Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates:
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal things[edit]Nominating[edit]Guidelines for nominators[edit]Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents[edit]There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs[edit]On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio[edit]Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominations[edit]If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new users[edit]Adding a new nomination[edit]If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. Voting[edit]Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policy[edit]General rules[edit]
Featuring and delisting rules[edit]A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be polite[edit]Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. See also[edit]
|
Table of contents[edit]
Featured picture candidates[edit]
File:Kasteel Tarasp (Tarasp Castle) Scuol, 18-09-2023. (actm.) 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2024 at 05:17:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others Fencing
- Info Tarasp Castle Scuol, in Lower Engadin, Graubünden (Fencing) A rustic fence in a beautiful September atmosphere.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC) - Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Magdalensberg Filialkirche hll. Helena und Maria Magdalena NW-Ansicht 29032023 3697.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2024 at 01:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Austria
- Info Superb image quality and compelling composition in this beautiful photo of an Austrian church. created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Slaty brushfinch (Atlapetes schistaceus schistaceus) Caldas.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2024 at 01:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Passerellidae (New world sparrows)
- Info Very good quality, sharp and well composed photo of this subtly pretty bird. No FPs of this species and indeed this appears to be the only QI. created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom, nice one, and I like that the tail feathers are sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:At Santos, Brazil 2017 161.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2024 at 00:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Single stained glass windows
- Info Rose window, Basilica of St. Anthony, Santos, Brazil. It is a neo-Ghotic Catholic church inaugurated in 1945. Created and uploaded by Mike Peel - nominated by ★ -- ★ 00:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support An unusual outdoor view of a stained glass window. -- ★ 00:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Great motif and per nomination, very distinctive. Image quality (sharpness) maybe a little below our best. Cmao20 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Very dirty. This facade needs a good renovation. Normal image, not spectacular motif, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- A renovation could end in the elimination of the perception of oldness, I think that this state is the correct state. Giving a serious analogy like trying to clean an old coin, it would completely lose its value. Wilfredor (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's part of the Gothic mood! ★ 03:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- A renovation could end in the elimination of the perception of oldness, I think that this state is the correct state. Giving a serious analogy like trying to clean an old coin, it would completely lose its value. Wilfredor (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wow factor is low with this level of filth. It's not a question of accuracy (cf. coin) nor a question of technical quality. Just a matter of aesthetics. And apart from the facade, the glass is blueish with no depth. Poor light. Perhaps better from inside -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with Basile, unspectacular light, detail just ok, not beautiful due to dirt Poco a poco (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Judith at the Banquet of Holofernes (previously known as Artemisia), by Rembrandt, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2024 at 11:22:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups
- Info Rembrandt: Judith at the Banquet of Holofernes - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by --Thi (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Thi (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Really impressive reproduction! I had to download it to be able to view it at a large size - it was completely black when I tried to view it at full size using the media viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I don't have enough memory to download this, but I trust it will be FP --Wilfredor (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Galería Humberto I, Nápoles, Italia, 2023-03-25, DD 157-159 HDR.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2024 at 08:10:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery:
Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#ItalyCommons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Glass ceilings and skylights - Info Galleria Umberto I, Naples, Italy. It was built between 1887 and 1890, and was the cornerstone in the decades-long rebuilding of Naples—called the risanamento (lit. "making healthy again")—that lasted until World War I. It was designed in the Stile Umbertino by Emanuele Rocco, who employed modern architectural elements reminiscent of the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II in Milan. The Galleria was named after Umberto I, King of Italy at the time of construction. It was meant to combine businesses, shops, cafés and social life—public space—with private space in the apartments on the third floor. The building is part of the UNESCO listing of the Historic Centre of Naples as a World Heritage Site. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Lots of CA. Gallery was once again wrong, yeah sure... --A.Savin 12:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, lucky me that you cannot handcuff me for that :) Poco a poco (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC) PD: I removed the CA.
- Support Yellow is still there. On right side of hemisphere.--Mile (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely stellar photo with a real wow factor and huge resolution Cmao20 (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus) fawn morph Esk valley 2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2024 at 17:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Dasyuridae (Small marsupials, quolls)
- Info Photo taken about 15 minutes after the current FP. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps a tad underexposed. With harsh shadows, it looks like flash light did fire (though exif metadata says no) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support, but you didn't use a flash, right? --SHB2000 (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- No flash; no artificial light; no reflector; late evening sunshine; focus stacked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Carls, you find my "blured" area maybe some 0,01 % area, but you cant find yours of some 5% (p.S. Anoted)? Colors go to silver, refractor used or lamp ? Comapred to FP you mention, colors and compo arent there, i wanted to say lean down, evade grass. But saw it is done on 1st - FP. Maybe a QI but not FP. --Mile (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree there's a technical issue -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Me too, thanks. New version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk)
- Well same problems, double tailed Eastern quoll, with doppler grass around, smaler area is blured but a bit to much, some notation added. Conclusion: sometime stack wont work, doing handfree might be problem. I made one with 16 shots. Too bad it didnt pass. I see you had 2 shots, was it autosetting ? Since it does not look like. --Mile (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC) p.S. In any case i would raise temp to get rid of silver colors.
- Comment I defer to your expertise, but I still like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Expertise? There is no double tail. I don't know what Mile means by autosetting. This camera has built in focus bracketing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not that. You agreed that there was a technical issue and made an edit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral A really good photo, but we already have a good FP of this same animal, so… ★ 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I know you didn't use flash but the harsh shadows make it look at first like an image taken with flash (though, when I look closely, I can tell it's not). Usual superb Charles image quality but I miss an outstanding composition, just the quoll frozen in place on a lawn. It wouldn't matter if this were the first FP but when you already have an FP of this species that has such an excellent composition, not sure what this one adds Cmao20 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Strong shadow, unfavorable POV (too high) Poco a poco (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Cape Barren goose (Cereopsis novaehollandiae) Kangaroo Island.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2024 at 17:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info We have just promoted an FP of the species in flight. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Why do you think these obscured feet are ok, when this and this were not. --Cart (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can see the foot. There is no blurred foreground as in one of your examples and no huge rock as in the other. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- By 'foot', do you mean that small part of a toe sticking out from behind the little pile of dirt, or am I missing something. --Cart (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Underexposed-- Basile Morin (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Brighter version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support fine, now -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, need some crop right-above. That tree behind which cross neck could be solved, now gray on gray. --Mile (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- It does not need a crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Something like this would be more suitable. Will erase in hour. --Mile (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support More than fine for me Cmao20 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Too much sharpening IMHO, the image looks detached from the background due to the sharpening halos. Poco a poco (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Judge Frank Caprio.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2024 at 16:02:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
- Info Judge Frank Caprio is the Chief Municipal Judge in Providence, Rhode Island. Created and uploaded by StephanieRPereira - nominated by ★ -- ★ 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support The most charismatic judge in the world! -- ★ 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The photographer didn't think his arms were charismatic though. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination ★ 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Self portrait of Edward Sheriff Curtis.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2024 at 09:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1890-1899
- Info created by Edward Sheriff Curtis - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good photo and restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Zofenhof Augsburg.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2024 at 09:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Others
- Info created &uploaded by GZagatta - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment No description? Only one category? -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the description, but not specific enough in my opinion. And why this first line? (Seems misplaced to me). Also it's still poorly categorized. See COM:I. You should find something with arches, windows, benches, number 3, etc. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Striking and beautiful, but, per Basile, more categories + proper description would be nice Cmao20 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very tight crop, specially at the bottom, but overall it deserves the start IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Veronica Lake still.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2024 at 23:32:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1950-1959
- Info Actress Veronica Lake - uploaded by Pefp - edited by Dmitry Rozhkov - nominated by --Thi (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Thi (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It's a striking photo, but was it enlarged just for the sake of enlargement? Do we know how big the original print was? Tragic life story. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Not very large, and there are larger copies on the Net, i.e. [1], and Alamy. Yann (talk) 12:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Only 1,614 × 2,000 pixels. Not an exceptional size compared to similar pictures of the same period. Thus not a FP for me, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Veronica Lake still 2.jpg[edit]
- Info Veronica Lake - larger version uploaded and nominated by --Thi (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Good, but again, do you know how big the original print was? Or is that the wrong question? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Only 1,614 × 2,000 pixels. Not an exceptional size compared to similar pictures of the same period. Thus not a FP for me, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I find 2120×3000 here. I suppose if this is OK with license we can take that biger. --Mile (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is cropped on the left. --Thi (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose There are better pictures of her, i.e. File:Veronica Lake still, Paramount Pictures.jpg, just uploaded. This one needs some cleaning. Yann (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Dorothy Anstett, Miss USA, 1968-bluish tint fix attempt.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2024 at 19:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
- Info created by Bernard Gotfryd, restored and uploaded by Yann and Brandmeister, nominated by Yann
- Support -- Yann (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Tell me which is more sharp and have film color tones... [2] which has 669 × 991 px or this. Could you please revert to 2nd option of GRuban, since you have now seperate nominee and that one best. In any case i cant support, adding px is unworthy here. -Mile (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @PetarM: "adding px"? You don't know what you are talking about. This version is made from the high resolution TIFF file. Of course, the downsampled version may be sharper. Yann (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support as the other version looks unnaturally bluish (not to mention original tiff). Brandmeister (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
File:2020aug-derecho-tornado-damage-Kendall-Will-County-Illinois.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2024 at 16:40:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
- Info created by the National Weather Service - uploaded by -nyan - nominated by WeatherWriter -- WeatherWriter (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- A decent quality damage photo of a collapsed house caused by an EF1 tornado from the August 2020 Midwest derecho. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose poor crop. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Info This photo is not cropped. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 00:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- The scene itself is cropped. What other word or phrase would you like us to use to make ourselves clearer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just to note Ikan Kekek, the scene is no more cropped than another tornado damage FP (File:Low-end EF3 damage to a home in Virginia Beach, Virginia.jpg), which shows only two walls of a single house. Do you have any other reasoning besides the "scene crop"? WeatherWriter (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm explaining how we use the word "crop" at FPC, and keep in mind that the photos we decide to feature should be among the very best on the site, not just no worse than similar ones. I haven't voted on this nomination, though, so you are premature in challenging my "reasoning." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- My mistake. I saw the comment by SHB2000 above and mistook that as your !vote due to the reply comments. I apologize for that. That challenge to reasoning was directed towards SHB2000's "poor crop" oppose !vote as the scene itself has FP-style crop, which is why I eluded to and linked a similarly cropped FP, which was promoted to FP recently actually. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- On the face of it, the other photo's crop looks cleaner, as the only piece of equipment next to the house that's cropped is a garbage can. But I haven't decided about this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- As uploader and primary contributor to the page regarding the derecho.
Though I could suggest a few I personally feel are better.~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 00:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC) - Oppose Smartphone picture of average quality. Not an outstanding composition, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry - agree with Basile. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Very good quality for a smartphone picture but I miss an outstanding composition Cmao20 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination — With four oppose votes to two support votes in 3 days, there isn’t a snowballs chance this becomes a FP. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Triumph of St. Ignatius of Loyola, ceiling fresco by Andrea Pozzo.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2024 at 15:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery:
Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/ReligionCommons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Painted ceilings - Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Maybe a bit dark compared to the other FPs but very good quality.--Ermell (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- This was the real light and colors at that time, this is a dark church. Wilfredor (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Left side, anoted, should that line be straight ? Painting of edge of wall. --Mile (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a real column but a painting, looking at other photos makes me conclude that it is a perspective effect created by the artist to simulate depth Wilfredor (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the dark lower-right corner area. Btw, gallery was wrong. --A.Savin 12:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support somehow--Mile (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you mean somewow? Wilfredor (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support A bit dark, but sharp. --Harlock81 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Sterling work, lots of beautiful details Cmao20 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It's overall too dark. It could be that the weather was very casted, but to appreciate the details it should be brightened. Please, crop more at the bottom to improve symmetry. Poco a poco (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:St John the Baptist church in Calmont (8).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2024 at 15:45:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I can't quantify in words but there is something about this image that is off, especially due to the lack of salience. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Salience? ★ 15:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Salience is what grabs your attention when you first look at the image. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Salience? ★ 15:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Like the play of all the brown tones but regretfully, for salience, IMHO - not enough wow.--GRDN711 (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support A bit unsharp at the top of the tower but a great scenic composition with lots to look at, subtle leading lines, and lovely colours Cmao20 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree, subject, compo, detail, light, overall lacks wow IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Translation of St Martin church in St-Ignat (17).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2024 at 15:43:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Unsure why no votes, very serene and well composed - definite FP to me Cmao20 (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Taken from too far away, in my opinion. The tree is hiding half of the building. Not a special architecture. Average composition with distracting roads and shadows in the foreground, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Very pleasant mood and decent composition - not concerned about the trees, that's just how the scene is IRL, although agree with Basile that there is maybe a little too much road. However, it's a fairly ordinary church and the technical quality isn't enough to make it spectacular. I have the same camera and tend to avoid using the kit lens whenever possible as it just doesn't offer enough detail or sharpness (I think it's no coincidence that none of my FPs were taken with this lens). BigDom (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Same like above, you have nicer shots with more interesting subjects and light, this one lacks wow Poco a poco (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Catedral, Narbona, Francia, 2023-01-08, DD 135-137 HDR.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2024 at 21:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#France
- Info Interior view of the main nave of the Cathedral in Narbonne, France. The Roman Catholic church is dedicated to Saints Justus and Pastor and it begun its construction in 1272. The choir was finished in 1332, but the rest of the gothic building was never completed, as the result of many factors including sudden changes in the economic status of Narbonne, its unusual size and geographical location (to complete it would have meant demolishing the city wall) and financial constraints. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Exquisite, but I think you have gone a little bit far in reducing the highlights on the stained glass windows. They should be bright, they're a little too much of a dull grey at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Good feedback, Cmao20, you're right, I adjusted it. Thanks! Poco a poco (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you! Cmao20 (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm liking this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Just irresistible! -- Radomianin (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 15:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Pumpkin festival - Ludwigsburg 07.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2024 at 09:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
- Info This pumpkin artwork depicts Jim Button, Luke, and the locomotive called Emma, the main characters of "Jim Button and Luke the Engine Driver" by Michael Ende, one of the most successful German children's books; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Something different Cmao20 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Question is it covered by local freedom of panorama? If not, is it copyrightable? RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I know, "Food Art" has the same status in Germany as "Permanent Work of Art" and therefore falls under the freedom of panorama (FOP) in Germany. We have on Commons an own category for the Pumpkin festival Ludwigsburg with many pictures and also categories with pictures of other pumkin festivals. --Llez (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Support then --RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support for novelty. Some of the other photos in this category, such as File:Pumpkin festival - Ludwigsburg 09.jpg, might be worth nominating, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wow! ★ 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Different Poco a poco (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Chief Joseph by Edward Sheriff Curtis.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 23:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1900-1909
- Info created by Edward Sheriff Curtis - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 10:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks wonderful and full of rich history. --SDudley (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Maardu Northen lights.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 21:51:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Aurora
- Info created and uploaded by Bilovitskiy - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Amazing! Yann (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support it is, actually, both beautiful and amazing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Man, it can't get much better than this. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I just noticed that the word "northern" is misspelled in the filename. Let's remember to edit that after it passes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Treuenbrietzen 50 Pfg 1921 Luther.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 18:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Money (banknotes)
- Info Designed by Heinz Schiestl (1921), issued by the Town of Treuenbrietzen, reproduced from an original banknote, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC).
- Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Another great Notgeld note, excellently photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Berthold Werner (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Image:Compucorp 322G Scientist BW 2024-02-22 18-21-02 Stack.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 16:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There are several aquamarine hot pixels to the right of the middle of the calculator. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see hotpixels at 200% view. (Perhaps i need new glasses or a new screen) --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can count 5 of them. I'll try to mark them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- And I'm now noticing even more of them, another 5 that are a pale light brown and harder to see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I removed them + some cleaning. --Mile (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's not letting me add image notes. Look to the right of "2ND FUNC" and "Ln LOG." The light green hot pixels are above and to the right of the pale tan hot pixels, and both sets of hot pixels have the same shape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The pen does not look to be the same era as the machine. Is it? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same Wilfredor (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, the pen ist new. It's there as size comparison and having subtle colours (or non-colors) --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose the pen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, the pen ist new. It's there as size comparison and having subtle colours (or non-colors) --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same Wilfredor (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I find Charles's argument persuasive but also I think this is really good, well composed, attractive 'product' photography Cmao20 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for the edits. Very good photo of an interesting product. The pen is OK with me, but some text like "pen manufactured c. 2024 (or whatever) included for size comparison" would address any concerns about any anachronism. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The light in the background is a bit strange, and I don't understand either the pen. Why that? is it supposed to be used to press the keys? Poco a poco (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Sour rainbow belts.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 11:58:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Sweet_food
- Info Sour rainbow belts, my photo. -- Mile (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 12:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Something really different, beautiful colors, excellent composition --Kritzolina (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like selective blurring of the white background around the coloured pieces. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Info Highligthed. --Mile (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral per Charles. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great composition and execution. The blurring around some of the pieces (from the focus stacking, it seems) is minimal, in my opinion --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Info I just explain again, and put notation there, region around one candy is highlighted. I put with purpose : food photo is normally on High-Key. At least this one should be (white dish, tablecloth), so colors of candy came out "loud". --Mile (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC) p.S. "Blur is edited".
- Support Good quality and creative composition Cmao20 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Makes you want sour candy. --SDudley (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Composition and high level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Galanthus Nivalis, sneeuwklokje. 12-02-2024. (d.j.b.).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 05:21:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Amaryllidaceae
- Info Galanthus nivalis double-flowered Snowdrop. Focus stack of 44 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC) - Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm impressed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan Kekek. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 13:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Jakubhal 07:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Sure, very satisfying photo Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Ermell (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Mt Technical from Lewis tops, Lewis Pass Scenic Reserve, New Zealand 06.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 01:05:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand#Canterbury (Waitaha)
- Info I think the shadows cast by shifting clouds on this New Zealand mountain add some real depth and dynamism to this photo, and I also love the colours and the touch of mist at the top of the mountain. created by Podzemnik - uploaded by Podzemnik - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive landscape.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice and high-quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 13:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I was here two months ago and this is quite the way to represent Lewis Pass. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Appealing scenery -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Buda de Ibiraçu.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2024 at 19:14:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
- Info Worm's-eye view of the Ibiraçu Buddha, Espírito Santo, Brazil. Created, uploaded and nominated by ★ -- ★ 19:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes, it's a giant Buddha statue (possibly the largest in the Western Hemisphere) in the middle of an almost unknown town and in a Christian majority country (BTW, taller than the Christ the Redeemer). -- ★ 19:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Yes it's a very impressive place but the image quality is not great at full size and I'm not convinced by the perspective looking upwards at the statue, there are more interesting compositions of this statue on the internet. Also it's visibly not centred even in thumbnail and with no obvious mitigating reasons why getting it centred was impossible. Cmao20 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Cmao20: the place has been receiving more and more tourists, so I tried to take a shot from a perspective where they wouldn't get in the way. ★ 22:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Question Could you perhaps centre the image? --SHB2000 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: the lotus petals are not symmetrical at all, but I added a more centered (or centralized?) version. ★ 22:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Did you try BW ? --Mile (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Black-White. --Mile (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
B&W version[edit]
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Objects
- Info B&W version added. ★ 12:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new centered version but I rollbacked myself because it need author approval. If you think that its ok you can just use that version Wilfredor (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Don't worry, you've permission to improve any of my images without prior request, you're my inspiration. ★ 14:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- better not, I feel that that is an abuse Wilfredor (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support It's nicer than the version above. ★ 15:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- better not, I feel that that is an abuse Wilfredor (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Don't worry, you've permission to improve any of my images without prior request, you're my inspiration. ★ 14:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support In this case, the black & white version works better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support yeap, it works. --Mile (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Much nicer! --SHB2000 (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support The perspective looking up still does not really appeal, but I think this is overall interesting enough for FP now Cmao20 (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support, congratulations to ArionStar. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Question Is it possible to remove the original photo as alternative and thus to be included in the fifth day policy? ★ 16:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but why rush? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, because I've never seen anyone do this before. ★ 00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- In any case, the fifth day would be tomorrow 02/03/2024 at 12:43 for this version, not earlier, and the FPCbot would catch it even later. There were recent discussions related to this matter in the FPC talk page archives (as I remember, the answer was no, but you can dig into) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Noms with 'Alts' can't be closed on the fifth day per this discussion. An 'Alt' is always connected to and depending on the code of the original image. (I have fixed that for your with the number of "====" in the heading.) If you propose an 'Alt' you also have to abide by the consequences of that. You are always looking for shortcuts and fast-track options, but you must learn to be more patient. --Cart (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but why rush? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Hydracarina.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2024 at 13:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Others
- Info created & uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This could be amazing if the stacking and noise reduction could be handled better. Such a shame. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Stacking such characters is not quite the same as stacking 5-10 frames for some landscape photos. However, these are very complex objects. The object is placed on a microscope slide in water and covered with a cover glass. Bringing the models to an interesting angle is already a big job. In this image, the object is at a very rare angle (by the way, you won't find similar images of hydracarin at this angle) and stacking at this angle is very difficult. It is fortunate that these legs were satisfactorily captured in the picture at all. Janeklass (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support The stacking errors are quite visible here but I am still impressed by this photo. Cmao20 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Scary. --Yann (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Felino Volador (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Could use some denoising and brigthening and I also wonder about the size but still deserves the star Poco a poco (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Wilhelm Steinhausen - Alpine Landschaft, Tränken der Kühe (1879).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 23:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
- Info created by Wilhelm Steinhausen - uploaded by Trzęsacz - nominated by SDudley -- SDudley (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think the quality of the file is quite high. Add to that the beautiful composition of the image, and I really do think it should be included. The colors are gorgeous, the lighting is wonderful, and the sense of scale is very nice.-- SDudley (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great scene! ★ 23:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not the full picture; the image was taken from an auction catalogue photographer. The signature is cropped, possibly by the frame, but we cannot tell. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would you support if we are able to get the whole image? I was not aware this was cropped. SDudley (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't normally support uploaded images of artworks. I don't see the point. I only oppose on technical grounds: alignment, crop, colour, sharpness, size, reflections etc. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would you support if we are able to get the whole image? I was not aware this was cropped. SDudley (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Portrait of a Carpathian Lynx.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 22:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
- Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Why use these settings for a zoo pic, Wilfredo? Higher ISO and smaller aperture would haven given a much better depth of field. A contrasting Background would be better, but I'm sure that is more difficult in a zoo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Capturing a moving animal with the Nikon Z7II under low light conditions presents its own challenges. The camera's autofocus system, though advanced, has limitations when operating in dark environments. This is exacerbated when using the lens at its maximum zoom capacity, 400mm, on a full-frame sensor. The experience differs significantly from working with crop sensor cameras, where the effective focal length extends beyond 400mm due to the sensor's crop factor. Thus, although the Z7II is a formidable camera, especially for landscapes, these specific conditions are less suitable for capturing sharp details in low light situations at long distances. Wilfredor (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah! well you needed to climb over the railings to get closer to the lynx... Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Capturing a moving animal with the Nikon Z7II under low light conditions presents its own challenges. The camera's autofocus system, though advanced, has limitations when operating in dark environments. This is exacerbated when using the lens at its maximum zoom capacity, 400mm, on a full-frame sensor. The experience differs significantly from working with crop sensor cameras, where the effective focal length extends beyond 400mm due to the sensor's crop factor. Thus, although the Z7II is a formidable camera, especially for landscapes, these specific conditions are less suitable for capturing sharp details in low light situations at long distances. Wilfredor (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Quite good IMO. Yann (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Better with a darker background. Yann (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose There is detail but the depth of field is limited. I find the crop unbalanced and the background distracting (not to mention where the shot was taken). Poco a poco (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Its very difficult get more DoF with 400mm, in the description and category mention where the shot was taken "Alpenzoo Innsbruck" Wilfredor (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- F11 would have helped. Also, a good candidate for focus bracketing when you all time to choose PoV and wait for the animal to stay still. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Z7II's focus system is not enough for those things. It's another world apart, I already had mirrored APS-C and I know what you mean. I invite you to read about it and have a broader vision Wilfredor (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- F11 would have helped. Also, a good candidate for focus bracketing when you all time to choose PoV and wait for the animal to stay still. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Its very difficult get more DoF with 400mm, in the description and category mention where the shot was taken "Alpenzoo Innsbruck" Wilfredor (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support The depth of field could be better for sure but the detail on the head is great and the resolution is huge. Although the background is a little busy, the bokeh is well done. Overall FP for me Cmao20 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Crop is bothering, left side - overlighted image. Remove or try to lower exposure there manualy.--Mile (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)- Done Please, take another look, thanks Wilfredor (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Now see the difference. My eyes get straight to the object. --Mile (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The new version is much better. With a further crop (see note) I would remove my oppose vote. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The work on the background introduced quite a lot of artefacts (e.g., checkered pattern in the dark areas, masking issues around the lynx) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done @Julesvernex2: Thanks Wilfredor (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not quite there yet, I'm afraid, the masking issues on the fur are still visible even at full size. --Julesvernex2 (talk)
- Please, Explain this better, add some notes, I have corrected the background problem but what are you referring to in the fur? Wilfredor (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wilfredor, I added notes. In these spots, it seems that the mask used to sharpen the lynx and soften/darken the background is not quite right. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think that its gone, let me see what do you think Wilfredor (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks! --Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wilfredor, I added notes. In these spots, it seems that the mask used to sharpen the lynx and soften/darken the background is not quite right. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think this version is OK for FP, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I preffer this one --Wilfredor (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Alt version by Charles[edit]
- Info Portrait of a Carpathian Lynx alt crop by Charlesjsharp --Wilfredor (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Give some space. Yann (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree, I'd strike through my oppose vote if you don't go for such a tight crop as long as you keep it balanced, the darkening of the background was an improvement Poco a poco (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I don't go for zoo images, but I like this with the eyes in the middle. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too tight, to my eyes the other crop is much better --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support both are fine by me, but I like this version more. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Missed this. Yeah it's still FP to me but I prefer the original, let it breathe Cmao20 (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:HabitanteComunidadQoM(CDI-CA-MM-00005)-restored.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 21:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
- Info created by Anonymous - uploaded by Patriciasalatino - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Looks good, but I'd like to see the original to compare. Could a link to the original be provided? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This should be renamed to a meaningful name. Yann (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Ikan and Yann, sources of restoration provided now on description and renamed Ezarateesteban 17:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice portrait. Yann (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Thanks for providing the original. I feel like some more restoration could be done, but this is probably in good enough shape to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I applied more restoration, I find more damaged areas. Thanks!!!Ezarateesteban 12:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 02:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 16:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Brazil
- Info View of nave and chancel, Cathedral Basilica of Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Built by the Society of Jesus as part of a large Jesuit monastic and educational complex, the church is the seat of the city's Roman Catholic Archdiocese. Created and uploaded by Prburley - nominated by ★ -- ★ 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ★ 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose ghosts. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Much better than the other one but still maybe not one of our most detailed church interiors at full size, nevertheless nice light and satisfying composition Cmao20 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with both Charles and Cmao20, so I'm undecided. Deserves the QI designation, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Ultimately, I think that for this to have been an FP, it would have been necessary to wait for a view that didn't have such distracting ghosts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination ★ 19:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Why would you withdraw a picture after one day of voting and with 2 supports and 1 oppose? Don't really get it. Cmao20 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, here's Support number 3 FTR (I'm also happy to take the nom under my name). --SHB2000 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Why would you withdraw a picture after one day of voting and with 2 supports and 1 oppose? Don't really get it. Cmao20 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Ikan Poco a poco (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Dust storm approaching Stratford, Texas.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2024 at 10:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1930-1939
- Info created by George Everett Marsh Jr., restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
- Support Restoration of historical image, used in many articles across all Wikimedia projects. The exact date it was taken is known. I even found who is the photographer. See his story here. Obviously the original picture got a lot of dust. I imagine it is difficult to keep a clean camera in this environment. FP on English WP. -- Yann (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very striking portrayal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 16:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support for historical value. Cmao20 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Mayfield KY State Farm CRU -23.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2024 at 07:40:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
- Info created by State Farm Insurance - uploaded by JoleBruh - nominated by WeatherWriter -- WeatherWriter (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- High quality damage photograph of Mayfield after the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. WeatherWriter (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support FP to me. High-quality, as you said, and has a good composition to me, in addition to emotional effect and documentary value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Ikan, and this is not a picture that can be reproduced. Yann (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan and Yann Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support A very valuable FP candidate. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not seeing the "high quality" here. 5,464 × 3,640 pixels is fairly normal for today's age and there isn't anything exceptional in this photo that would make it one of this site's finest images. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- For weather-related damage photos, it is very high quality. 99% are not even 2,500 pixels in 1 dimension. Actually, this image is higher quality than any other tornado-related featured photograph, with the current one being 4,032 × 3,024 pixels (File:Low-end EF3 damage to a home in Virginia Beach, Virginia.jpg). WeatherWriter (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per others - very high quality for this kind of photo --Kritzolina (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Kritzolina. Often news photos are of much lower quality. --Aristeas (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support What a pharse here. When you check autopark, all SUV's and than the result. Some vibrance would be nice. --Mile (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Персеид (метеор).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2024 at 20:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
- Info created by FilipNeshkoski - uploaded by FilipNeshkoski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Good and very clean photo of a night sky with a meteor trail, a very good QI and possible VI, but not incredibly inspiring to me such that I'd support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Very small size. Content is not spectacular, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty and interesting but per Ikan, IMO not outstanding enough for FP Cmao20 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
File:038 Svartifoss waterfall (Iceland) Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2024 at 09:58:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Iceland#Southern Region (Suðurland)
- Info created & uploaded by Giles Laurent - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Thank you for the nomination! --Giles Laurent (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Not an exceptional long exposure nor of Svartifoss – especially the hazy bit at the top. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose No, I think the PoV is too close and there's not enough sky. I am guessing the weather was poor for photography. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The light is very grey and dull, but maybe that's just Iceland. I'll support if the purple CA on the rocks at the bottom right is removed. Cmao20 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Iceland is known to have this weather. I just uploaded a new file that fixed the CA (press cmd+R on Mac or Ctrl+F5 on Windows with image open to force refresh) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support lovely, thank you Cmao20 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This is a great motif. As a photo, I find that parts of it are great and much of it is at FP level. But I'm torn because I don't like the parts that are blurred not from the exposure but due to the depth of field, mainly the near right corner and some ways behind it, and I also don't love the sky. Basically, per SHB2000 and Charles, but no vote from me yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support For the composition. ★ 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per SHB2000. -- Ivar (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing sky, weather and light , sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Basile Poco a poco (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile and Charles, sorry. Sometimes the conditions just aren't on the photographer's side. BigDom (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]
Mon 26 Feb → Sat 02 Mar Tue 27 Feb → Sun 03 Mar Wed 28 Feb → Mon 04 Mar Thu 29 Feb → Tue 05 Mar Fri 01 Mar → Wed 06 Mar Sat 02 Mar → Thu 07 Mar
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]
Thu 22 Feb → Sat 02 Mar Fri 23 Feb → Sun 03 Mar Sat 24 Feb → Mon 04 Mar Sun 25 Feb → Tue 05 Mar Mon 26 Feb → Wed 06 Mar Tue 27 Feb → Thu 07 Mar Wed 28 Feb → Fri 08 Mar Thu 29 Feb → Sat 09 Mar Fri 01 Mar → Sun 10 Mar Sat 02 Mar → Mon 11 Mar
Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]
The bot[edit]
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure[edit]
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2024.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.