^talk 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent resolution, beautiful scene. Cmao20 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the tourists somewhat disillusioning but that is probably the reality.--Ermell (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Ermell though--BoothSift 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Location? -- -donald- (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghorepani Poon Hill Location :)--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ermell. --Aristeas (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bijay, after this photo passes, please correct the misspelling of "panorama" in the filename. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure and thank you @Ikan Kekek: -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 00:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tugboat Boss on a foggy night 4.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2019 at 17:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
Info Usually night photos of boats show the whole boat, but this close-up the tugboat makes me think of some huge benevolent entity keeping watch over the fjord and harbor, even on those very cold nights between Christmas and New Year's Eve. All by me, --Cart (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like that you are trying to make more unconventional nominations. What it comes down to here is the low exposure on most of the boat (the cabin interior is nice) so not a lot is well visible. The hazy air makes the background less attractive. There's some serious posterization as well, see note. – Lucas ^T 20:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the composition works because of the fog and the darkness/(selected exposure). It separates the boat nicely from the background. Without it there would be no story, no tension in the photo. It would be just another flat harbor image. --Cart (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your intent but don't share that feeling. I do feel the tension, from these reddish posterization artifacts in the sky ;). The area I marked in the image is just the most visible part, in reality the whole sky has some posterization. – Lucas ^T 12:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the posterization removed. I guess there are things you have to live with when you take pictures under difficult light and weather conditions. For totally perfect photos, we should all stay indoors and only do studio shots. --Cart (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Lucas, lo siento. --BoothSift 02:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support works for me. I do see what you're trying to visualize, Cart. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin, on the whole I think it works. Cmao20 (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin.--Vulp here 11:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work for me. Not enough of the boat is visible, leaving the subjet unclear.--Peulle (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo will then not be perfect. But for me very special. This is another way of photographing. And I like it.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This photo does have something extra and might look great against a bright white wall, but I have to judge the experience of looking at it on a computer screen, and I just don't think this amount of total blackness works for me, because it is flat and gives the eye no lines, curves or shapes to move around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The haze ruins the photo, and the boat is too dark to be an interesting foreground element, too bright to be a silhouette. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Haze may be interesting, but the boat is too dark. --Yann (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something sort of painterly about it ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tells a story. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others Millennium bug (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 00:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2019-05-18 Fußball, Frauen, UEFA Women's Champions League, Olympique Lyonnais - FC Barcelona StP 1075 LR10 by Stepro.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 08:51:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created & uploaded by Stepro - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered composition, needs much more room on the bottom and slight tilt judging by the background. – Lucas ^T 09:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very regretfully I have to agree with Lucas about the tilt and the bottom crop. I don't mind the centered here since the background proves some framing. --Cart (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- File:2019-05-18 Fußball, Frauen, UEFA Women's Champions League, Olympique Lyonnais - FC Barcelona StP 1076 LR10 by Stepro.jpg is a portrait shot 2x larger of the players, we see both their faces. Would that be suitable? It isn't quite as sharp, even accounting for larger size, though I think it is sharp enough if I look at it at at 220ppi. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably taken from the same photo burst and cropped to portrait so the quality is ok but I kind of like their expressions better in this one, cleaner more forceful. Tricky. --Cart (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Composition. The faces aren't clearly visible since the angle is a bit off. Also, the cropped foot is a bit of a downer.--Peulle (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture, but the composition and crop could be better. Cmao20 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others above--Booth sift 18:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 06:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.11.-03-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Seefrosch.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2019 at 15:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Order : Anura (Frogs)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 16:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 05:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I do not like the harsh light --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Didn't care for it at first because of the light, but the detail at full size is very nice. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Börnste, Mohn am Feldrand -- 2019 -- 6384.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2019 at 14:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Ranunculales
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 14:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 14:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's beautiful morning light and I like how you captured the glow of the flowers being lit from behind with their overlapping leaves. The composition unfortunately doesn't really wow me as the most colorful subjects are lined up around center height. The flower on the left being cut is not ideal either. The narrow aperture makes the background too busy and disctracts from the front row of flowers. With the slower shutter speed there's motion blur so nothing is quite as sharp is it could be, but maybe some light sharpening can improve this. – Lucas ^T 16:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, notwithstanding a few flaws. Cmao20 (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice composition, pleasant to move my eyes around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 01:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again one of those backlit scenes that look so gorgeous IRL but that I constantly fail to capture. <sigh!> I envy your talent! --Cart (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What should I say to such a praise? We influence each other, right? --XRay ^talk 09:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I can find just one flower which is in focus, the major part of the image is not. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1--Ermell (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. Unfortunately the light is at such an angle that on first view it is easy to conclude that these flowers are just orange and not realize they're backlit. Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1 -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others Millennium bug (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fontaine de Tourny, Centre-Ville de Québec.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2019 at 22:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Fountains
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose f/20 on DX just isn't going to give a sharp image. The lighting is also not used effectively IMO; the scene is slightly backlit, which creates a luminescent effect on the trees. Normally that would be a good thing, but as the trees are so far on the edges it distracts from the central message. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with King of Hearts on this one. The image, especially near the fountain/the background is not very sharp. --BoothSift 05:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, I like the composition and it's a very pretty view, but there's a bit too much diffraction softness. Cmao20 (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alt version, featured

Info Alternative version with more sharpening, it is expected that there are people because it is a tourist place. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment King of Thanks for your feedback --Wilfredor (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the lower angle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks better.--Vulp here 08:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David290 (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this quite a lot now. Cmao20 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 04:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Fontaine de Tourny, Centre-Ville de Québec alt.jpg

File:Hortus Haren 18-05-2019. (d.j.b).08.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2019 at 15:07:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family asparagaceae.
Info Flower buds, flowers and wilted flowers on these beautiful blue spring flowers. (See note.)
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very useful image (also with the three notes), easy VI, as with many of this kind, and captured quite well. It lacks a decisive composition and good background separation and the one diagonal blade of grass distracts from the subject. Unfortunately some blue wilted flower leafs on the bottom are out of focus even though they are on the front because of the tilted focus plane. – Lucas ^T 17:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the recent edits of the background my opinion remains. The cloning in the background could be done more carefully, I can see a lot of individual cloning stamp operations. – Lucas ^T 16:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak support~~ I like it overall but personally I think I'd crop a bit off the top, there's too much empty green space for me and it makes it look a little unbalanced. Cmao20 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I prefer the new version. Cmao20 (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Support - Delicate and pretty, but the background is a little active and might benefit from the various stems being blurred a bit more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Lucas and Cmao--BoothSift 01:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Background slightly blurred.Thanks for the review.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose basically per Lucas. --El Grafo (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas Millennium bug (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:München 1 Milliarde 1923.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2019 at 16:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Issued by the Bayerische Notenbank in Munich (1923), reproduced from an original banknote, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05.
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the historical context see this article. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 05:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Prang's Valentine Cards2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2019 at 10:30:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category:- Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info - L. Prang & Co. made this card,Durova uploaded it and Eatcha nominated it. Need an online Tiff file-type viewer ? I got it, click here -- Eatcha (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look like helium balloons to me, quite interesting thus I Support it -- Eatcha (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting piece of Americana. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting--BoothSift 05:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should we promote a TIF file? It's not very user friendly to view it. Maybe we could promote JPG and have a TIF file as a source file in the file's description? Just wondering. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute ;-). However, Podzemnik is right, it would be better to promote a (high-quality) JPEG version and link this (TIFF) as ‘archival’ version. --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support it would be even more sensible to promote the JPEG version.--Vulp here 10:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth pointing out that you can always get Commons to render a full-resolution JPEG version of a TIF file by looking at the selection of 'other resolutions' directly underneath the image on the image page. Cmao20 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info Podzemnik,Aristeas&Vulphere now it's jpg format—– Eatcha (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support More multi-cultural images! --Cart (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 02:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trillium grandiflorum at Backus Woods.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2019 at 19:04:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Liliales
Info all by me -- СССР (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't know how much I like the overall composition, but this is such an impressive closeup of a flower that to me, it's a total no-brainer for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 01:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Although the quality and sharpness is very good, it isn't one of my favourite flower pictures. The light seems a little bit harsh, with too many shadowy areas. According to the metadata it has been taken with flash, which explains this, I think. Cmao20 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao, and the shadow is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Millennium bug (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Cmao20,--Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Invalid oppose vote: no reason given. – Lucas ^T 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Should we strike the oppose votes on other pictures if no reason continues to be given? Just checking because there is at least one nomination (for this picture) for which the seemingly-invalid vote would, as it stands, make or break the nomination, and I think we should make sure we're consistent with this. Cmao20 (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20, yes, but please wait until after the voting period has ended, no need to strike the votes now. – Lucas ^T 21:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; understood. Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Webysther 20190219233752 - Fruta do cambuci (Campomanesia phaea)- na esquerda é o fruto maduro e na direita é o fruto verde.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 03:57:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 03:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 03:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Interesting but maybe a little bit noisy. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is really no composition here. The fruits look rather forlorn in that black space. --Cart (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy. We can do better in 2019. --MB-one (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per this. – Lucas ^T 16:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Per the discussion at ANU--BoothSift 23:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MB-one.--Vulp here 08:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart; they sort of look like they're just hanging there. This might have worked with more colorful fruits. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Millennium bug (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a vote of encouragement. You are on the right track, still a few tries; you are not very far away. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 04:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Đurđevića Tara.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2019 at 13:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Followyourheartmarkomaodus - uploaded by Followyourheartmarkomaodus - nominated by Ivan_VA; Photo of a bridge in northern Montenegro, built from 1937. to 1940. across the Tara river canyon. The pic is not mine, kinda found it here, while gathering info for the article about it. It's my pirst pic to nominate here, tho :) Btw, just saw that there are no bridge pics from Montenegro in the featured category, so sorry for the lack of specification. -- Ivan VA (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan VA (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is stunning light and I was ready to support, but the 3.8 MP resolution is very small for a landscape and sharpness as well as detail is lacking. Minor Chromatic abberations (CA) on the bridge supports. If this was downscaled (and maybe otherwise altered), the original photo would be much more appreciated to judge the quality more fairly and accurately. Maybe the original is much better than what this version makes it look like. J_budissin, are you the photographer? – Lucas ^T 14:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i myself saw the same -technological- lack u did, but i never than less, nominated it. I guess, we can't alter photos just because camera technology improves every year. People just have to take/get used to the fact that all photos can't be hd and that early 00' photos are as much appreciated. Anyway, that's my view. Tnx for the vote tho :) --Ivan VA (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the photo was taken in the early 2000s, then that info belongs on the file page and in your comment on the top of this nomination. – Lucas ^T 16:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, i've expressed myself badly. I meant the camera was probably from the early 00's, not the photo. --Ivan VA (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The picture is very beautiful, and you clearly have a good eye visually for what makes an FP. However, as per Lucas, the size and quality is not that good for a landscape. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: Would it make any difference if i'd change category/nominate it for an other category (where resolution doesn't matter that much)? --Ivan VA (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think it really would. The picture is still the same picture, whatever category you nominate it for. Whether you put it in the landscape category or not, it still is a landscape, and for a picture that is relatively easy to take (unlike, for example, a macro shot that might be more technically challenging), I don't think the resolution is good enough. Cmao20 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per others --BoothSift 01:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small with perspective issues (verticals are not straight) --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 08:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly tilted, CA visible, wrong white balance, far too small Poc o² 15:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château d'eau - porte (Colmar).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 10:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 10:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 10:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's nothing wrong with it per se, but I don't find it massively interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing bad, but no wow. Yann (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not so sure. I really like the curvature. I'll live with the photo for a while before deciding, but I don't think we should dismiss the pleasant simplicity of this photo too quickly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a lot of potential here with the shape of the door and the curvature of the building, but a centered head-on capture in soft light doesn't make the best use of it and I find it slightly nauseating to look at. The photo is very useful for other purposes but FP needs more wow. – Lucas ^T 16:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image is appealing beautiful and technically perfect. It could almost encourage writing a story. I do not miss a wow. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--BoothSift 23:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I gave this photo a chance, but ultimately, I think that I would probably support it (though no guarantees) in brighter light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 08:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does this building curve like this naturally, or is this some effect of the lens? Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal, the base of the water tower is not vertical. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Missing wow Millennium bug (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pavo cristatus - Maroparque 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 07:02:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good peacock head with pleasant peacock back bokeh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MB-one (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed, this is great. Cmao20 (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the way its head feathers are overlaid over that dark patch on its body is not pretty. I would prefer better separation, also between the animal and the background which is very dark here. Overal composition doesn't excite me, it looks a bit too arbitrary to be honest. – Lucas ^T 13:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucasbosch --Fischer.H (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I sort of agree with Lucasbosch--BoothSift 23:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millennium bug (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2011-03-01-f-bois-d-oye-5.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 20:41:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created & uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aye. -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ This definitely has something about it. Cmao20 (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Cart - fair point. Cmao20 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it--BoothSift 06:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The photography in this is fine, but all that modern rubbish spoils the overall impression for me. --Cart (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart, in addition I'm not really sure about the WB and it is a pity that the door behind the arch is cropped Poc o² 13:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The rubbish doesn't bother me so much, but the overly warm (it seems) WB does. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The perpendicular arches are interesting, and I feel the oppressive, crushing feeling of being stuck there. I think the relatively low angle helps produce that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Karelj (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.07.06.-48-Wendisch Rietz--Zauneidechse-Weibchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 19:09:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Order : Squamata (Lizards and Snakes)
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful image, most of the lizard is captured well. For FP I'm missing wow and the harsh frontal light with the shadows isn't pretty I'm afraid. – Lucas ^T 19:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I am undecided currently--BoothSift 23:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Support now --Booth sift 20:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --СССР (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Wikipedia, this type of lizard "can reach up to 25 cm (10 in) in length". It's sharp except near the tip of its tail at full size in this photo, which is way bigger than 25 cm. As a matter of fact, on my 13-inch laptop screen, merely looking at full screen, it's 27 cm long. So I think that's quite excellent, wowing, and deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good but with help of a flash what makes the lighting artificial along with the human-made granite surface. Not the real wildlife feeling of most or your other FP noms, sorry. Poc o² 10:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Invalid oppose vote without a reason, vote count corrected. – Lucas ^T 22:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas ^T 22:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mud Cow Racing - Pacu Jawi - West Sumatra, Indonesia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 19:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Rodney Ee - uploaded by Jacopo Werther - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! This is a wall of mud droplets fixated in space like in The Matrix. Great expression as well. The crowd in the background is nicely visible for a perfect amount of context.. – Lucas ^T 19:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The action shot to end all action shots! Eat your heart out Tom Cruise. --Cart (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, shouldn't this be in "Sports" category? --Cart (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cart done --Mimihitam (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great shot! It would be wonderful to have a little more information about mud cow racing. I'm not familiar with this. West Sumatra - that's Minangkabau? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek yes it isǃ You can read more about it here: pacu jawi --Mimihitam (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih, Mimihitam. It would be great to add that link to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It's very dramatic, but there are a lot of JPEG artefacts, probably caused by being saved at a high-compression setting. Cmao20 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Dramatic scene, but image quality is quite low (CAs, noise, sharpness) --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Typical case of the wow factor supercedes the lack of quality.--Peulle (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The visible lack of sharpness in the details, the impression of noise despite a reasonably low ISO of 2200 is the same thing that's bothering me when shooting sports at high shutter speeds. Using the same camera and lenses for stills the images are crisp and nearly noise free - even at ISO 3200. --Granada (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! That's action! --Yann (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A strong wow, but it might have been a bit sharper --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice action shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 08:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though I'm not super impressed by the quality or people in the back, it's a pretty wowy shot. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has nothing to do with the quality of the photo. But a rope through the nostrils is not my thing.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And with this oppose you will now have to see the image another five days. --Granada (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All users have the right to vote according to how they perceive a photo. Even if I support this, I will respect Famberhorst's view without commenting on it. --Cart (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not want to disrespect Famberhorst's vote, but my interpretation of his comment with the vote was that he finds the view of the photo disgusting and that he would not want to have to look at it anymore. :) --Granada (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support You have two cows. You race them through the mud. It goes flying everywhere. It makes a real cool photo that will have the editors of National Geographic calling to find out how they can run it in the next issue. And then the government sells you the milk. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain because of WOW, as I would have opposed pretty much any other image of this qualtity. From the thumbnail, I really wanted to support this. But even downscaled to my screen resolution of 1920x1281 (ca. 2.5mpx) the quality is lacking quite obviously. It's starting to look pretty good around 1000x667 (0.6mpx). That might still be enough for a half-page print in NatGeo, but the big double-page spread is probably off the table. Anyway, I'm sure we're looking at a POTY finalist here. --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Fischer.H (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Per Uoaei1, and especially because of the many jpg-artefacts in the lower part Llez (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Vincenzo Laviosa - Franklin D. Roosevelt - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 17:03:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Vincenzo Laviosa / Google Art Project, uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann -- Yann (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The expression, the light and the tone make this portrait very dramatic. -- Yann (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, they do, and he looks like a tough guy in this picture. It could be digitally restored, but I don't think that's essential. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, a very intense portrait. Cmao20 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intense indeed, but the more you look at it the softer it becomes. Amazing portrait. -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having seen how other images here have been reviewed in the past, I'd want to see some restoration work before I'd vote for this.--Peulle (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, per Peulle. No doubt about the quality of the portrait. But for a FP I would have expected some cleaning up. At full size the dust and scratches are distracting, as are the visible grey edges on the left and right side. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and B2B. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peulle, B2Belgium, and Daniel Case: I fixed the biggest issues. Some more could be done, but I don't have time now. Later. Yann (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wells Cathedral Lady Chapel, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2019 at 20:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The Lady Chapel of Wells Cathedral, Somerset, UK. Constructed between 1175 and 1490, Wells is often seen as Europe's first truly Gothic cathedral. The Lady Chapel was probably designed by Thomas Witney (1310-1319) and has many distinctive features including the ancient stained glass and the unusual 'reticulate' or net-like construction of the windows. Once more, FP on English Wikipedia, where it passed unanimously. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another beautiful one by Mr. Iliff. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp and detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others --BoothSift 23:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But is the floor in the foreground really bent in this way or is it an effect of wide-angle? --Llez (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I very much suspect it's an effect of the lens, but one that is probably unavoidable given the type of projection necessary. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 05:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Michielverbeek. --Aristeas (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 00:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Шпиці 3.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 15:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created by Swift11 - uploaded by Swift11 - nominated by Swift11 -- Михайло Пецкович (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Михайло Пецкович (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain~~ Your camera is capable of 10 MPx and this image has 5 MPx. As you never answered the inquiries about possible downsampling in your previous nomination and spoonfeeding an updated version of slightly larger size, I will not even bother this time. In my opinion you are trying to make the image appear to be of better quality and it's generally not appreciated here. Both are great photos, no need for this chicanery. – Lucas ^T 16:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please, the size has increased to the maximum -- Swift11 13:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... Lucas, please explain what rules I am violating when submitting a photo not in full size? I'm new to this resource ... -- Swift11 13:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no strict rule I'm aware of, but generally here at Commons we prefer the highest resolution available for multiple reasons and being able to review images fairly and accurately is an additional one. In the case of FP nomination downscaling can be understood as deceiving the reviewers and you don't do a good job of removing that feeling. Even here you increased the size step by step in the file history. – Lucas ^T 10:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... Lucas, 1. Since there are no clear rules, and I'm a novice here, I have not imagined that should load a file with maximum resolution! And you do not get tired of accusing of cheating! 2. Now, I know about this unwritten rule. I uploaded a photo of the maximum size. Are you satisfied? I please other remarks! :-) ... -- Swift11 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have made the situation clear in the previous nomination but became frustrated with you too quickly which was in part due to problems with another user not related to this. That said, please try to be more open about what processing you did so accustations can be resolved quickly and ask questions if you are unsure. You delivered after all so I might revisit the photo for a review. – Lucas ^T 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you scared all the photocritics from this photo ... :-) -- Swift11 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Per Lucas. Really, there isn't any need to downsize - most of us are fairly good at realising that we can't expect the same quality at pixel level that we get at smaller sizes. Cmao20 (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a photo of the maximum size. Do you have any more critical comments on the photo? -- Swift11 18:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not a critical comment here, Swift11, but it's important for you to ping everyone who's voted or commented on this photo, now that you've provided the full-resolution version of it. To be sure, it's not nearly as large as many of the nominees in recent years, but I think it's big enough if that's all you've got (and if it's not, cough up the full size, but you said this was the "maximum", so I assume it is). I didn't like the smaller version, which seemed to have visible posterization lines around the sun. These are absent in this version. This image is surreal and would be a good album cover for a 70s progressive rock group like Yes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One other comment: If you're up to adding an English-language file description, that would be welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DoneAdded a description in English-language -- Swift11 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Swift11. I think that's big enough now (Ikan Kekek it is 9.9 mpx which is what we would expect from his camera). Thus Support but do provide the full-res version in the future. Cmao20 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Per Lucas--BoothSift 23:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral per Lucas.--Vulp here 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per Lucas. --Peulle (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1-Lucas – Support, 2-Peulle , per Lucas – Oppose.... A very fun resource :-) -- Swift11 13:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boothsift, Vulphere, Peulle, the image is no longer downscaled so you might want to revisit your comments. An oppose for downscaling alone is no longer applicable. – Lucas ^T 21:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, now

Support.--Vulp here 23:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, moving to

Support now--Booth sift 05:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't mind the size but like your previous nomination, I think this looks over-processed. Looking through your upload I see that it's a style you seem to have. I noticed that you had another version of the previous nom, File:Polonyna v tumanah.jpg, which looks much more natural than the File:За селом 2.jpg you nominated. Do you perhaps have another, less processed version of this? --Cart (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visit the mountains in the morning or in the evening after a thunderstorm, and you will be surprised that there are saturated warm and saturated cold colors. -- Swift11 09:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per Cart. I'm aware that there can be strong colors in the sky around the sun given the right combination of recent weather, humidity and the angle of the sun. I have experienced that myself, and photographed it—however, it was under unusual conditions, during a very late white-night sunset in the Canadian far north, helped by a little smoke in the air, and when I processed those photos I may well have yielded to the temptation to lay it on a bit.
I am not sure the same thing hasn't happened here, especially given that this sun does not seem so close to the horizon. It's a beautiful scene, to be sure, but it looks like the matte background you'd see behind Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the redshirts as they beam down. Or on the cover of the paperback James Blish adaptation. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... it seems to him!!!!!!! ..." "he certainly was not in the mountains but convinced!!!!!!!!!!!! .." But open your eyes and see that the sun is coming out of the spine (behind the ridge, there is a distant that is in the fog) !? I am impressed by the "competence" of critics! I see that it is not possible to force a waiter to go where they can not understand. I do not think that there will be a desire to load here something else! What else do you think !? Tell me, we will laugh with the darts! PS. And it seems to me that you are blaming what you have not seen! PS.PS. Daniel Case:"which also looks like it could have been added as a texture in Photoshop—I'm not saying that it was" https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:_%D0%97%D0%B0_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC_2.jpg ))) "Swift11 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC) 09:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now that I'm cooled off, I think the special mood of this combined with the strong composition of the rock formations is something very much worth featuring. Regarding processing, I'll allow some leeway for the photographer to show how the scene made an impression to him. – Lucas ^T 06:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this on Earth? ;o) --Yann (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Languages of Northern Sumatra en.svg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 21:16:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps_of_Asia
Info created by Masjawad99 - uploaded by Masjawad99 - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request as you've made this in Inkscape and it's purely vector shapes, this should be uploaded and nominated as a svg file instead of bitmap graphics. – Lucas ^T 21:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Masjawad99 Mimihitam (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasbosch and Mimihitam: Does this work? Masjawad99 (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. You can move/rename this nomination page to have the svg file extension and change out the embedded file. – Lucas ^T 07:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasbosch done Mimihitam (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This really belongs in the Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps#Maps_of_Asia category, and the legend entry for the Malay language should use black text over the yellow. – Lucas ^T 09:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tag @Masjawad99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimihitam (talk • contribs) 10:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lucasbosch and Mimihitam: Done. Masjawad99 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Somewhere, it should be noted that all the requested changes have been made. It's a very nice map, but there's one further needed change: According to the locator map at the lower right, a large part of the Malay Peninsula is in this map, but actually, it isn't. Therefore, the locator map needs to be edited accordingly. Once that's done, I will support. A few of the abbreviations, such as "zlm" for "Malay" and "lcf" for Lubu seem a bit strange, but they're clearly explained, and that's what really matters. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: How about now? As for lcf and zlm, they are actually not abbreviations, but ISO 639-3 language codes. I have clarified it in the description. Masjawad99 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not impressive --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks a lot, Masjawad99. Forgive me, I found another problematic thing on the map: "non-indigenous or sparsely inhabited". Any so-called "non-indigenous" language should probably be included on the map if it's a map of current language usage, but I can clearly see that the areas in question are in the interior, and therefore must be sparsely inhabited, with presumably an aboriginal population of some kind if there are people there. So wouldn't "sparsely inhabited" be a sufficient description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: Done. Don't hesitate to let me know if there are other things that I should fix. Masjawad99 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih. Support - As I said above, this is a nice map. I find it attractive (I like the waves in the water), it's clear and can serve as a good example for similar maps that cover other parts of the world. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Perhaps a VI but it's too cluttered for it to be pleasant enough to look at for looking's sake. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Mimihitam (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Misumena vatia Vs Episyrphus balteatus.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 05:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info I feel like we haven't had an featured picture of a spider eating a fly in a very long time. So, I present to you this image which was created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus and nominated by me, Boothsift -- BoothSift 05:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a side note, Misumena vatia(the spider) is 6 to 9 mm, while Episyrphus balteatus (the hoverfly) is 9-12 mm. --Booth sift 07:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator -- BoothSift 05:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, and certainly has wow factor. Cmao20 (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eatcha (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The scene is happening in a rose. We must beware of roses... Thanks to Boothsift for this nomination. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 05:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eugène Grasset - Jules Massenet - Werther.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 12:26:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Eugène Grasset - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A valuable historical item of excellent quality.--Peulle (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peulle. What are the differences between the two versions of this file, just out of curiosity? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: You mean the PNG and JPEG? One's lossless, the other doesn't get hit by the infamous thumbnailer bug. From original? Damage removed, levels adjusted, cropped, pretty much. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I just looked at them without paying attention to the file extension. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Eatcha (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kiirunavaara September 2017 10.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 11:33:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Aerial view (from helicopter) of the former open-pit mines of Kiirunavaara (foreground) and Luossavaara (background) and the arctic mining town of Kiruna. Under the mountains and city center is one of the largest and richest bodies of iron ore in the world. Today Kiruna Mine is the largest and most modern underground iron ore mine in the world and since mining began at the site in 1898, the mine has produced over 950 million tonnes of ore.
Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - As usual, FP search is not working. I have a funny feeling of deja vu - didn't you nominate, and didn't we feature another picture, showing the current and future sites of Kiruna plus some mines? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info @Ikan Kekek: A very different images, and it was not featured.--ArildV (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this much better than the previous one. The cloud layers and distant fjälls go well with the soft earth tones. Resolution is fine considering it is taken from a helicopter. I think we may have become too spoiled by all the recent Hasselblad panoramas here. ;-) --Cart (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Eatcha (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Mount Bigelow.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 04:51:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Maine
Info: all by me -- СССР (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please comment - it seems way too dark. For reference, this photo was taken at 17:28, 22 June 2017. Today is June 11, 2019 and sunset in Eustis, Maine was at 8:29 PM, which is 20:29. So why is this photo so dark? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I wouldn't trust the EXIF time, I'm not very disciplined when it comes to changing timezone settings. It was taken much later in the evening. --СССР (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - OK, in that case, I like the mood, the form and the long sight lines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing outstanding, bad light. -- -donald- (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose basically per Donald, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Donald.--Vulp here 07:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly for the composition, either include more foreground to show more of the grass or go for the distant scenery—which is beautiful—but this exact halving doesn't work for me. It feels as if the wrong focal length was used and you were too far away. – Lucas ^T 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the picture on the whole, and find it very restful, but I do think it looks too dark and shadowy on the whole. I understand why you nominated it, but it doesn't personally amaze me enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Booth sift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --СССР (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tõus (J. Künnap).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 21:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Jaan Künnap - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photo was made in 1983 at Caucasus mountains. Wiki article of the photographer.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes please! -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valuable, but still too small + missing any more precise location rather than just "Caucasus". --A.Savin 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Künnap now added a bigger file here. Should I just replace the images from this nomination here to this bigger version? Kruusamägi (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On should I close this and open a new nominaton? Kruusamägi (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too small for the composition --BoothSift 23:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, lovely composition but should be higher resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 08:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small to impress me.--Peulle (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a great photo. Since this was taken a while ago and exhibited at an historical event, I think it belongs in the /Historical category. However, most scans even of older photos are significantly larger. Since the photographer is still alive and active, it could perhaps be possible to ask for a bigger version of this photo. --Cart (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And for the location. --A.Savin 12:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I got some location info and added that to the image description. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "missing wow" Millennium bug (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uspensky Cave Monastery 3.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 11:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Info created by Dmottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Well-Informed Optimist -- Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no. The light is backwards in the photo with all of the main subject in shadow. Post-processing is not quite up to FP level with purple CA everywhere and the detail in the image is not that great. Btw, please add the FP category to your nom as per nomination instructions. --Cart (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duomo vecchio e duomo nuovo notturna Brescia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2019 at 13:45:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, what an utterly immense photograph! Cmao20 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great piece of work Moroder! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - magnificent! --СССР (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Like they said. The amazing size of the photo overrides any questions one could have about whether somewhere else might have been a better place to crop. There is one subtle dust spot to the right of the very bottom of the spire on the Duomo vecchio. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fraid but the duomo vecchio doesn't have a spire as far as I understand ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the nearest building is has a thing sticking up in the middle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 23:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some tilt (right side is leaning in, left side leaning out). Poc o² 07:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not so sure about that --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The right side is clearly leaning in, the left side slightly leaning out. You are not sure about that? How would you fix that without applying a tilt and some adjustments in the perspective correction? Poc o² 17:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Magnificent. --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are ghosts in the picture. Perhaps just try it half an hour earlier and with shorter exposure time. Sorry --A.Savin 10:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin; there are also some random unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A-wiki-guest-user: Would you please give an explanation--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striked invalid oppose because missing reason. Restore the vote if a reason gets added. – Lucas ^T 06:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 21:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soviet military cemetery in Katowice (Kattowitz).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2019 at 14:31:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall I find this an historically interesting motif that is worth featuring. Cmao20 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A quality photo, but no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good photo, but I feel like for FP, it's missing something, such as perhaps more light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Vulp here 23:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan--BoothSift 23:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 21:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise at Maligne lake.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2019 at 16:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Alberta
Info Canada, Rocky mountains, national park Jasper. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A tiny bit of noise, but nevertheless an extraordinary composition. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice, freezing mood! But will you remove a couple of dust spots that I marked for you, please? Thanks! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I removed dust and uploaded fullsize vesion. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sergey, it's really beautiful, but the snowy slopes of the mountains look like stylized prints or etchings to me, so I feel like you overprocessed the photo, maybe by using too much sharpening or something (I'm not sure what exactly caused this). Is there a way you could make them look more natural? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek I uploaded fullsize vesrion without oversharpening. Maybe the picture now look better. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm really not seeing much difference other than a larger size. However, with the larger size, there are more details, and to my mind, that's a sufficient reason to Support. In the future, I hope you would please always provide the large size when you upload. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 23:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a tad bit oversharpened to me but majestic nevertheless. -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 07:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it very much, but I have to oppose until the overprocessing commented on per Ikan is resolved. – Lucas ^T 09:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is wonderful. But please have a look, it's a little bit noisy and oversharpened. --XRay ^talk 17:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per XRay; take a look especially at the trees in the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per XRay --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case --Llez (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposers. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A-wiki-guest-user, per the guidelines you need to provide a reason when opposing. – Lucas ^T 05:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striked invalid oppose because missing reason. Restore the vote if a reason gets added. – Lucas ^T 06:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other comments about oversharpening (perhaps to compensate for the slightest bit of motion blur, but it's hard to tell). The D800 at ISO 100 should blow us away with clarity and detail. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 21:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zayapa (Grapsus grapsus), Cerro Brujo, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 152.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2019 at 17:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Subphylum_:_Crustacea_(Crustaceans)
Info Exemplar of Red rock crab (Grapsus grapsus), Cerro Brujo, San Cristóbal Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 17:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I know the depth of field issues here must be quite tough to manage, but it does bother me that the legs of the crab are out of focus. Cmao20 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Strangely, the camouflage argument has actually swayed me in the other direction, I think it's worth featuring as an illustration of how the crab's camouflage works in practice. I remain bothered by the focus, but I think I'm guilty of judging you Poco based on a higher standard because of the high quality of your usual output. I still don't think this is one of your best images, but I think I probably would have given a qualified support if it had been someone other than you. As an aside, is it perhaps worth adding to the caption that this is a juvenile of the species (as the gallery caption for the photo in the Wikipedia article says)? Cmao20 (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the description. Thanks for the hint, Cmao20 Poc o² 21:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm really not bothered by what's not in focus. This is quite a high-resolution image, the crab is beautiful, and its front is in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 23:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretfully, the crab's camouflage color works too well. The crab is rather small in the photo and it does not cooperatate with the photographer at this angle. --Cart (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The eye is sharp enough but the crop should be a bit tighter IMO. Still FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. – Lucas ^T 09:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Probably cropped version could be better, but still nice as is -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart; I've often made the same argument in other pictures of too-effectively-camouflaged animals. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A-wiki-guest-user, per the guidelines you need to provide a reason when opposing. – Lucas ^T 05:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striked invalid oppose because missing reason. Restore the vote if a reason gets added. – Lucas ^T 06:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cart. -- Karelj (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 21:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Հաթերք, Արցախ.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 06:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Ավետիսյան91 - uploaded by Ավետիսյան91 - nominated by Ավետիսյան91. The village of Haterk. -- Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's an interesting photo and from a part of the world that we don't see much of here, but the technical quality is not FP level. There is insufficient sharpness at full resolution, and also quite a lot of JPEG compression artefacts. In addition there's that line down the centre of the photo, which looks like it might be a reflection through a window. Overall unfortunately this is a fair distance away from FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for the comments. The white line is not a reflection of a window. I took the picture on the mobile phone, probably from this came that line. Thank you.--Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2019 (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: as per Cmao20's comment above, specially that vertical line. Yann (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2019 (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:Nepalese Children in Tadapani, Ghandruk-Nepal-4428.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 09:00:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Children
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cute, but do you have a version with more space on the right? The crop is a bit too tight. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Yann: here's the alternative but i think this one is better -- Best Regards --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a bit more space is better. I suggest to cut it just at the vertical line (see note). Also the sweater is not cut. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another one for the knitting catalogue. :-) A few more pixels could be advantageous, otherwise I'm fine with this crop. --Cart (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the alternative better, mainly because the sweater isn't cropped, but both pictures seem to have lots of magenta chromatic aberration below the sweater. If that is in fact CA, please edit it out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please have a look once again once again. @Yann: , @W.carter: @Ikan Kekek: -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are those purple shadows real? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Yes, those are real. That's not a CA. :) -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. They look kind of like Kool-Aid stains. But

Support on the basis that the colors are all accurate. I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Yann (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support––Eatcha (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Steindorf am Ossiacher See Sankt Urban Ossiacher See und Dobratsch 04112015 2185.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 11:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support––Eatcha (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very peaceful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. Cmao20 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - David290 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lack of vivid colors actually helps the overall mood. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--17:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ансамбль колегіуму Кременець DSC7894.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 06:43:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info The complex of a former Jesuit college in Kremenets, Ternopil Oblast, Ukraine. Designed by Jesuit architect Paweł Gizycki, it was built in 1731-1753, and among others, consists of the Saint Ignatius of Loyola church as its centrepiece. I thought it was captured beautifully here, with a perfect angle and lovely golden light. Created by Brizhnichenko - uploaded by Brizhnichenko - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed a good angle of view and beautiful light. --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmmmm --Podzemnik (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice church, but too messy background for me, sorry --A.Savin 10:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! -- CptViraj (Talk) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the picture very well, even though the photographer might have wanted to demolish the buildings in the background in order to cope with the only negative critique so far. ;-) -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 23:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I think you could take a little more of the top off. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lake in Dome Creek.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 14:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British_Columbia
Info captured, uploaded & nominated by Jakub Fryš -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice one but need some noise reduction especially for those tree--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bijay chaurasia: Thanks for your comment. I am aware of the noise in the trees especially but it would have wiped the details and textures out, I tried. Thus I decided keep it this way since it's not distracting. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's ok --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Beautiful composition of layers from bottom to top. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support––Eatcha (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mille-feuille! --Cart (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another good one from you. Cmao20 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 08:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition (but a little bit noise, typical for fog) --XRay ^talk 05:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - David290 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support So very calming to look at ... The picture everyone wants to take in this situation. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quaternion OpenCL 11111111 32K.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 19:06:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's with all that black? The problem with this is that the close-up details are far more beautiful than the whole image and extremely few people can see this image at full size all at once. I don't know what to make of it. --Cart (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice inverted rendering of the Mandelbrot set but as Cart says, there is more beauty in close-ups and even if I use the zoom viewer, I can't actually zoom very far. There are lots of ways of rendering the set and hard to prefer one over another, though I do prefer it black in the middle rather than this inverted way. This sort of thing is probably best viewed interactively rather than one person's static visualisation of the whole set.

As an aside, I wrote a program to draw the set in groovy colours about 35 years ago. To speed things up I calculated the outline of a square and if that was all black, didn't bother with the middle. Then divided the square into four and repeated. Still took hours but I got some lovely pictures, and this was the coolest thing in maths at the time. I bet there are lot more clever ways of doing this faster today with the latest graphics cards. -- Colin (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agree Cart Seven Pandas (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Cart--Booth sift 00:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart.--Vulp here 03:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart, interesting but there are better ways of visualising the Mandelbrot set nowadays. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2019 (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: Thank you for nominating this image, unfortunately it is going to be very challenging to overcome these five opposes and the reasons brought up by Cart and Colin. --Booth sift 01:59, 14 June 2019 (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:Blue lotus (Nymphaea nouchali).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2019 at 02:22:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Order_:_Nymphaeales
Info created, uploaded & nominated by AntanO -- Antan O 02:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antan O 02:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Because the background is so dark, I'm wondering whether a square photo would be better in this instance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personally I don't think the sharpness and image quality is quite as good as our best flower shots. Cmao20 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BoothSift 05:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stunning flower but quality is not up to par (focus, details). E.g. I think there is an insect sitting on the inner petals but it is hardly recognizable. -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 and B2Belgium – Lucas ^T 13:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 (In any event, though, it should be cropped per Ikan's suggestion). Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A-wiki-guest-user, per the guidelines you need to provide a reason when opposing. – Lucas ^T 05:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out until a reason is given. --Booth sift 21:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 09:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paradise shelduck, Lake Victoria, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 23:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Family_:_Anatidae_(Ducks,_Geese,_and_Swans)
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. Recently, we had a duck's portrait promoted. This is a whole duck on a different day, place and in a different light. -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We've seen even sharper birds than this one, but it's a good composition and this kind of duck is quite beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another paradise shelduck --Booth sift 03:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ohtashinichiro (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 08:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a strong sexual dimorphism for this species, it would be good to add it in the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support it would Charles (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - David290 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milan Bališin (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 29 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas 09:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Family_:_Anatidae_(Ducks,_Geese,_and_Swans)

File:Sun getting through fog in the New Zealand bush, Bryant Range.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 23:31:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful moment and very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree--Booth sift 03:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 08:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love this one, beutiful light. I've just noticed very minor aberration on the spider webs (I know!) on the left side and the red triangle is little distracting - pulls down the atmosphere of the pristine nature :) So 98/100. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @JakubFrys: The triangle is a trail mark, that's how all marked trails are marked here. I was thinking about removing it but I've decided to keep it - to give a viewer the feeling like "that's where I'm going, right through the fog!". --Podzemnik (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - David290 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - David290 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Double vote --A.Savin 17:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support What an excellent picture to review on the heels of the last one ... such a perfect complement. I want to get my boots on and hike right into it (Interesting that if it weren't for the cut deadfall we wouldn't realize there's a trail in this scene ... I don't see any blazes). Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 29 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas 09:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bes-IMG 6306-black.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 21:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info created & uploaded by Rama - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The statue is nice and isolated well but the technical quality achievable with a decade old compact camera with a small sensor is not good enough for FP. The image is quite noisy and mushy (from noise reduction) so the texture of the statue gets mangled too much. Also blown highlights on the nose. – Lucas ^T 21:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to agree with Lucas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Estoy de acuerdo con Lucas. Lo siento--Booth sift 05:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per above. Cmao20 (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral By principle I do not comment on my own images, but thank you @Tomer T: for the flattering nomination, it is rewarding to see one's work appreciated. Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas.--Vulp here 11:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eclectus roratus - Maroparque 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2019 at 06:40:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colorful --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice motive, stunning colors. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 08:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear FP. Cmao20 (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 10:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunrise at Maligne lake 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2019 at 17:13:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Alberta
Info Canada, Rocky mountains, national park Jasper. All by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy, but very beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eatcha (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd recommend some de-noising and will hold off on voting for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful fall foliage. Please reduce the noise though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support great mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others --BoothSift 05:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support So beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice!.--Vulp here 10:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I dissent. Oppose per my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed very noisy at ISO 200 and the noise made visible by oversharpening everything. --Granada (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A beautiful photo, but unfortuantely too noisy for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Granada – Lucas ^T 07:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposers. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roletschek 21:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reason is needed @A-wiki-guest-user: --Booth sift 04:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck oppose as no reason was given. – Lucas 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose per noise noted by others, as well as unsharpness at left. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO too much noise (and oversharpened) --XRay ^talk 05:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Booth sift 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bird in Swayambhunath.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 12:40:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places, Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info created by Igor Ozherelyev - uploaded by CAPTAIN MEDUSA - nominated by CAPTAIN MEDUSA -- CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2019 (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: the image is too noisy, not quite sharp and not appropriately categorized and described.--Peulle (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2019 (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:Bufo bufo qtl1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2019 at 18:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info created & uploaded by Quartl - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Aren't they mating? I would think so, and if so, that should be specifically mentioned in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Tomer T (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely not the most erotic coupling for human voyeurs, but certainly a good picture, and I think it's worth a feature and presumably also a VI designation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly FP even if it isn't very pleasant to look at... Cmao20 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 16:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those f'ing toads! Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cataratas Victoria, Zambia-Zimbabue, 2018-07-27, DD 30-34 PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2019 at 15:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View of the Victoria Falls of the Zambezi River, border between Zambia and Zimbabwe. The Victoria Falls is the largest sheet of falling water in the world based on its combined width of 1,708 metres (5,604 ft) and height of 108 metres (354 ft). c/u/n by me, Poc o² 15:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 15:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! A beautiful panorama, and a very strong candidate indeed. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request The tree in the top left corner is very dark and occupies a relatively large area in the frame, would it be possible to raise the shadows a bit there? Thanks. – Lucas ^T 16:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - For whatever it's worth, I don't feel like it takes up too much of the frame, and I like the contrast between the dark leaves in silhouette and the brighter parts of the picture, which is very dramatic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lucasbosch, I've brightened the tree a little bit. Not sure how much you were asking for but as there are no other opinions in this direction I didn't apply a more radical change. Poc o² 18:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ Thanks Poco for brightening the tree. This improves the situation but personally it comes down to the feeling that all the foreground elements are obscuring too much of the awesome scenery and are too distracting as well. As a frame they don't fit for me. – Lucas ^T 19:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed oppose to enable speedy promotion. – Lucas 10:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request As per the top-left tree, I don't mind and agree with Ikan Kekek on this one but there is pretty visible chromatic aberation on the edges between the leaves and the sky. Otherwise nice shot! -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jakub Fryš I removed the slight green CA around the leaves. There are still some halos but rather due to the fact that the leaves are completely out of focus. Poc o² 18:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Poco² Understood, it's good enough anyways. You've got my support. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered support Not totally perfect, but it will do. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S38324, Tag von Potsdam, Adolf Hitler, Paul v. Hindenburg.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 05:53:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Theo Eisenhart - uploaded by BArchBot - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:53, 16 June 2019 (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: Much too small for FP. Please read the guidelines. --Yann (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2019 (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:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H1216-0500-002, Adolf Hitler.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 05:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Unknown - uploaded by BArchBot - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:39, 16 June 2019 (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: Much too small for FP. Please read the guidelines. --Yann (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2019 (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:Launching a sailboat 17 - Fitting the mast.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 07:16:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Sun
Info You can see the rest of the launching operation on the file page. All by me -- Cart (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could live with the large shadows since they accentuate the sun, but having so little of the boat itself visible is more of a detriment as there is the strong interaction with the tractor. Also several distracting elements (tire, some attachment block) further obscure. I don't like the hunched over poses of the workers. Ultimately I think this image doesn't showcase a special enough lighting situation involving the sun as I would expect in this category, I would have placed it under Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Other land vehicles instead, for the tractor. A different category would for sure change my review, but I can't guarantee support. – Lucas 08:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly open to suggestions about the category. In this case it's really difficult. It's in a series about the boat, but there is so little "boat" in this photo. 'Other land vehicles' is another option, but then again there are better photos of this truck. So I went with the most dominating thing in the photo: the Sun and the shadows it creates (take a look at other photos in the 'Sun' category). Perhaps a category "Shadows" would be most appropriate, but it doesn't exist (should we create it or is Natural phenomena/Other enough?). This is one of the strange things about FPC, that an interesting photo can be dismissed because it doesn't fit perfectly into a FP category. Looking at the 'Natural phenomena' category, there are several photos that have ended up there for this reason. --Cart (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For me, the sun is in the wrong place.--Peulle (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination No point in prolonging this. Note to self: Only nominate things that fit into one specific category. --Cart (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Main Rock in Pigeon Island National Park.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2019 at 03:49:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info All by AntanO -- Antan O 03:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antan O 03:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really get it. There are also technical issues such as lack of sharpness and oversaturation --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very wowing for me. Per Martin, the sharpness is lacking and there are other technical issues. This just isn't FP level for me, sorry--BoothSift 05:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thinking of it as an exercise in composition: I like the interplay of the rock and the cloud, although it feels a bit crammed over-all (probably due to how the rock is cut on the right). Unfortunately, the main subject itself does not look very interesting. --El Grafo (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 10:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin. --Cart (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, the oversaturation and slight unsharpness is too much of a problem. Cmao20 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo – Lucas ^T 15:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated sky (clouds should never have bluish fringes like that) and awkward composition (it is screaming to be a horizontal). Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate constructive criticisms. But, I looked at some of your images and I don't know your 'review' methods. I'd ask at your talk page. --Antan O 02:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can always ask at COM:CRIT before nominating here, that is the place for such discussions. For knowing what some of the reviewer comments mean, please look at COM:PT which is also a page where you can get a lot of tips about more advanced photography. A good place to start with your photos is also COM:QIC. At QIC, you will get comments about and learn the technical requirements for photos here. Once you get a hang of that you can move on to FPC where the photos are also reviewed for artistic impression or what we for short call "wow". --Cart (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 05:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boletus reticulatus 2019 G04.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2019 at 06:06:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh flash light, big blurry bright disturbing stick and leaf in foreground (might have been removed before shooting). The mushrooms are a bit damaged as well. --Cart (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart's point on the blurred twig and leaf. -- 18:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per Cart, a very valuable image but not quite FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart and Cmao--BoothSift 23:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and Cmao.--Vulp here 05:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart – Lucas ^T 15:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A-wiki-guest-user: Please provide a reason for your oppose. --Booth sift 01:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck oppose as no reason was given. – Lucas 17:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cart. Once you see the twig you can't unsee it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yakudza (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aexion OpenCL 887744547 32K.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2019 at 18:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

$3D fractals glowing$

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but I don't like the composition or the way these colors are combined. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aesthetically pleasing and useful due to the high resolution. – Lucas ^T 19:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't quite wow me.--Peulle (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, the color scheme is not pleasant for me even though I normally like Mandelbrot pics. Btw, the file is way too big for most uses since it can't be opened on many computers, please provide one or two downsized versions of it too. (Sidebar: I first saw this on my phone and I accidentally viewed it rotated 90 deg CW. What I got was an impression of a modernistic painting of a skinny model in gas mask and dirndl dress... Now I can't unsee it. :-) )--Cart (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan--BoothSift 23:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Vulp here 05:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I actually like it. (Since when is having a high resolution a problem? User could always downscale it to size that suit them. Better than the other way round.) -- KTC (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ZoomViewer isn't always working and people like me with not-so-powerful-computers can't open it. Large images like this usually have downsized versions of it to make it easier for viewing. Like the 'other versions' of this huge file. Sorry, I used bad wording, now corrected. --Cart (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportEatcha (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the size is good reason to oppose. On the contrary, it is a good reason to support. However I don't like the colors here. It seems to be completely overexposed. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yann: My comment about size was not really part of the vote, only a comment that came out badly. I've said I'm sorry for that and corrected it. Part of an image's value is that it can be viewed by everyone, so these big files should also have smaller versions just like with this. --Cart (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A-wiki-guest-user, per the guidelines you need to provide a reason when opposing. – Lucas ^T 05:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote stuck out --Booth sift 05:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cart. Not really the most pleasing combinations of shapes or colors for Mandelbrot sets. The whites in particular are blinding. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 21:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adolf Hitler colorized.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 02:38:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1930-1940
Info created by Unknown (colorized by User:Phot-colorization) - uploaded by Phot-colorization - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 02:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 02:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is it important to colorize this picture? That period is known for black & white photography, and I think that's part of how we conceptualize that period, don't you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose significantly upscaled, the original source is much smaller. What's with all these really bad Hitler noms we have to deal with recently anyway? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and useless colouring. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and I think this is probably enough Hitler for the time being. Not that a picture of him wouldn't be featurable, if there were one of good enough quality, but I don't think we need to keep seeing lesser-quality photos of him. Cmao20 (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just reading the file page, you can see that this has been upscaled x6 from the original and the other nominated photo x4. This photo has a retouched template on it, but not the other and the upsizing is not clearly stated on any of the pages (you have to go to the link to the original to see that). This upsizing is a clear violation of the FPC rules. Please read the rules more thoroughly. --Cart (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2019 (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: too low technical quality, see oppose votes– Lucas 07:10, 17 June 2019 (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:Hitler saluting the SA.png

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 02:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1930-1940
Info created by Unknown - uploaded by BArchBot - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 02:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 02:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out of focus, too blurry even for 1932. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Totally out of focus --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below any acceptable standard. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This bears all the hallmarks of having been upscaled from a much smaller photo. Cmao20 (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – Lucas 07:06, 17 June 2019 (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: too low technical quality, see oppose votes– Lucas 07:09, 17 June 2019 (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:Double-crested cormorant at Sutro Baths-6942.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 00:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Suliformes
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I already looked at this in QIC, and it's great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect framing and excellent quality. Cmao20 (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cart (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chme82 (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bird's eye cconvinces me --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But the crop above and on the left is a bit too tight and below it could be cropped a bit more. --Hockei (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 16:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The stone ledge on the lower right is a little bit distracting, but overall high quality and I love the eye. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milan Bališin (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas 06:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luigi Verardi after Dominico Ferri - Gaetano Donizetti - Carrefour de St Jean et Paul. Dans l'Opéra Marino Faliero.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 03:46:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Luigi Verardi after Dominico Ferri - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info It should probably be noted this predates proper chromolithography, hence the simple (but, I think, effective) colour scheme. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, that's an impressive drawing. --Yann (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very effective. Cmao20 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support "too dark"... ;-) --Cart (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very dramatic scene. Do you know the opera? I disagree with your decision to straighten text that was originally slanted, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's because of a fundamental difference between printing and digital. On a page, a slight tilt like that is basically invisible. Digitally, where the screen locks it in a presumed "correct" orientation, slight tilts are very, very visible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas 06:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antarctic Sound-2016-Brown Bluff–Leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx) 05.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created and uploaded by Godot13, nominated by Yann (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overall pretty good, but there are a few CAs visible. Cmao20 (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ Per above. Cmao20 (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: I don't know how to fix that. Do you? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: , I think so. New version uploaded, Support now. Cmao20 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Eatcha (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Cmao20 though --Booth sift 06:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A-wiki-guest-user: You need to mention a reason for opposing. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck out as it is invalid--Booth sift 05:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poc o² 15:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much of it is unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. I think this is a very useful VI, but even the mouth is only moderately sharp, so definitely a good idea and a nice opportunistic photo, but not IMO an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brumadinho, Minas Gerais (33198854048).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 18:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry
Info created by Vinícius Mendonça/Ibama - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 18:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 18:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must say, you are very active for a 'Retired' user. --Cart (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Arion is talented enough to be active and retired at the same time. --Booth sift 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I Google translated the Portuguese file description. This is what we're supposed to see: "Socioenvironmental catastrophe caused by the dam rupturing of the mining company Vale in Brumadinho (MG)". However, it just looks like a strip mine with some dirty water. And since there's nothing else making the picture special, I don't see how it's an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: This is part of the mine dam that collapsed. See Brumadinho dam disaster. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 19:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what happened, but I think this is a VI candidate, not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain per the discussion at ANU and lack of apology and explanation from ArionEstar for his past behaviour. – Lucas ^T 20:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request Hello guys, I ask you to vote here because it will be my last nomination for the time being… I am going to stay a few months out of this community, I think it suits as an apology... So, bye and be happy! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 20:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An apology is "I apologize for doing x, understand why it was wrong and promise not to do it again because I will do a, b, and c to make sure I avoid it." Claiming you will stay away for a few months is (a) not credible right now and (b) in no way at all an apology. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you are silent, there is a consent. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 20:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This response is suspiciously reactionary and should have come way sooner to have any credibility. Per Ikan this is not an apology. You are just trying to weasel yourself away from consequences, act only if other people call you out, as always. I'm sick of this and will not engage any further. – Lucas ^T 20:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No ArionEstar, no problems. By the way, careful words, again. If I were right, I would argue against this situation. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice light, quite good details for an aerial photo. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support wie Christian Ferrer --Ralf Roletschek 21:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan--Booth sift 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Vulp here 14:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --Karelj (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --David290 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Eatcha (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marmota monax UL 19.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 16:55:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info All by -- Cephas (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, ~~but it needs an appropriate category to be added~~ --СССР (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provisional oppose to stop the bot from closing too early~~ This nomination was created on June 9th but added to the visible FPC page on June 12th, so it was only visible to be voted on for 2 days now. – Lucas ^T 22:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Lucas Poc o² 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a nice amount of time left for Canada Day. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tõus 83.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 16:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created & uploaded by Jaan Künnap - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photo was made in 1983 at Caucasus mountains near Elbrus. Wiki article of the photographer. Previously an image with a smaller size was nominated, but after a request made to photographer, he added this image. So I withdraw the previus nomination. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this photo. I think it stands up well by current standards, maybe except for a blown part at the peak and some noise, which I think is probably inevitable in an analog picture of this type. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blown, something you can easily verify in any image editing program; the "noise" is called "grain". -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks blown to me, but as I pretty clearly indicated, it's a minor point. I won't be consulting photo editing programs for that kind of thing; I just use my eyes. And OK, grain. But do note that I supported, so I don't think either of those things are so important (and the grain was probably unavoidable). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back then grain was indeed unavoidable and regarded more as bug than feature... nowadays lots of retro guys believe that grain defines "real" photography and go as far as to add artifical noise to their otherwise perfect pictures... lol --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that thin black border should be removed though. The signature is ok since it is a scan of an old photo. --Cart (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Habitator terrae 🌍 17:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request please remove the black border. Also there are strange black lines on the lower left (see my note), as if someone drew them onto the photo to trace the ropes and other equipment. I'm very curious what this could be. – Lucas ^T 18:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support now, although I'm still curious about the black lines. – Lucas ^T 20:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Still yes! -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This time due to the higher resolution--Booth sift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. --Yann (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support by all means (but the black border should be removed) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that the border is gone. --Cart (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A marvelous piece of black and white photography. Perfectly composed. Do you eventually remember the film used? Just for curiosity. --Code (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Künnap told, that he used medium format (6x6 cm) camera Люби́тель (Ljubitel), that was in production between 1949-56 and is a Russian replica of German Voigtländer Brillant. The film was Svema Foto 64; ISO 64/19°. Künnap worked as an alpinism instructor in Ullu-Tau alpine camp. On this photo, there is group training on the height 4000 m, where he was instructing the usage of ropes on snowy peaks. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kruusamägi: Quite interesting. Thank you very much! --Code (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support; the drawn-on black lines are a very minor issue. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Echo Park Lake with Downtown Los Angeles Skyline.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 14:19:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Adoramassey - uploaded by Adoramassey - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Huge wow but please fix the perspective distortion and chromatic aberration. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Done! Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 15:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The picture is very beautiful but there are a few quality defects, including the visible JPEG artefacts. Cmao20 (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao20, needs also perspective correction, the buildings at the left are leaning to the left, and the horizon is not horizontal --Llez (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice wow but technical quality is lacking. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very noisy, and the buildings toward the left lean left quite noticeably. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 02:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sterna fuscata.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 09:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Duncan Wright - uploaded by Duncan Wright - nominated by Armin3636 -- Armin3636 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Armin3636 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The white feathers are blending into the background too much so we get insufficient separation. Technically this is too weak; nothing is rendered sharp and there are chromatic abberations (CAs). – Lucas 09:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretfully per Lucas, looks like the focus has been missed somewhat. Also the tail is slightly cut off on the right. Cmao20 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a pretty big bird - 33–36 cm (13–14 in) long per w:Sooty tern, and this picture is not sharp at the actual size of the bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2019 (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: major technical flaws per oppose votes – Lucas 21:51, 16 June 2019 (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:Val Sëlva y Sciliër ududa da Zirmëi te Gherdëina.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 14:47:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bottom left has a weird transition where the area becomes unsharp all of a sudden. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the close foreground is out of focus, but imo cropping it off would spoil the composition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose You used bad frames. There are blurry areas due to camera shake (visible directional blur with line doubling where the camera came to rest) with sudden transitions to areas that are sharp. See my note of the most obvious area, but there are more blurry areas around that. The bottom right area is very close to the camera but rendered sharp, your focus was set right. – Lucas 18:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful image but, sorry, the blurry areas from camera shake are visible even when downsized to just 20% of the current pixel size. Cmao20 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the time, I love your photos! But I don't think that it's going to work out this time. The scene is nice but the bottom frame on the left is too unsharp. I tried to play with different crop and magnification but I can't see the way how to save the image. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2019 (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: there is motion blur in large areas (see notes and comments), well visible in a large range of display sizes – Lucas 21:51, 16 June 2019 (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:2017.07.08.-17-Grosser Glubigsee-Wendisch Rietz--Hoeckerschwan mit Jungvogel.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 15:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Cygnus
Info Also made from the kayak. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a very unusual scene or resolution. The black chicken in the background is very annoying. No FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell – Lucas 18:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell, a nice capture but IMO you have much better nature shots. Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with the others on the sharpness and resolution, but Ermell, how are you able to identify a black blob in the background as a chicken? :-) I actually doubt it's a bird at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Ikan Kekek empty (plastic) bottle?:-)--Ermell (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. The whole water is a plastic blanket. The big swan is a rubber duck and the small one is made of wood. Or it is an Eurasian coot, maybe? I wonder that this is disturbing for you. Damn nature. --Hockei (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fishing hut, jetties and boats in Loddebo.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 12:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary shot to me and the wires going off frame on the left are unsatisfying. – Lucas ^T 13:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support––Eatcha (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas. Karelj (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Works for me. Very peaceful, and IMO a really good composition. The ropes lead my eyes back to the rocks. There are 4 different horizontal planes - the rocks and nearest boat, the house and the other boat, the far bank and the hill in the far right corner, and then the clouds. And then there is the strong deep curve of the lake and the bit of land on the right that enables the eyes to come back into the foreground. It's really stronger and more interesting than most of the compositions we vote to feature here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not the thing I usually nominate here, but I was surprised at how much I liked it once I got it out of the camera so I thought I'd give it a try. Btw, this is in the north part of Brofjorden, so a fjord not a lake. (The cliff up right is already featured.;-) ) --Cart (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Ikan, I like it very much. Cmao20 (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough wow for me.--Peulle (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peaceful. Clouds cooperate very well. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too ordinary. Maybe at sunrise this looks better. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is peaceful.--Vulp here 06:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per George Poc o² 08:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 05:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite busy, but the boats, clouds, dock and landscape reinforce each others' horizontality. The overall effect is a nice late summer afternoon mood ... I have a fan working next to me right now, but even if I didn't I could still feel the breeze. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, but not FP. Nothing extraordinary for me. Also looks like background is overprocessed. --Rbrechko (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info The processing (very little was needed) is done the same way all over the photo. The look of the background is the unfortunate result of having a camera with a rather small sensor. Sorry, we can't all afford Hasselblads. ;-) --Cart (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the lighting and sky conditions nicely complement this scene. As much as I love those fleeting moments of directional, golden sunrise light, sometimes it's nice for FPs to show the world as most people actually experience it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is also that this is in a fjord with huge cliffs in the east and west (think Death Star trench), so the sun only shines on this little place when the sunlight can enter the fjord from the south. At sunrise and sunset, plus a few hours around them, everything is in shadow. --Cart (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the context! Looking at Street View for this spot, I see what you mean... and also wish I were there right now. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll save you a spot for your vacation. :-) --Cart (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pieris brassicae (caterpillar).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 05:10:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info Haven't seen a caterpillar featured picture promoted in a very long time, so I present to you all this image. Created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 05:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator -- Booth sift 05:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good. Cmao20 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the colors and the composition is good, although the left crop is too tight. Sadly, the overal quality leaves too much to be desired as I'm considering this to be a studio shot. From the camera's 36 MPx this only got 11 MPx, either from cropping or downscaling, my guess is the former because the pixel detail is pretty weak. Diffraction softness at f/29 is also to blame. Too much of the foreground is not in focus, I would have solved this with a second shot and combined the two. – Lucas ^T 09:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd be interested to know how big this caterpillar is, but it's sharp enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is good, composition is great Poc o² 11:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support––Eatcha (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I remember this meeting made in a cabbage bought that morning. The caterpillar is much more beautiful than the butterfly. We only ate the cabbage ... Thanks to Boothsift for this nomination --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support So that's a cabbage? Looks like a broccoli sprig ... Anyway, such lovely colors. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mary Magdalene church in Gramond 08.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 15:03:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Stained glass
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Large contrast at the right moment --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support You know, you can vote for your own nominations, right @Tournasol7: ?--Booth sift 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but is my choice; I don't vote for my own photos. Tournasol7 (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Célestin Nanteuil - Jules Massenet - Don César de Bazan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 00:55:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Célestin Nanteuil - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Extraordinary resolution! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beijing New Airport.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2019 at 05:56:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#China
Info created by 王之桐 - uploaded by User:David290 - nominated by User: David290. This photo is taken on the last day that drones are permitted, and thus is difficult to replicate. -- David290 (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- David290 (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 06:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:David290, please explain the color scheme. This looks like a black & white photo except for that one section. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: It is processed by original author in order to give highlight to the subject (airport terminal building) itself. The photo was taken in real color, and then processed into grey-scale in most area except the terminal building. David290 (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I get the point but find it quite odd and will think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are blue borders, dots and areas which are caused by processing, especially in the part I marked by a note, but also elsewhere --Llez (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obvious signs of the processing per Llez, also the orange was not masked properly at a lot of places. The file page needs the Template:Retouched_picture that explains in detail the manipulations made to it. – Lucas ^T 08:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's very dramatic, but I am not personally a fan of this kind of heavy manipulation. Cmao20 (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's a really cool image, looks like it's influenced by some dystopian online game. I don't mind a few photos with selective color IF the processing is well done. That is not the case here per Llez, plus the BW part is rendered way too uniformly dark. --Cart (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opponets. -- Karelj (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per others. But I like the idea. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others above--Booth sift 23:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SH6188 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart - too dark and dystopic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 and Cart. It looks to me like the w:Cingular fleet is attacking. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— Preceding unsigned comment added by W.carter (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riga Cathedral Nave, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 10:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info The nave of Riga Cathedral in Riga, Latvia. One of Latvia's most recognisable and iconic landmarks, the cathedral was built in 1211 and is the seat of the Archbishop of Riga, who heads the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 11:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 17:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Shealah Craighead - uploaded by Wow - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For all this person represents (and no, I don't mean the wonderful country), sorry Eatcha. Poc o² 18:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poco, your oppose is just as invalid as one without any reason as you are not critiquing the photo itself. An {{Abstain}} is the better option for you and anyone with a similar view. – Lucas 18:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, not problem, in that case: the facial expression is unpleasant --Poc o² 19:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The picture frame is encroaching on him too closely and the decorative multi-color string on the flag is too distracting. Also something feels weird about how his chest gets more in shadow/darker further down. Size is quite small and noise levels too high for a studio shot. – Lucas 18:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Distorted perspective, as indicated by the picture frame to the right of the photographer. Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 18:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fluffy89502, these picture frames are hung tilted downwards so we might as well be looking at the wall straight on here. – Lucas 18:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Sharp and overall a good portrait, but the resolution isn't great. I think it clears the bar overall, but it might do better at FP on Wikipedia where encyclopaedic value is prized somewhat more than on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As presidential portraits go, this is rather bleak and uninteresting. Ok, we were spoiled with good photos during the Obama administration, but still... It lacks depth and the background is distracting (he is standing too close to the wall), including a cord that makes him look like a jumping jack. --Cart (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He looks strange - this is not his face as we usually see it. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with Uoaei1, this is probably how Trump wants to be seen (ie encclopedic value at most), not how he is most of the time. -- KennyOMG (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Distracting background with the picture frame and the ugly wall paper. The overall image seems to be a bit underexposed and oversharpened which brings the noise to a visible and disturbing level. --Granada (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first sight it's just a pretty boring portrait that just doesn't manage to stick out among the gazillions of pictures of US-government people in front of US flags we have here at commons. That alone would be reason to oppose. If you actually start to analyze it … well, when it was released PetaPixel and Jared "Fro" Polin (among others) already did that job so let's just say they did not think it was a "good" portrait. --El Grafo (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither a great quality nor representative. Sorry --A.Savin 10:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Granada and El Grafo. The photographer, Shealah Craighead, is a professional, so I assume she knows how to do a high-quality portrait. This one gives the impression he just said, "Look, I'll just stand here. You can take this dumb "official portrait" you keep going on about right now... I don't care if you don't have any of your "lighting kit" with you. My guys take great photos with just their cell phones. Your camera must be really dumb if it needs lighting kit to take a good photo." -- Colin (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm not so sure, although I could well imagine him saying something like that. She may be working as a photographer, but professional (I mean as in "highly skilled")?? Have you looked at her other work? It's all bad angles, strange crops and photos in existing light. Looks like the best US photographers are democrats. ;-) --Cart (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

„working as a photographer, but professional?“: isn't that the definition of professional? – Lucas 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge there can be a difference in the English language between "working as" and "being a pro" in everyday parlance. It is similar to the ranking system we have here on Commons. On your user page you have the userbox stating "This user is able to take professional quality photographs." In that sense the word "professional" is used for quality level rather than occupation. "Being a pro" can simply mean that s(he) knows what s(he) is doing. --Cart (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are many meanings to "professional", though with photography I think it is mainly used to distinguish from "amateur" in the sense of making money, earning a living at it. I would expect a professional to be able to reliably deliver acceptable quality to time/budget, and that the more you pay the higher the expectations. Another mark of a professional is to take and absorb a whole lot of grief from the client, and to deliver what the client wants, rather than to their own taste. Given the number of "great, highly talented" people he's hired and then fired, she must be doing something right to still have a job. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my comment to clarify what I mean. I think most people got it but precise meaning is obviously imperative here in such an important discussion. --Cart (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once said "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process." I got your point and the word-play. -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Eatcha (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloemknoppen van Eryngium giganteum 'Miss Willmott's Ghost' 04-06-2019. (d.j.b). 04.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 15:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Apiaceae.
Info Flower buds in development of Eryngium giganteum 'Miss Willmott's Ghost'.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great compo and good quality Poc o² 16:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Cart (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Coloring that one green blur on the top right brown would turn this to perfect. – Lucas ^T 18:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality as usual for your close-up photos. Cmao20 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Miss Willmott's Ghost is an interesting name...--Booth sift 23:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support refreshingly different! --El Grafo (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty amazing composition. It'd be nice to add a geo reference and clone out that green spot in the upper right corner. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Coordinates added.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially the background is really well done --A.Savin 00:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Lake. Light. Lovers. (27717526099).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 06:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info created by Flickr User Godfried - uploaded by Tæ - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even disregarding resolution/quality (FPX below), the composition leaves much to be desired with the arch being cut on both sides. Very distracting smartphone display visible on the bottom right. – Lucas 07:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info 24 h have passed since the FPX, please do not contest this now as I reopened another former FPD in favor of it. – Lucas 07:40, 19 June 2019 (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: with 1.5 MPx far below the minimum required 2 MPx with no apparent or explained "strong mitigating reasons". Metadata suggests this is a screenshot. – Lucas 07:39, 18 June 2019 (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:Oriental garden lizard eats robber fly.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 02:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info All by AntanO -- Antan O 02:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antan O 02:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough resolution/detail, not enough DoF, too much is blurred. Colors look severely overprocessed to me. Slight chromatic abberations as well. – Lucas 07:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks awesome as a thumbnail, but there are severe quality issues (see ↑) --El Grafo (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas and El Grafo on this image. --Booth sift 03:59, 19 June 2019 (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: obvious quality deficiencies per oppose votes – Lucas 07:29, 19 June 2019 (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:Área Recreativa de Arenas Negras 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 10:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other_objects_in_landscapes
Info all by me -- El Grafo (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Grafo (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas ^T 10:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love seeing such an ordinary object depicted as if it was an ancient monument. --Cart (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a case in which I demur on the basis that I don't see much there. I mean, yeah, I get that there's somewhat of an idea there, but it's not a very interesting subject to me, and there are large dark areas that do very little for the composition. The areas of light make it something, but not something great to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mostly per Cart. If it wasn't for the fact that we know what it really is (and also the small bit of tree trunk in the background to provide some degree of context), this could be some sort of giant, ancient Stonehenge-type monolith. Cmao20 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support works astonishingly well... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Tournasol7 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The mundane made transcendent, per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry just a boring subject and dark too Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:BNSF GE Dash-9 C44-9W Kennewick - Wishram WA.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 14:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 17:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 17:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I love the colors of the freight train cars in that context, but the train looks to my eyes like it's leaning down to the left. Does it actually do that when it turns? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on trains, but train tracks do have some banking in curves (some more than others) and some trains are also able to mechanically lean to the side. This photo at least shows the track banking for sure. – Lucas 20:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per that explanation, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as always for this author's train photographs. Cmao20 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. Geo reference would be good. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ëures Resciesa Mont de dora Crist Gherdëina.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 17:24:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another beautiful one, and with the immense resolution typical of your work. Cmao20 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically it's great, the weather is nice and the nature is wonderful. But I'm missing a clear subject or compositional idea. --El Grafo (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject are the porphyr cliffs as written in the description --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo and I find the mid-day light too boring. Also ~~the focus was set too far~~ the far mountains are rendered much sharper than the slightly blurry foreground with the tourists. – Lucas ^T 08:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you say, pardon me, does not make sense. How can the tourists, several hundred meters away, be out of focus and the background be in focus with an aperture of f/11? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, right, this shouldn't be the cause but still there is a clear difference in sharpness. My oppose doesn't hinge on that, the other points are more important to me. – Lucas ^T 18:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think Lucas is imagining this, I can see it too. I think you have a heat haze area hanging over the nearer sunlit rocks on the left. It will do very strange things with your photos. Take a look at how distorted/blurry the houses on the right side in this photo are, while this photo taken from the same point of a location over four times as far away, but over the cooler sea, is not very affected. That day, the photos taken towards the sea were acceptable but I had to throw away all the photos taken inland of the town. I had gone there to make a panorama of the old town in Lysekil (to the right of the houses in the first photo and further inland), but they turned out beyond bad. --Cart (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: I'm afraid the comment applies to an other candidate --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I was commenting on this photo (providing link for clarity). Perhaps you somehow misunderstood what I wrote. Lucas mentioned a "slightly blurry foreground with the tourists" and I provided a possible explanation for it using my own photos/experience as examples. Nature can play tricks on us even if we have extraordinary cameras. ~~Anyway, I will not be offended by you striking my comment since it is your nomination.~~ --Cart (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I lacks wow, sorry Poc o² 17:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baden Königshöhe 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 04:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower_Austria
Info Königshöhle (King's Cave) near Baden bei Wien, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 07:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's very well-composed and good quality, but it just doesn't inspire me somehow. But I won't oppose seeing everyone else seems to like it. Cmao20 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I share Cmao20's sentiment. The camera position is pretty ordinary and I'm missing more clear compositional clues so it looks like casual mid-day tourist shot to me. It's a pity the sunlight landing on the ground is obscured by that rock, another angle would have shown that better. – Lucas ^T 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Driftwood on the beach north of Kaikoura, Canterbury, New Zealand 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 01:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
Info All by me. It's quite a minimalist composition of a driftwood on the New Zealand black sand beach. -- Podzemnik (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant idea. Cmao20 (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Yann (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome!--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice & simple -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but oh so beautiful for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 17:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sublime. Somehow manages to communicate the idea of autumn without any hint of colored leaves or the other clichés. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lake Benmore, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 01:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
Info All by me. It was taken during the morning light where morning fog is still present but the sun is already up. -- Podzemnik (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great directional lighting, and the fog at the right just makes it perfect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Booth sift 04:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great and impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lake Mary Mammoth September 2016.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 02:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty, good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I like the composition, but it could be sharper. --XRay ^talk 10:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Black hole - Messier 87 crop max res.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 07:44:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by Event Horizon Telescope - uploaded by BevinKacon - nominated by The NMI User -- The NMI User (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The NMI User (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info please see File:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg -- Eatcha (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Eatcha, nominating another version is not the way to go. If you want to propose this version instead of the original, a delist-and-replace nomination would be needed. – Lucas 08:35, 20 June 2019 (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: as per above. Yann (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2019 (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:Cladophora glomerata in a wave at Govik 4.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 11:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Algae
Info This algae is usually one of the slimiest and ickiest ones in Swedish waters, but like this when it's new and the sun is shining on it as it is moving within a lapping wave, I think it is rather beautiful. -- Cart (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have an urge to put this up on a wall—despite my hate of these ... plants? ;) – Lucas 11:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely abstract. Cmao20 (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding in so many ways! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 14:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful abstraction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! --El Grafo (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support So awkward but so good. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and others. Cart, once again, you have a really good eye to have noticed that this composition was available to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. --Aristeas (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An artwork from mother nature. But you have to see it.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dreamy. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Other lifeforms

File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 125-127 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 07:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Main altar of the Church of the Society of Jesus (La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús), a Jesuit church in Quito, Ecuador. The exterior doesn't give an idea of the beauty of the interior, with a large central nave, which is profusely decorated with gold leaf, gilded plaster and wood carvings, making of it the most ornate church in Quito. The temple is one of the most significant works of Spanish Baroque architecture in America and considered the most beautiful church in Ecuador. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taken in 2015, but still holds up as an FP today. I'd reduce the highlights a bit, and there is something - some kind of light streak - down in the centre by the altar that could be looked at.--Peulle (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle: I've reduced the highlights and corrected a slight tilt. Regarding the light streak I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Could you please add a note? Poc o² 19:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note added. Not sure what it is. The image is still good enough, though.--Peulle (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle: I've removed the light streak (and the note) Poc o² 16:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support A bit too ornately baroque for my taste, but clearly FP and beautiful on its own terms. Cmao20 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support though this specific variant of baroque is a bit too much even for me - and I'm really into baroque generally --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Resplendent and a fine photo! You have one or two other FPs of this cathedral's interior, don't you? I recall they were of different views, but it would be good of you to link them in this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Booth sift 04:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jharkot Village-Upper Mustang Trek-1281.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 09:09:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I like it, but there are too many elements around the sides that are cut off in an unsatisfying way, see the notes. If more people agree you could try a slightly different crop to solve this. Technical quality is okay given what you had. Composition is nice. – Lucas ^T 09:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per below. – Lucas 21:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks harmonious and well-composed to me. Cmao20 (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brown jagged shapes offset the blue smooth shapes very nicely. In most human habitations it is hard not to cut something and you will have to go with "the lesser of two evils", but please remove the red CA mostly at the bottom. --Cart (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 12:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please have a look at the red borders of the white flags (CAs and artefacts), especially at the house in the left lower corner and the unsharpness in the same region. --Llez (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me it's interesting, but not necessarily good. You have a lot of layers (brown, dark brown, blue, blue-brown) but they just don't come together as a whole and present a cohesive message to me. Sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Llez and King of Hearts. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Cart has the best support argument IMO but the opposers are also right; I'd like to see the red CA removed as well before I can make up my mind. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went back and forth on this one for a long time. But ultimately, this photo is so picturesque, and the lines in it really work and I think it's acceptable to tolerate that little piece of something at the near left corner. However, this is the kind of panorama in which I think "pixel-peeping" is legitimate, and I do see some clear red CA and halos in the near left quadrant. I don't feel I should support this photo until it's fixed. Bijay, please address this, as a number of folks in this thread have mentioned it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: , @Daniel Case: , @Llez: ,@King of Hearts: ,@Lucasbosch: , Sorry for inconvenience. Please have a look i upload new version tried to remove but in my lightroom an error massages pop up like this cannot find purple and green fringe color. Then i decided to crop. Both version are uploaded please revert if you don't like --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bijay chaurasia, when you get that message you have to adjust the sliders manually or use a 'replace color' brush in Photoshop and very carefully substitute the red/green/purple border by tracing then by hand. Sometimes that's the only way. --Cart (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cropped out the area that had the CA that was evident to me. I do like this version better and would have voted for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Henry39 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Tarian Gandrung sewu 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 21:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Candra Firmansyah - uploaded by Candra Firmansyah - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Another good one of these, but I can't shake the feeling that it would be a better picture if there wasn't that sign in the top-right corner (I know the sign is related to the event, but even so). Cmao20 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That sign is very problematic, it looks like a very blurry watermark. Otherwise, this image is good enough for FP. --Booth sift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support nice image but per Cmao20 the sign in the top-right is distracting.--Vulp here 03:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift --Cart (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift sorry ---Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but not just the sign, pretty much all the background elements are going haiwire in all directions so distract from the main subjects. One of them is visually growing out of the woman in front. The bottom crop on her and the one cut in half face further behind aren't very satisfying either. – Lucas ^T 21:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift. --Gnosis (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift. --Eatcha (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert Einstein Head.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 18:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info created by Orren Jack Turner - uploaded by Lupo - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 18:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 18:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Original composition is better. I'd be fine with a digital restoration of that image, but not a crop of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan – Lucas 06:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan again --Booth sift 03:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Vulp here 08:44, 20 June 2019 (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: it has gained no additional support in the three days since it was nominated, against more opposes than it is likely to overcome

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco Columbarium Interior.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 22:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#United_States
Info This is a view of the interior (upper floors) of the San Francisco Columbarium. Since 1898, the building serves as a repository for human ashes, stored in niches along the walls. I first visited the building seven years ago, after stumbling upon a newspaper article describing Meet your neighbors-for-eternity parties. As I only had an iPhone at hand in 2012, I felt it was worth the time and effort to reshoot this place with my current gear. c/u/n by Frank Schulenburg.
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 02:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture of an interesting place. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good photo. This is so weird to me since we don't have anything like this where I live, but it is the beauty of Commons to learn about other customs. --Cart (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A different piece of architecture --Poc o² 17:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite a beautiful interior. Unusual subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Londok jantan yang sedang berjemur.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 10:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by Manarulmarmar - uploaded by Manarulmarmar - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, Tail? -- Eatcha (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significant detail loss, as well as the cropped tail. I don't see this as a QI.--Peulle (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle – Lucas 12:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In addition to what others have posted above, the categorization is unsatisfactory. Category:Calotes versicolor has to be the main category, and "Wildphotography" (not a single word in English) is a red link. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Mimihitam (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) male Montagne d’Ambre 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 05:04:54 (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 Boothsift -- Booth sift 05:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 05:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but it should be noted that File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) male Nosy Be.jpg (more colorful) is already an FP and File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) male Montagne d’Ambre 3.jpg (not as sharp) was not promoted to FP. Also, I believe I recall correctly that there was a different species of chameleon with a photo with a curled-up tail like this one that was promoted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I agree with Ikan that we should keep an eye on the number of similar photos, even those of different species. The first effect is that the bar is raised for such images, as we have seen with church interiors.--Peulle (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose While the animal is clear and sharp, the overall composition is somewhere between "deer in headlights" and "argh, you caught me, get that third degree spotlight out of my face". I feel for the poor chameleon. --Cart (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Basically per Cart, the leaves in the background where a shadow is cast are distracting as well. I'd clone them out. – Lucas 16:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: --СССР (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support:Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very interesting colors and subject, but the composition seems plain. --Pine (✉) 21:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Charles, it’s a wonderful photo but I don’t see the need for it to be featured when we already have a very good FP of the same species. If we had a male and a female I’d be open to supporting both, but this is another male, the same as the other one. (Before anyone asks, I’m aware there’s plenty of examples on Commons where two similar pictures have both been made FP, but I don’t think that’s the way it should work. FP should be about rewarding the best output in a given scope, and this image isn’t different enough from the other one, and is worse in some ways as Lucas points out) Cmao20 (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't going to oppose it, but that's why I didn't nominate it Cmao20! Charles (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, Charles, and I also saw that you didn’t vote for it yourself. My apology was purely to you as the author of the picture, not the nominator of course. Cmao20 (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Per the opposes. Maybe this will get a renomination in the future--Booth sift 05:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carretera Granma.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 01:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural
Info: all by me -- СССР (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- СССР (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow covering up the left side is distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts--Booth sift 04:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I actually like the contrast of light and shadow and don't really understand why that's considered so bad here. That said, I'm not sure about the photo in general. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH – Lucas 07:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts.--Vulp here 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really don’t think this deserves the pole-axeing it’s got here, it’s a very deserving QI, but the shadow is a little bit bothersome. Cmao20 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2019 (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: It will have a hard time overcoming 5 opposes--Booth sift 21:55, 21 June 2019 (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.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hohenmirsberg P7171141-Pano.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 06:42:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info A panorama of Hohenmirsberg, a district of the town of Pottenstein in northern Bavaria. Created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks all right, but since many of the houses are obscured due to the angle and the light is a bit boring, I don't see the big wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle, 对不起--Booth sift 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination.--Ermell (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It nicely captures the village nestled into the surrounding countryside and the layers of fields, houses, forests and sky. -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The uninteresting yellow strip in the foreground ruins it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the yellow strip. It gives a stroger feeling of rural scene --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per B2Belgium. I find it nice to look at. Interesting layering compositon. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I appreciate the work that clearly went into making this, but it just doesn't wow me, perhaps because not only as Peulle points out the light is unremarkable, but also because the WB is too much on the warm side. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support First I thought that the light was boring, but looking again at the photo I consider it a good example what to make from such lighting. I second B2Belgium’s remarks. --Aristeas (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paracanthurus-hepatus-paletten-doktorfisch.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 06:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info created and uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 06:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 06:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the highest resolution, but all the resolution we have is sharp and crisp. Very good overall. Cmao20 (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very attractive.--Vulp here 11:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop is very close, can this be changed? --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uoaei1: The left? I don't think so, unless @Holleday: has an idea.--Booth sift 01:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the camera has 4.752 × 3.168 Pixel, a lesser close crop should be possible --Llez (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great quality but tight crop, strong shadows and aquarium picture Poc o² 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop and unsightly shadow behind the fish. – Lucas 21:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yellow mite (Tydeidae), Lorryia formosa.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 07:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info created by United States Department of Agriculture / Eric Erbe; digital colorization by Chris Pooley, edited and uploaded by Lycaon, nominated by Yann (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Electron microscopy picture of a Lorryia formosa mite. Magnified about 200×. -- Yann (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fairly old image, but still holds up.--Peulle (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 10:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing! And I don't know if electron microscopy has advanced greatly in the last 11 years. Has it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 18:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive quality, great work! --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic --Booth sift 03:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support although we want to zoom more to see more details :-) impressive as it is -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paisaje en Sutton, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 98-106 PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 17:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Landscape in Sutton, Alaska, United States. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Immense and very dramatic panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 03:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much like the boreal forests I remember in Yukon. Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 21:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Praporec (v zime) 001.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 19:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Interesting composition, maybe a bit too much in shadow, but on balance I think it works. Cmao20 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many trees and branches in the foreground --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above--Booth sift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the foreground in shadow contrasts nicely with the direct light on the mountain, making for a dynamic scene. I have no problem with the composition, which manages the chaotic forest environment quite well – see for example how the group of evergreens on the right balances out the cluster of tall trees on the left. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Being a slightly cluttered composition and with too many distractions it doesn't work for me. – Lucas ^T 07:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 17:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Juliancolton -- Eatcha (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow; the kind of view hiking guidebooks describe as limited. Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhönschaf-Weidberg bei Kaltenwestheim HBP-2019-04-28.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 21:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Grand-Duc - uploaded by Grand-Duc - nominated by Grand-Duc -- Grand-Duc (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Grand-Duc (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The light really doesn't work for me. To see the black heads of these sheep well, they need to be somewhat lit, not facing away from the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do define the direction from where the light is coming, Ikan? I actually had the sun, for what was shining through some clouds, behind me. So I'd expect that the head is as lit as possible... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the brightest thing in the picture is the sky, and the sheep's head is very dark indeed, and I don't mean just that it's black. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --СССР (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good, well-composed QI but I think it doesn't have the extra something special for FP. The light is all a little bit dull. Cmao20 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Vulp here 11:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan --Booth sift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 – Lucas ^T 07:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support the head of the animal is black and we cant change it --Wilfredor (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Wilfredor --Llez (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Wilfredor -- Eatcha (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, not outstanding enough --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per CMao20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head of the animal is not pure black, just like snow or clouds are never pure white. Sure, photographing animals with black fur is difficult, but it is possible. In any case, that's not even the main issue here, as basically the whole foreground looks underexposed. --El Grafo (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The most interesting part, the face, is hidden, due to the bad light -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 21:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old rickety bird feeder - with cat.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 15:46:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other objects in landscapes
Info Waiting for lunch to arrive. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but this one doesn't work for me. The highlights are bright, the colours aren't too exciting and the level of sharpness (see cat) isn't wowing me either.--Peulle (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re the light, I wanted to keep the delicate soft light/colors that was and not crank it up in post even if I could. I had just finished photographing something else, saw an opportunity and got off two shots before the cat sneaked away. --Cart (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain For right now--Booth sift 22:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand the nomination, because this photo tells a story. However, I don't perceive anything outstanding visually; it's certainly possible I'm missing it, but that's honestly my reaction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO if this was clicked some time later like here, it was a sure FP. -- Eatcha (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cat's expression is interesting but the composition seems a bit haphazard and the cat is not in focus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would have been OK if the twig were not obscuring the cat's head. Also focus is on the leaves, not on the cat. Yann (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petra Jordan BW 2009-11-10 12-33-49.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 12:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Jordan
Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring centered composition, distracting tree covering up a large part of the subject, bad depth perception due to the light direction, distracting tourists. Low pixel detail and humongous CAs in the lower right. – Lucas ^T 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good photo on the whole, but the tree is a bit distracting, and I agree about the CAs. I think we can probably do a bit better for such a commonly photographed monument. Cmao20 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring centered composition as Lucas notes, the tree is also fairly distracting IMO. --Booth sift 23:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What other direction would be better for this motif than straight-on and centered? I'm confused by that criticism. I think that there are other factors at issue but not that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The tree in front sort of spoils it for me.--Peulle (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not boring! I would not have expected trees in the dry area. It does not bother me at all to see this documented. The motive is worth seeing and the quality is very good. --Milseburg (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fine shot. I don't mind the tree, it adds some colour to the rather monochrome main motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the severe CAs in the lower right --Llez (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, the tree ruins it for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having been to Ad-Dair myself, it's really hard to say what the best possible angle is (I like this one if we're going to go with the frontal angle). But I do think that as appealing as it is to shoot from that Bedouin café which is never in any images of the place, you probably should not have the tree. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:עץ על אי מלח באמצע ים המלח.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 09:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created & uploaded by Eranrez - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Quite an unusual image, but I'd feel happier if the sky were de-noised. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting image but there are question-marks over the quality, especially the sky as Ikan points out but more generally there's a bit of colour noise. It also looks to me like there's a bit of barrel distortion, with the horizon visibly curving up at one end and down at the other. Cmao20 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ A very nice composition but the quality is not enough for such a small photo. A GoPro camera is not ideal for FPs. And as the description says, it's a tourist destination so not that hard to get to for someone with a fairly good camera. (I've been there myself but that was pre the tree.) --Cart (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Per Cart--Booth sift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Support now after I had a better look--Booth sift 04:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan and Cmao20 – Lucas ^T 07:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I seldom see images as particular as this one here in FPC. Denoising would be good but the wow effect is compensating that. To be honest, I don't understand why this picture is not getting more support. Poc o² 14:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ok, I gave the file some TLC and removed some of the color noise and corrected the barrel distortion a bit, not all the way though since the shore curves slightly. Please revert this if you don't like it. 'Pinging' voters about the change: Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, Boothsift, Lucasbosch and Poco. Myself I'm changing to Neutral after this. I hope Eranrez and Tomer T are ok with this, otherwise I apologize. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cart: Now that we're in the process to improve the image, don't you think that we should reduce the vignetting on the top left? I can give it a try if you like. Poc o² 18:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, I already did some vignetting adjustment in my edit, I think the gradient is due to natural light since it stayed after the correction and it follows the way the shadow of the tree points. I see such phenomena a lot in my photos taken on clear days over water. Let's leave it as it is now, I think it is acceptable. We should be as respectful as possible to the author. The dark sky matches the darker water on that side well. --Cart (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know. I see the improvement, but the tree was sharper and bigger in the original, and the photo is still fairly noisy. I like the composition, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the ice photo, you will always lose some sharpness with NR. That's the downside of it. --Cart (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, second and final edit from me. I reverted only the tree since it didn't go well with the NR as Ikan pointed out. Cart out. --Cart (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you, Cart. I wish it were less noisy, but I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect but it's definitely got the wow. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I wish the resolution and the sharpness would be better. --XRay ^talk 11:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive landscape in my view, as we don't see often. Although the top of the sky could be cut and the quality better, it's ok for me. That's all in the subject : crystal water, floating island and striking tree -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quedlinburg Castle, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 10:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Quedlinburg Castle at day
Quedlinburg Castle at dusk

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info Quedlinburg Castle and Collegiate Church at early evening and the same view at dusk after sunset ----- all by me, --A.Savin 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are lovely but for FP of such a set there should have been at least a good attempt made to align the two images to each other, right know too much is changing position most noticeable on the sides. Sadly the focal lengths and dimensions are not uniform and the camera position was shifted vertically between the shots by a significant distance. These last two points are of lesser importance though. – Lucas ^T 10:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall, absolutely brilliant. Lucas is right that they could be aligned to each other a little bit better, but not enough to stop me supporting. Lovely, sharp, high-resolution photos of the castle from an excellent angle, and good to have a night and a day view. You could choose to denoise the sky a bit in the night photo, but again it's not a very serious issue for me. Cmao20 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the small difference. The human eye perceives things differently at day vs evening/night too. --Cart (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It'd be cool to have the photos aligned better but still great :) --Podzemnik (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The noise on top of the blue hour image could be cleaned up a little more, as well as the CA in the same area of the daylight image, though. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baikal ice on sunset.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 16:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian_Federal_District
Info Lake Baikal in winter. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please don't pixel-peep this to death. At that latitude in January you need high ISO at sunset since the ice is probably moving a bit with the waves. The big size of the file makes up for it. I wouldn't mind an English description though. --Cart (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Cart for the explanation on the circumstances. Often reviewers don't know why or even if certain settings were chosen. – Lucas ^T 18:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rather noisy, but very spectacular --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree that this is a very spectacular photo and overall worth a feature, but it is (understandably, as Cart explains) quite noisy, and even downsized to 5000px across some noise is still visible. It's not terrible though, so I still support. Cmao20 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noisy but still good enough for FP --Booth sift 23:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's spectacular, but I don't understand why we are not asking for it to be de-noised before we support a feature. It's already problematic at 250% and slightly at 200% of my 13-inch laptop screen. And in this case, I don't think the size of the photo is an argument for a feature, because it looks bad at full size and we probably shouldn't be looking at it at that size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan, FYI, zoom levels above 100 % usually denote zooming in further than the 1:1 pixel level, so picture pixels would actually get upscaled on your monitor. I'm sure you meant the opposite, being zoomed in a moderate amount, still above pixel level, approx. 50 % zoom or less. – Lucas ^T 07:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, you didn't read my remark carefully. I'm talking about percentages of the size of my 13-inch laptop screen, not percentages of the huge size of the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, when you get noise at high ISO levels, de-noising will often ruin the photo. The de-noising programs can only merge and extrapolate the "missing" information so far. The result is often a smooth and plastic-looking photo since you lose all sharp edges and in most places the "noise grains" will bunch together and form artifacts instead. A photo like this will lose some of its crispness. Even a slight noise reduction would make it look over-processed or like taken with a cheap mobile. --Cart (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity. Do you think there could have been a way to get a little more sharpness and less noise when the photo was taken? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably have taken it with that time and a lower ISO and added the light in post-processing; that would have made it less noisy but instead you would have lost bright colors and details in the ice. Or you could have sacrificed the DOF and made only the nearest ice sharp; that way you could do a less noisy photo. In some cases, everything is a compromise. --Cart (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan and others, this is a version of the photo downsized to "normal"/acceptable size with a bit of noise reduction (you can do NR on a high ISO photo if you downsize it first). It is nicer to look at when opening at full size, BUT in the process a lot of information is now lost. It has gone from 19.05 MB to 4.08 MB. Isn't it better to have the full original version? --Cart (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original is much nicer to look at, the world has plenty of mushy noise-reduced images already. – Lucas 12:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just wanted to show how it would look since not all voters are used to how post-processing works. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the demonstration. I agree that the original is superior to the edited version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It needs denoising. At least selective denoising. Great lighting and compo but the noise is just too much. Poc o² 14:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 17:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks providing me with my new desktop background![reply]
Neutral Nice photo but somewhat overcooked. (1) Noise is not the issue here. Noise is the most overrated problem here on FPC ever. That said, I think at 38mm focal length an aperture of f/5.6 would have done it, too. Then it would have been possible to lower the ISO to 200 which would have reduced the noise significantly. However, it is always easy to critize such a photo sitting at home in front of your computer. On location you sometimes don't have the time to try different settings or you don't immediately see a flaw that can be seen on a computer screen. Additionally EXIF says that the exposure has been increased somewhat (+0.57) in postprocessing which may explain the amount of noise since the D800 IMO would normally not create so much noise at only ISO 800. (2) EXIF also says that the author increased clarity, vibrance and saturation which was for my taste somewhat too much, that's why I vote neutral here. --Code (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco --Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy. --Rbrechko (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could be mitigated by denoising --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, Too much noise for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, largely per Code; image quality issues unfortunately go beyond what should have been easily tamed ISO noise. It seems that a combination of heavy-handed sharpening and NR have created an unpleasant and artificial-looking grain. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose due to the noise. Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry. A great composition, but too much noise. --XRay ^talk 11:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:De Groene Verbinding.png, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 13:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Netherlands
Info created by Robert Hertel - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has wow -- Eatcha (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great combinaison of forms and colors. --Yann (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sadly there are two cranes in the background that could have easily been cloned out. They are quite symmetrical but don't fit thematically for me. – Lucas 14:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I rather feel that the accidental (or if you prefer, found) symmetry of the cranes makes the photo better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed, wow (and I don't know this bridge) --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support works well but colors appear a bit overcooked --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cranes are unfortunate but at least they're quite symetrical :) --Podzemnik (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this a lot, but why PNG? I thought this format wasn’t really favoured for ordinary photographs. Cmao20 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmao20: , the flickrreview-bot checks SHA1 of the files to verify them, If I convert it to JPEG the automatic check will fail as hash will change. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stalinsunnykvj (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Henri C. R. Presseq - Camille Erlanger - Le juif polonais.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 15:37:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Henri C. R. Presseq - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another great poster. interesting history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality.--Peulle (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Henry39 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another excellent restoration, Adam. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I second Daniel Case’s comments. Cmao20 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kokerei Zollverein Essen - kühltürme - by db3em.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 18:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category:Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info clicked by db3em; rest by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Could be cheerier with different light, but I think this is a legitimate choice for the depiction of an interesting industrial structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. At first I thought it was one of theose string art things that were popular in the 70s. --Cart (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have also taken care of the license review. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support More precise description would be nice. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Limbach Baggersee 7295069.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 06:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this nomination is a real stretch for FPC, because a lot of regulars here tend to object to photos that don't contain the entirety of a lake. Painters routinely make these kinds of crops, because the result is a wonderfully dynamic sky rhymed by a peaceful sandy and grassy near bank, interacting with the trees on the far side, with the water and reflections in the lake in between. Of course Ermell can speak for himself, but I think the fact that the clouds, even more than the lake, are cropped adds tension and dynamism that fits the type of weather Ermell was experiencing and wants us to experience at one remove. (Tangentially, I had a dilemma in terms of categories, because an excavation lake is not natural, but it sure looks natural, so I couldn't think of a better category. Mixed?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The best category is probably Commons:Featured pictures/Places, it is for all those mixed or hard-to-define places. --Cart (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1 -- Eatcha (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it just me (or the compo) or is the image tilted a bit? --Cart (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hadn't noticed it. Maybe. User:Ermell, what do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @Michielverbeek: @Uoaei1: @King of Hearts: I had already corrected the image but forgot to upload it. I hope I didn't spoil it.--Ermell (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp here 08:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. IMO the left side is hanging a bit to the right. A less strong zoom (with more photo at the left part and a bit at the right) could have given probably a more attractive composition. --Michielverbeek (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The leading lines all lead towards the patch of trees on the right, which is placed a bit too far off to the side making the composition unbalanced IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural WB and no wow for me, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - In what way would you suggest changing the WB? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less yellow and more green --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for nominating Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Certainly, and thanks for uploading a new revision. We'll see how it does. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per others --Booth sift 21:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A subtle light, but it grows on you after a while. Painterly and elegant. Cmao20 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no problems with the WB or composition. It just isn't interesting with this sky and this level of brightness. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good quality, and no real reason to oppose, but it lacks something special. Yann (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - Well, I did say this nomination was a stretch. No sense in dragging this out. Thanks to everyone who voted or commented. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yuri Gagarin (1961).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info all by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too bright and it could do with a slight restoration. Composition-wise, I don't think lamp shades as hats will ever be in fashion. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he's calling attention to some clichéd aspect of the photograph

. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Cart--Booth sift 17:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yeah, I like his happy, youthful appearance, though I agree with Cart, especially on the composition. But how historically important is this particular portrait? It seems to be the best one we've got on Commons, and he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure. We do have this reproduction of a painting, too, but it's below the normal minimum size for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say it is unique and unmatched in EV. Gagarin's face was scarred when he fell jumping off a balcony while escaping from his wife who had caught him cheating in September 1961. In case you are not aware, he became the first human in space in April 1961. So this is the only photo likely to be available of how he looked pre-incident and best representation of his appearance while he was on his historic first mission to space. It may also be the best/only clear portrait of him we have in general because he died in 1968. I do not know how to clean up the scratches around his chin. If any one is good at that I would welcome it. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm very much aware of Gagarin's pioneering voyage in space, which is why I wrote that "he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The italics was not intended for you. The dates are more important to answering your question. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it did help to answer my question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cart as the lamp shade and chin shadow are serious photographical flaws and Commons FP are centered around photographic excellence. IMHO this fits far better with the goal of Wikipedia FP. – Lucas 21:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucasbosch, as this particular image doesn't appear to be that significant (he was the subject of lots of pictures, and this one doesn't stand out), and it's got the problems mentioned above. And I agree on en:WP:FP: "unmatched in EV" doesn't matter here as much as there. We can promote images passing COM:SCOPE even if they're not currently in use anywhere, while great educational value can't salvage a not-so-good photo. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Do you have any thoughts about another photo of him that would be a better FP candidate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Support, pending a satisfactory answer to this question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above, but quite sure it is a Wikipedia FP. Cmao20 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart and the pose. The side glance and the weird smile undermine the dignity of his uniform and make the picture an unresolvable contradiction (Perhaps, per my remark to Cart, that's what's being lampshaded! Bah-DUMP-ump ... crasssssshhhhh! Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you'll "be here all week" and we should "remember to tip the waitress". --Cart (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Himmler besichtigt die Gefangenenlager in Russland. Heinrich Himmler inspects a prisoner of war camp in Russia, circa... - NARA - 540164.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 09:13:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info Heinrich Himmler inspecting a Soviey POW Camp. ~~ Nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 09:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 09:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Please remember this, it's not the first time you go over the limit. At the moment you try to have five going. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sacramento, California. Harvey Akio Itano, 21, 1942 graduate from the University of California wher . . . - NARA - 537777.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 08:09:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info created by Department of the Interior; War Relocation Authority. - uploaded by US National Archives bot - nominated by Fluffy89502;
Inmate at the Tule Lake Internment Camp during World War II.

-- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 08:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 08:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Please remember this, it's not the first time you go over the limit. At the moment you try to have five going. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:McClure Tunnel west.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 00:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Steve Lyon - uploaded by Rschen7754 - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 00:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 00:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO a good idea, but there are some technical issues like perspective fixes. --XRay ^talk 04:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Please remember this, it's not the first time you go over the limit. At the moment you try to have five going. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kruisbladige wolfsmelk (Euphorbia lathyris) (d.j.b.).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 18:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created and uploaded by Dominicus Johannes Bergsma - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad bottom crop and overal unimaginative centered composition. Light is not special, background blur is too busy to me. – Lucas 07:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas, sorry. WB also seems a bit to cold. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but I agree with Lucas and Uoaei1. Cmao20 (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Unfortunately, this did not go the way I expected. Sorry for the inconvenience--Booth sift 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 22:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:1909 Vanderbilt Cup, American roadster-restored.jpg. not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 23:20:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created byBain News Service, publisher - uploaded by Sporti - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More contrast needed, and not with the text at the top. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See File:1909 Vanderbilt Cup, American roadster, edit.jpg as an example. Also much more restoration is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yann, now letters are removed and contrast improved Ezarateesteban 13:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This photo is 110 years old, but I think the restoration is insufficient for FP. It's got all kinds of surface damage, plus the arbitrarily lighter strips on both sides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will try to finish the restoration, but it will take time. Yann (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you desire I'll upload the XCF that I am using to restore. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 21:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezarate: Yes, please. Yann (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 22:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today, at night in Argentina I'll do it Ezarateesteban 10:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 22:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Domaine de Maizerets park, Québec city, Canadá 09.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 17:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was ready to oppose at first, but the detail at full resolution is excellent. I still think it's a bit low on wow, but overall worth a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow mainly due to the overcast day, the random people and big empty lawn in the foreground. The right crop is unsatisfying, the brown gravel field should have been included fully. – Lucas 10:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Lucas. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lucas, disturbing trees on the left/portion of the maze missing, uninteresting lighting, cluttered compo (what is the main element?) Poc o² 17:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No todas las composiciones necesitan tener un sujeto principal, sin embargo, en este caso es el laberinto. Muchas gracias por tu pregunta --Wilfredor (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see why the photographer might have taken the image, but it doesn't work. There are just too many things here trying to be the subject, helped by the dull light. Perhaps the maze by itself from this angle might have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others above--Booth sift 21:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hortus Haren 18-05-2019. (actm.) 07.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 16:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Phyteuma nigrum #Family Campanulaceae.
* Info This beautiful dark blue Phyteuma nigrum is a subspecies of Phyteuma spicatum.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --СССР (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vulp here 08:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 21:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful indeed. Cmao20 (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive resolution. The article said how tall the plant grows, but it would also be nice to know how big the flowering part is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: thank you for your response. The main bloom is approximately 2 to 3 weeks. The plant is on the red list and is therefore very rare.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that in the Wikipedia article. I mean how many centimeters the flower is in width and height, not how old the plant is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The total height and width of the inflorescence is variable. and about 12 by 4 cm.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very beautiful image, which deserves to be used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Javan Kingfisher Asman GunungKelir.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 07:00:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Asman ap - uploaded by Asman ap - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a good action photo that I'll consider, but I think the categorization is inadequate. I would think that the species for the bird and the frog are needed categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and unsharp. A vertical frame would also be better -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile.--Peulle (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile--Booth sift 21:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; background is also distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2019 (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: It will have a hard time overcoming 5 opposes with the reasons mentioned in the votes--Booth sift 22:15, 23 June 2019 (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:Luigi Verardi after Dominico Ferri - Vincenzo Bellini - Théatre Royal Italien. Salle d'armes dans l'Opéra I Puritani.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 23:48:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Luigi Verardi after Dominico Ferri - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, once more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- Eatcha (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and clean work Adam. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 21:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously. Cmao20 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vibrant Sky.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 23:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Don Heffern II - uploaded by Don Heffern II - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seems like a pretty snapshot, nothing else, and there are huge areas of inert pitch blackness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and it has some very visible CAs – Lucas 07:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 08:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful sky but the silhouettes are not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others above --Booth sift 21:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One that falls on the short side of my usual saying about sunset pictures here: it has to make us feel like we've never seen a sunset before. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astern IMG 3343.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 06:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created & uploaded by User:Fischer.H - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is a superb flower closeup, one of the better ones I've seen lately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- Eatcha (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vulp here 08:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background is a bit noisy though. --Hockei (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just weak Support because of the boring central composition --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 21:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, this is a lovely flower closeup. Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Because of the cropped flowers Poc o² 15:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Helgoland - Blick vom Lummenfelsen zur Langen Anna.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 09:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info View from the "Lummenfelsen" called rock on the island of Heligoland to the Lange Anna. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe a bit underexposed? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, interesting scene and good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The midsummer 2PM lighting causes shadows to appear where you don't want them to appear, and the lit portions to be less vibrant than ideal. Also plenty of blown whites at the bottom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine shot . --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good, interesting composition, and extremely well-executed as usual. I have no problem with the shadows. Blown whites (bird excrement, I believe), if indeed blown, are minimal in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but the lighting could have been more pleasant, sorry --A.Savin 23:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You have a good point. Your photo is better. Why don't you nominate it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had nominated a similar picture, but it failed. --A.Savin 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it´s oversaturated. --Milseburg (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I for myself have a rather low tolerance for overdone saturation, normally I take the green of the grass and/or the blue of the sky as reference and reduce the level. But whereas it is easy to reduce the whole saturation or chosen channels at any time afterwards, you cannot add much more light to your picture when you have taken it in weak light, and the beauty of Heligoland cliffs (including the colours) is only seen entirely when it is sufficiently lit. Anyone who juxtapose both picture see the difference immediately. Your picture may be correctly saturated, but the colours that I would like to see are definitely lost there. --A.Savin 13:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad light. -- -donald- (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH and A.Savin – Lucas 12:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can spend more light to the shadows if wanted, but I think in general shadows give more vividness to the relief as everywhere the same lighting. --Milseburg (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shadows of course add dimensionality - if they are in the right direction. Here the shadows go straight down unfortunately, making the scene look flat to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since I !voted for A. Savin's picture that didn't pass, I will say that this is just as good. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a surprisingly nice image to view at 100% zoom and scroll around, but if viewed as a whole it doesn't really convince me. --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oberbaumbrücke November 2013 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 11:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created & uploaded by ArildV - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The architecture has sufficient wow for me, and quality is great. Cmao20 (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ though the sky could be cropped a little bit --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not balanced IMO; too much sky making the composition bottom-heavy, and also right-heavy as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will support both versions when a suitable crop is made to the foreground, to eliminate the little bits of something (boats?) toward the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek, fixed in crop. Tomer T (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco below. – Lucas 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alt: crop

Info crop by me. Tomer T (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also fine. Cmao20 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for nomination and votes. 6 years later, I'm still very happy with my photos from Berlin.--ArildV (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but the shadow on the left is not helping and the crane in the middle is just spoiling the image. The Oberbaum bridge does definitely have FP potential but I'd really enjoy seeing it here free of cranes and with a more interesting light, sorry. Poc o² 17:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For what it's worth, the crane is just another perpendicular to me and doesn't damage the composition. To each his/her own. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Poco – Lucas 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less per Poco. The shadow spoils it for me. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Oberbaumbrücke November 2013 01 (crop).jpg

File:African Cape Daisy (Osteospermum barberiae).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 13:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info all by AntanO -- Antan O 13:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antan O 13:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and simple. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH Poc o² 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry but this doesn't seem completely sharp to me, at least not as sharp as some other flower pictures I've seen round here. Cmao20 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It would be nice to know what the diameter of the flower is (AntanO, you might add that information to the file description if you have it), but it's sharp enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely and simple. --Gnosis (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't get much better than this IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 22:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Großer Wollschweber hinterm Elbdeich.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 19:15:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
Info created - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I didn't get at first that we're looking at a very cold insect on the plant. Remarkable photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool. The bug is only 14-18mm long! English description would be highly appreciated. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great level of detail, but it needs a description in English -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done sorry for the delay. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 21:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top Poc o² 18:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could see cropping in the sides a bit though. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Martin church in Naucelle 10.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 21:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Currently composition is a little too left-heavy IMO; consider cropping out a tiny bit on the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good resolution and a beautiful object. Cmao20 (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment +1 to King; also there is an obvious dust spot in the upper left. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info King of Hearts, Daniel Case; I tried to correct, it's better? --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 22:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solitary sandpiper in swamps.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 16:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info Solitary sandpiper relaxing by the water in a warm afternoon. Taken somewhere in the swamps of Yukon. Captured, uploaded and nominated by me, Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely capture, nice and sharp, and with relatively little noise. Some might complain that the bird is too small in the frame, but I think it can be seen as an image of the bird in its natural habitat and so the background is valuable to have. Cmao20 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20: Thanks. This is the original size, uncropped. I have one more cropped so the bird is like 40 % of the frame but I decided to use this one on Wiki precisely because of the habitat/environment around and keep the informative value. Otherwise, I like the crop better, esthetically. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great capture of a bird in its natural environment. The sandpiper is quite small but the resolution and the quality are very good. I'd probably prefer to crop a bit from the bottom and even more from the top to place the bird in the middle - but it's good as it is anyway :) --Podzemnik (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Podzemnik: Thanks, as per above. Btw you can check the crop version on my profile at F***** to compare (don't wanna publish the link for the service here). -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cart (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The vertical composition helps emphasize the shallow depth of field and the various features of the habitat. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too much background for a small bird. I would have cropped the image more tight to the bird in a landscape aspect ratio and with the eye right in the vertical center of the image. --Granada (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. --Aristeas (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support See Granada note.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Granada Poc o² 17:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Granada – Lucas 17:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not good enough quality to crop. Charles (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just too busy to work for me as an FP even if it were cropped. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Granada.--Vulp here 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Probably a valuable image per Cmao20's point, but it would inspire me more if the bird were sharper, and I believe I recall sharper FPs of sandpipers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 22:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yukon mirror.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 16:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Yukon
Info Nameless lake in the woods of Yukon. Captured, uploaded & nominated by me, Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Serene composition. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too much sky IMO --Llez (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Category? Reflection?~~ -- Eatcha (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The compo is a little bit too simple. That much almost white(blank) sky and its reflection doesn't work for the photo. It's probably one of those times when the real life experience was awesome but it doesn't translate to the photo. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think part of the air needs to be cut off. To balance the photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It clearly needs a perspective correction and although the lighting is good there is too much sky on the top, it would definitively benefit from a crop to achieve better symmetry with the lower portion. If both issues adressed I would reconsider to change this opposing vote Poc o² 17:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree that there's too much sky for my taste, but I also think there's too much water. This is indeed a peaceful scene, but to my eyes, the image more or less just sits there, with the exception of the obvious broadening from left to right. The piece of driftwood helps a little, and there's one cloud that subtly points to the right, but it's not enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, it just feels too empty as a whole. – Lucas 09:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan especially --Booth sift 03:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Famberhorst. Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Famberhorst.--Vulp here 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 4 neutral → not featured. /--Booth sift 22:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Кристаллы в высохшей капле Кока Колы.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 14:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info Crystals (mainly sugar) in a dried Coca Cola drop under a microscope. Polarization. Crossed polarizers.
Info created by Alexander Klepnev - uploaded by Alexander Klepnev - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks very nice and I would like to be able to vote for it. However, ZoomViewer is not working and I can't open such a big file. Often a smaller version is provided on the file page of large files for situations like this. Example. --Cart (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can see a 9 Mpixels version. Yann (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you. I don't have enough memory to open the full file! However, the picture is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! Yann (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the scale of this? Yann (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Thanks Yann for the smaller version. :-) --Cart (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ This badly needs a bit of rework to be good. With the black levels my monitor is able to differentiate, there is a lot of noise, unsigthly sensor patterns, false colors, posterization, and a good amount of dust and dirt, all visible in the shadows literally everwhere in the image, without any further enhancement by me and without cranking up monitor brightness. If your monitor can't show it, I suggest opening it in an image editor and rasing the shadows. I'm offering to do the processing to make this clean, but maybe Alexander Klepnev wants to do it himself. Regarding its resolution, viewing this at 100 % does not show detail but rather very mushy pixels that would get opposed immediately in other pictures, I would downscale at least by half and slightly sharpen to make it less bloated. – Lucas 18:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to take your word for this since I can't open the original file. Well, this seems to be one of the cases against very large files then. ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the author of the photo is a simple teacher at school. He conducts a special course for children on photography of images with a microscope, and alas, he will not finish the photo: ( JukoFF (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the info. I've made the edit in the shadows and downscaled to 25 % size as I've found there wasn't more detail available beyond what are now approx. 23 MPx. Slight sharpening. I've updated on the original file page and switch to Support now. – Lucas 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting. --Pine (✉) 21:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 21:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting image Cmao20 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another image that is just waiting to be an album cover. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Red-billed gull portrait, New Brighton, New Zealand 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 07:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's a red-billed gull, native New Zealand bird. It can be found around here and local islands. Captured during the evening pinky light. -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, look at this eye(s) in the evening sun. ;-) Even though I don't know what kind of a colour they have. --Hockei (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 22:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The sun and the moon in South New Brighton's beach, New Zealand.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 07:03:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Others
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. After Cart's try to get a FP status for a photo with the sun and the moon in the same image (see this one and this one), this is my attempt. Same as the Cart's images, this photo was taken very close to the winter solstice (down here pretty much today). It's a beach with sand dunes in South New Brighton, Christchurch, New Zealand -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support and a very Happy Midsommarafton (today) from Sweden to you! (FYI, summer solstice is bigger than Christmas up here.) I'm so glad I could inspire someone to have a go at this. Since you have so much nicer landscape down there, your photo is way better than mine. :) I actually did manage to get both celestial bodies in a single frame on the new moon right after that winter solstice, but the moon was so faint then you can't find it without an image note. --Cart (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha happy Midsommarafton to you too :) Yes, you definitely inspired me! I have to admit that it was tricky to get them both together. I figured that the best chance I have was on the beach where the sun rises up first and where I had enough free space to span 120 degrees panorama. Also, I wanted the landscape to be interesting but not much so the viewer wouldn't focus on it too much. By the way, Sweden has a very lovely landscape, too. I've been there twice. I always admired your wilderness. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In short, my photos were the crash test dummies for this perfect one.

Btw, you made my day. :) --Cart (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine (✉) 21:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 21:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I really wish the moon weren't blown - a stop lower would have done it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost looks otherworldly. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Valentin de Boulogne - Soldiers Playing Cards and Dice (The Cheats).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 08:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Valentin de Boulogne / National Gallery of Art, uploaded by Aavindraa, nominated by Yann (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive Resolution -- Eatcha (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure--Booth sift 22:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View from Mirador El Time - La Palma.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 07:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View from the Mirador El Time on the southwestern part of La Palma with the Caldera de Taburiente (left), the cities Los Llanos de Aridane, El Paso and Tazacorte, the Cumbre Nueva with the cloudfall, the Cumbre Vieja and the banana plantations along the coast; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This looks really great at full-page size on my 13-inch laptop, but when I look at the file at larger sizes, I see what looks like one or more bad frames. I've marked their approximate location. It's striking because the buildings in the town look good but the greenhouses or areas of farm with tarpaulins over them to the right of the town look intensely blurry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done You are right, some frames were not sharp. Fortunately I had made another Panorama from the same place which is sharp. I replaced the unsharp version by this second panorama --Llez (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Much better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support A bit unfortunate as I preferred the look of the other one, but nonetheless this one is deserving of FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the weather conditions were not ideal, there is too much haze in the distance. Overall the colors and landscape aren't wowing for me. – Lucas 07:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info But only under these weather conditions you have the typical (and impressive) cloudfall at the Cumbre Nueva. --Llez (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't know that "tablecloth" thing with the clouds and the mountain happened other places besides Cape Town. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice Cmao20 (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yonge Street August 2017 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 08:50:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Night life on the famouse Yonge street in Toronto, Canada. I like the composition, the busy street and all the signs. This type of night photography requires some technical compromises to avoid blurred people and cars. No downsampling, but a crop. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We don't see photos of views down urban streets too often at FPC. I enjoy this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! I'm amazed you got it this sharp at 1/15 sec. --Cart (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmmmm pretty good quality considering the conditions. I feel like I'm there with other street walkers. Is it handhold by the way? --Podzemnik (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... I'm pretty sure most of the people in the photo are not streetwalkers. ;-) --Cart (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG sorry for that. I meant people who're walking on the street you know! --Podzemnik (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but they are called 'pedestrians'. Bet you won't forget that word now. :-) --Cart (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is handheld--ArildV (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 22:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The very left part is not illuminated and quite dark, thus this image looks inbalanced to me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not totally sharp but I wouldn't necessarily expect this one to be. Great to see someone submit an FPC candidate from Toronto which isn't a photo of the skyline with the CN Tower prominent. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017.07.10.-02-Wendisch Rietz--Kaisermantel-Maennchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 18:32:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info Let us make it clear from the start: If you like the background or not, I love the colour contrast of the butterfly to it. And there is no more room below so I had to crop it above in about the same distance. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love that you have the guts to nominate a photo with such a "non-Commons" crop; filling the frame like that feels fresh. The total color experience is great, soft, warm and lovely. This could be a print on something in a high-end store. --Cart (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really beautiful butterfly and very impressive resolution and sharpness! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart and I like the background very much – Lucas 07:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cart is right, it feels fresh. Not because you filled the frame (that can look quite static and boring) but because of how you did it. The diagonal flower. The butterfly making its own diagonal that is not quite aligned with the flower but does provide some symmetry due to how the wing tips are positioned relative to the left and right edge. The composition is clearly structured, but still feels very dynamic. --El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop not how I like it, but artistic impression and technical quality overcome this weakness. Charles (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 03:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional oppose due to licensing issue I think that the image is great, but I have a concern. The file page says "Overwriting my file is prohibited. If a different version is created, it must be uploaded under use of the template derivative under another name and linked here. The Category Images by Hockei has to be added in the other version." I am not aware of a Commons policy that allows an author to place a restriction on the file like this. The author seems to be licensing this image with a variation of the Creative Commons license, and as far as I know custom licenses such as this are not allowed on Commons. Please consider revising the license of the file. --Pine (✉) 21:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not at all what you say. I just want anybody not to overwrite my file. I have my reason for that. Look at here. This user Amara overwrote my file with a thumbnail again and again. But my work is my work. Anybody can use my picture according the cc by-sa **. Therefore what you write is completely nonsense. Please don't bring me in a discussion for that. I have no time the next few weeks. Just think twice before you write such stupid stuff. --Hockei (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What that user did was simple vandalism. They should have been blocked for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pine: Agree with Hockei, this is Commons-only, non-copyright restriction in line with COM:OVERWRITE guidelines. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockei and King of Hearts: thanks for the comments. I think that a creator requesting that others not overwrite the file is okay, and I think that a creator requesting that others contact the creator first before overwriting a file is okay. However, unless I have overlooked something in COM:OVERWRITE, I do not believe that a creator is permitted on Commons to make a permanent and complete prohibition against someone else from overwriting a file. My comment here is not intended to support edit wars regarding versions of a file. If Hockei changes the comment on the file page from "Overwriting my file is prohibited." to "Please do not overwrite this file without consulting me first, and if you want to edit the file then I request that you upload the derivative as a separate file.", I would be okay with that request, and I hope that Hockei will agree to this softer wording. Thank you. --Pine (✉) 00:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And what has this to do with the FPC-nomination? You demand compliance with rules from others and don't stick to it yourself. Find a valid reason for your oppose or cancel it. Everything else will be clarified later at another place. --Hockei (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockei: I agree with Pine that you should consider a softer wording than "prohibited" simply to create a more collegial atmosphere. That said, I don't think this restriction is meant to apply to the license and hence cannot render it invalid (i.e. I don't think Hockei intends to hold those overwriting his file on Commons in violation of the license, merely in violation of COM:OVERWRITE guidelines). And to be technical about it, is overwriting others' files really not prohibited? Per IAR there is no dividing line between makruh and haram, only a sliding scale of undesirable actions. If someone persisted in overwriting other people's files after being repeatedly asked not to, a block could very well be in order. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Superb work, I think this is one of your best. Cmao20 (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great compo Poc o² 18:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /\--Booth sift 00:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:Saint Julian church in Cassagnes-Begonhes 12.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 21:31:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Stained glass
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. If you can say anything more about the windows in your file description (e.g., when or roughly when they were made and installed), that would be great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support 👍 -- Eatcha (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ikan Kekek; informations added. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too much contrast and processing resulting in an image with no subtlety and burnt-out. Also no wow -- we don't feature every stained glass window and this is quite a plain stained glass window. There are better even within this church. For example see File:Cassagnes_vitrail_1.JPG and compare to your File:Saint Julian church in Cassagnes-Begonhes 15.jpg. The former is only 1.3MP but is a hugely superior image. Such windows are better photographed on a dull-weather day, and please make only modest changes with those Lightroom sliders. An HDR technique is often required for best results with windows. I see here you've set Contrast +15; Highlights -66; Shadows -100; Whites +84; Blacks -82; Clarity +48. Those are ridiculous values and the effect is obvious. -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly per Colin --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, Eatcha, Agnes Monkelbaan, Vulphere, and Llez: @Stepro and Famberhorst: I'm quite perplexed at the degree of support for this image. Category:Stained-glass windows contains perhaps hundreds of thousands of images and we are to find the very best on Commons. Compare Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Stained glass. Look at File:Iglesia de San Bartolomé de Tirajana - Gran Canaria - Windows.jpg or File:Stained-glass Antwerp 4.jpg or my own File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Stained Glass Window.jpg. This single small window is not grand or part of a set-photo and most of it consists of a pale ornamental design rather than illustrations. I don't think, of all the hundreds of thousands of such windows in the world, this single frame has wow. But more so, it is frankly a terrible rendering of the window. I don't have a direct comparison but we can compare two other windows from the church, both taken and processed similarly by Tournasol7 with others:

The first of each pair are smaller images but they are hugely superior. In second of each pair, the red is burnt out to orange. The two shades of blue background are separated by extreme contrast such that the lighter shade is white. The delicate facial features are lost in a heavy handed rendering that looks jaundiced instead of skintone. Joseph's tunic changes from fawn brown to gold. The subtle grey geometric artwork in the bottom half of the second pair is rendered with a green tint, and the yellow hoops burnt out to white in places. All the images in the set by Tournasol7 have the same extreme processing that has exaggerated the saturation, contrast and completely blown the bright colours and tones, while darkening any shades to total black. I would really appreciate if those who supported could take a second look, compare against our best, consider the high technical standard required, our requirement for the subject to have wow. If you still think it is an FP, would dearly like to know why. -- Colin (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:F18 aboard USS Carl Vinson.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 06:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Rebecca Sunderland - uploaded by User:Cogaidh - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry only adding now, didn't read the instructions Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like how part of the plane and another worker is obstructed by the worker in the front. Colors look overprocessed. – Lucas 07:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because the wow factor is very high... but I really think the image should have a higher resolution.--Peulle (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've commented out the the Bot closing since this has not been visible here until now. The nominator altered the timestamp on the nom, but the Bot keeps track of it anyway. If anyone has a better idea of doing this, please do so. --Cart (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Has WOW -- Eatcha (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Will vote after another look later--Booth sift 04:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a second look, I'm going to go with Oppose mainly for the issues noted by Lucas and Cart--Booth sift 22:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I find the compo a bit messy and unbalanced. These are also technical issues as noted above. --Cart (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart; the contre-jour idea could have worked but not here, where the sunlight is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much clarity and burnt sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think that the photographer had a good idea but the person at right that partially blocks the view of the principal subject is sub-optimal. --Pine (✉) 21:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart and Lucas, it’s dramatic but composition and quality are not FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 05:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Farul vechi din Sulina.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
Info created by ValentinManus - uploaded by ValentinManus - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gbawden (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why FPD ? I see only one active nomination, one is FPXed ? -- Eatcha (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Once a day has passed after the other one was FPXed, this nomination should be reactivated. And this photo is interesting and IMO deserves consideration. I'd prefer if it were de-noised just a bit, but it's a good photo. I would contest the FPD, but I'm not sure how to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eatcha, per the rules, a FPX is still considered active as I can be contested anytime during 24 hours. A denied nom can also be removed from the list after 24 h, but as there is interest to continue voting I will remove my FPD after the deadline of the FPX has passed and I closed that other nom for good. – Lucas 07:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, please remove it before 13:00UTC otherwise the bot will close it. (24 hours limit at 08:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)) -- Eatcha (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eatcha, Ikan Kekek: Done – Lucas 07:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The colors seem overcooked and there are halos around the tower due to oversharpening. Coordinates would be nice. – Lucas 07:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Street view here -- Eatcha (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The technical quality should be better. -XRay ^talk 10:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lucas.--Vulp here 08:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Normally I'd agree that it's a little overdone, and it does look like some filter was applied, but in this case it offsets the effects of the cloudy sky and dull light. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm seeing the halos on the upper reaches of the lighthouse. User:ValentinManus, if you would eliminate the halos effectively, I would support this nomination because the form works for me and the low angle is interesting, making me feel like I'm on the water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above--Booth sift 21:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is actually quite good, and certainly rather beautiful, despite the slight halos. I don’t see any great issue with over processed colours. Cmao20 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Booth sift 05:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meissen Böttger 1935.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 22:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ok for me Ezarateesteban 00:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support These images by you are always good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Until I looked at them real close up I thought they were chocolate. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Daniel: Sweet stuff anyway! --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There's an area on the bottom part on the left that's not so sharp. I assume this is a regular-sized coin, though, in which case, all of the photo is pretty damn sharp for the coin's size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC) The diameter is 36 mm, see file description. --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:St. Wolfgang kath. Pfarrkirche Pacher-Altar Sonntagsseite 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
Info St. Wolfgang Altarpiece at the catholic parish- and pilgrimage church St. Wolfgang im Salzkammergut, Upper Austria. View for weekdays with closed wings. Michael Pacher, 1471–79, set up in 1481. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Michael Pacher is a fantastic painter I wasn't aware of. The richness and depth of field in these paintings is wonderful! You captured them really well. You could add even more value to the photo if you can identify what scene each panel depicts. I could recognize some of them, but not all, and some people won't recognize any. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your suggestion. Indeed, this is work in progress, as I have some more images of this altar piece, which show the individual panels. But these still await final processing and upload. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The window frames in the background suggest either the whole setup in the room was not right or the camera was off-center. IMHO in either case you should have seen this and corrected the camera position to make it look centered. The bottom crop is too tight for me, it barely clears the bottom of the wood structure. There are magenta CAs on the windows. – Lucas 07:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was standing right in the middle of the nave. These old buildings are usually not completely straight and rectangular. CAs are fixed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Pacher, wow, he lets us forget some offset pixels! --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not easy to make but very well implemented--Ermell (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 04:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 08:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support How beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 05:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Friends Towers, Munich, June 2019.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 09:13:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info ~~A human beehive, built for executive bees and drones.~~ No, it's the facade of Friends Towers, a not overly inexpensive residential high-rise complex in Munich. The automated blinds were all down, creating an interesting abstraction. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting design -- Eatcha (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 17:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The kind of abstract work I enjoy seeing round here. Cmao20 (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am INto texture ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nomination, and the light also is very appropriate -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 17:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Burr on a beech 1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 18:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get the crop, you don't even show the whole burr and this top part doesn't look distinct enough to have it make sense. It looks as if there was something hidden on the burr we should be looking at instead. – Lucas 19:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the burr was uninteresting and it was bisected horizontally by a big shadow. --Cart (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's without any question a QI for me, but the composition is too common for me. --Stepro (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for me -- Eatcha (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry I don't see what's special here. Even the light is average -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belgium 1835 40 Francs.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 13:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info created by National Numismatic Collection, uploaded by Godot13, nominated by Yann (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 17:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 01:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Dode roek. Locatie. Natuurterrein De Famberhorst. 01-06-2019. (d.j.b). 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 17:28:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds #Family Corvidae
Info This one Dead Rook (Corvus frugilegus ) has had a nasty death, confused between the branches of a Pinus.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Feelin' bad 'bout the 🐦, the quality is good and it's the first dead animal I'm witnessing on COM:FPC (maybe entire commons) -- Eatcha (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eatcha: A bit of an overstatement

. You can count the fly here as practically dead as it is being eaten. This beetle appears to be mounted. File:Chicoreus orchidiflorus 01.JPG also depicts a dead animal. Sorry for ruining the fun --Booth sift 05:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I didn't remembered those images that you mentioned, maybe I'm more concerned about the big ones. -- Eatcha (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eatcha and Boothsift: We also have this one. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: @Eatcha: We should make a list/gallery of some sorts. --Booth sift 04:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Dead organisms. Knock yourselves out. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but what about one for only FPs? I'll make one. --Booth sift 04:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Poor guy. You're sure he had a crash? Good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Answer: this Corvus frugilegus was probably killed by a power struggle within the colony.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but check the WB, green seems to be oversaturated --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: the light was very soft that afternoon. See also the other pictures of the bird.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subject and colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Río Tanana, Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 175-178 PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 17:55:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info Alaska Route 2 over Tanana River, Tok, Alaska, United States. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 17:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Green CA should be fixed.--Peulle (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle: I removed some traces of CA, it was hard to see, --Poc o² 12:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like an excellent photo, but does the river really curve as shown? If not, please detail what kind of projection you used in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: It's a 180-degree panorama of cylindric projection. I have documented it along with the exact location Poc o² 12:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Distortions at the edges are unavoidable to some extent. Great panorama overall. Cmao20 (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice wow here. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view. Some blown parts, but unavoidable when pointing the camera at the sun. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautifull panorama, I will change my vote if the distortion is fixed. --Wilfredor (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Volcán Miñiques, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 52-55 PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 17:55:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Volcanic landscape in Atacama, Northern Chile. c/u/n Poc o² 17:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great to see another of your wonderful panoramas of the Atacama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the color contrast. --Yann (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 05:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely deep blue sky. Cmao20 (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:反送中遊行 002.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 14:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Wongan4614 - uploaded by Wongan4614 - nominated by Wongan4614, A photo taking in 16 June, it showed the protest in Hong Kong at that day was flooded the streets outside Pacific Place -- Wongan4614 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wongan4614 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SH6188 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A significant event, but the technical shortcomings of the photo are too many. There is heavy chromatic aberration all over the photo, it needs perspective correction, it is over-saturated/(or vibrance), there is chromatic noise in most places and somehow detail in the photo is not what you'd expect from such a camera. Please look at a few tips on post-processing on COM:PT. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart, no disrespect but for Asian people these got too much of a sun tan in the processing. – Lucas 16:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Vulp here 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Booth sift 21:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretfully per Cart, though it would be lovely to have an FP of this important event. Cmao20 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. Might have worked with better processing and less distractions. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Conrad.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 16:45:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info -- Restored by NASA and uploaded by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Coffeeandcrumbs, I appreciate that you've eliminated the surface noise, but why did you crop and rotate the image? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I rotated it 3° because the original orientation made it appear like her was bent forward.
- The crop was because there was too much background and Conrad was lost deep in it. I wanted to improve composition of the portrait, focusing on his eyes and the pin on his lapel while removing the distracting button which has no EV. I think it improved usability on wiki. See for example sh:Pete Conrad or nl:Pete Conrad. I believe bringing him to the foreground was an improvement. I have uploaded the original so you can judge for yourself: File:Charles Conrad (S64-31465).jpg. See original vs crop on wiki. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already did compare the original and your edited version; that's why I asked the question above. I tend to disapprove of these kinds of edits. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The thing about having the subject leaning forward a bit and including some of the body was a photo style of the era. It was intended to make the photo dynamic and make the subject look thoughtful, eager and attentive. With the crop and rotation, it now looks like a laidback modern passport photo. --Cart (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart, I would support the original unrotated version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart.--Vulphere 05:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination. I will nominate the original. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suricatos (Suricata suricatta), parque nacional Makgadikgadi Pans, Botsuana, 2018-07-30, DD 24.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 08:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Meerkats watching for predators (Suricata suricatta), Makgadikgadi Pans National Park, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poc o² 08:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Pudelek (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very good except for the blurred foreground, a bit more of which could be cropped out. But you already have File:Suricatos (Suricata suricatta), parque nacional Makgadikgadi Pans, Botsuana, 2018-07-30, DD 26.jpg, which is much better in all important respects, IMO, and the less similar File:Suricatos (Suricata suricatta), parque nacional Makgadikgadi Pans, Botsuana, 2018-07-30, DD 29.jpg, which is a great capture. I think that when you nominate a photo at FPC, if there are already similar or related photos that are FPs, you really should acknowledge that up front, linking them, and not making someone else wade through COM:FP because FP search by category is not working, as usual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Ikan Kekek, I forgot the first FP you linked and thought that I only got the other one, which is pretty different. Poc o² 11:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 11:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madakaripura Waterfall - Indonesia.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 10:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Snowmanstudios - uploaded by Snowmanstudios - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
\WOW :-) -- Eatcha (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive view, yes, but I'm bothered not the whole waterfall is rendered sharp. I get the feeling the focus was set too close and my DoF calculator tells me the hyperfocal distance could have been used here. The sky is blown on some parts and there's lens flare on the extreme right. – Lucas 12:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support if the lens flare is corrected. --Yann (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is right now. Necessary improvements: natural WB (currently by far too warm), fix lens flare, remove the plastic bottle at the very left bottom. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for your input, changed the WB, removed the bottle and the fences, the visible "lensflare" is from a water droplet on the GND-filter, but yes, looks far better without. @LucasBosch: you meant this "lensflare" on the left side, not on the right, correct? and your DoF calculator, I mean, I get the feeling whatever... --Snowmanstudios (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better now! --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant the lens flare on the right, I hope it is one. You might be able to change my and other's opinions (see below) about the distant out of focus parts if you cared to explain instead of quibbling about a DoF calculator. – Lucas 18:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm struggling with my vote so far, because the photo has something special - the wow - but it's super-unsharp on the upper left. I think I can tolerate the apparent little lens flare on the right, but is there any way you could improve the sharpness and definition on the upper left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm mostly bothered by that gray-ish patch in the shadows up right. It looks exactly like what you get when you try to raise something from very dark areas where there is little or no info other than darkness. On the whole, the post-processing looks a bit shoddy. Granted it is a very difficult subject light-wise, but I'd welcome a more natural look. --Cart (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per the opposes, but I don't feel like opposing it right now. --Booth sift 21:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support With everyone talking about the unsharp bit, I was expecting it to be really obviously terrible, but it’s only a small part of the image and isn’t very distracting. Overall I like it a lot, notwithstanding some flaws. Cmao20 (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me, it's the distortion at upper left and the halo around the cliff edge, suggesting that it was overdarkened. Daniel Case (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isurus oxyrinchus Machoire.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 21:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- Booth sift 21:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Booth sift 21:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, both the subject and the execution of the shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The choice of the ¾ face was made to show the mechanism of the perpetual renewal of the teeth of this family. Ultimately the image is more aesthetic than the front view that has never been published. Thanks to Boothsift for his appointment.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+ 1 -- Eatcha (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cart (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Booth sift 07:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coralliophila costularis 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 05:38:26 (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) 05:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another dead animal--Booth sift 18:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. Charles (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poc o² 18:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are some of the whites too bright, thereby creating blown areas? Of course this is a fine photo and I don't begrudge it being featured, but I'm not sure it's one of your best. It might be, though. Talk to me about this if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Perhaps it depends on the adjustment of the monitor. On my monitor I don't have really blown areas, but perhaps it can occur if the monitor is adjusted brighter. Or it is a question of the screen. As far as I know, you use a laptop, I use a PC screen. Please have a look on it with a less brighter adjustment at full resolution. --Llez (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. What would you suggest I use as an optimal guide to calibrating brightness on my screen? It's precisely at greater resolutions that I get the whites running together; at lower resolutions, the shell seems separated into sections naturally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek The en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates has some calibration guide for whites/blacks, though I'm not sure how scientific or up-to-date it is. I wouldn't expect to see more than the three circles on that page on a laptop screen. In terms of "blown areas" this doesn't necessarily translate to pure white on a JPG or monitor if the photographer has lowered the exposure (or highlights) in a raw processor. What matters more is whether there is loss of detail or lack of smooth tonal graduation, and sometimes that can also be hard to distinguish from the area merely being out-of-focus or smooth and lacking detail anyway. Some displays have a variable dynamic range where it alters the brightness of the backlight depending on the average brightness of the scene. Usually that mode is more appropriate for watching movies than computer use or viewing still photos. You could check what mode your screen is in, if that can be adjusted. Many computer screens are set too bright by default. Also if you have a bright window behind your screen, then your eye will be less able to see a full brightness range than if you faced a wall or were using the computer in the evening with lights on. Make sure you have the screen angled to point directly at your eyes, since viewing most LCD displays off-angle results in a loss of contrast. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure what to do. I can see only one of the gray circles - the one furthest to the right - no matter how bright I make my screen. I'm not sure how to adjust contrast. I'll investigate further. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a known problem with Windows 8.1. Now I really don't know what to do, except when it's not super-obvious, to ask whether something is or is not blown or whether the whites run together or not. I can adjust the brightness at will, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harmony of Life.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 05:27:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Primates_(Primates)
Info created by Senthiaathavan - uploaded by Senthiaathavan - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support and It's uploaded today just 10 minutes ago. WOW, benefit of patrolling latest file-- Eatcha (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a bit torn here. The motif is great and so is the first impression. Upon taking a second glance though, I've noticed some technical issues such as sharpness and maybe also lighting. But since it's a rather large file one shouldn't be pixelpeeping too much, I guess. Both title and description should be changed/amended, however --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Martin, the text needs some work. The description should be changed right now to something more Wikipedia-like without the emotional speculations and as soon as the nom is closed, the title must be changed too. --Cart (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed some of this plus the categories. Please Eatcha, you have to check that the categories are in order and according to Commons:Categories standard before you nominate an image. If that page is too complicated, you can take a look at the "Cat lesson" I gave another user some time ago. --Cart (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please change the file name once the nomination is over. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect, but National Geographic stuff for sure --A.Savin 14:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Henry39 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 18:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the sharpest but really high wow factor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 05:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, fantastic! --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the noise --Llez (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely composition and athmosphere. Charles (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per A. Savin Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ThomasLendt (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very lovely--Wilfredor (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per A.Savin and Wilfredor --Aristeas (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A deserving candidate, but I would prefer different crops. I'd like the largely inert black area to be cropped out and to compensate, some of the bokeh on the right could be cropped out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 29 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rotmilan IMG 7373.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 11:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far you have had four users helping you fix this nomination for you. In the future, could you please read the information on COM:FPC more carefully. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. --Stepro (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 14:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A characterful photo. Cmao20 (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tough-looking bird! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2019 - Nationalpark Jasmund - 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 19:07:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
Info created - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's a pleasant photo but the composition seems unremarkable to me. --Pine (✉) 21:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Booth sift 21:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bologoe asv2018-08 img21.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kleiber Sitta europaea-0447.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Mischievous Grin.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Don't let them fade away.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Juvenile red-wattled lapwing.jpg/2