Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut
COM:FPC
This project page in other languages:
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates

FPCandiateicon.svg

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 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:

  • Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons.
Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, 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:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

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 hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

Photographs

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

Video and audio

Set nominations

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:

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

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 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

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:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

Voting[edit]

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.

You may use following templates:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request).

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:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

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:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

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:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

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:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

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]

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.

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 the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that are 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]

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Contents

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Jupiter Blues.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2017 at 02:17:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

See Jovian clouds in striking shades of blue in this new view taken by NASA’s Juno spacecraft.

File:Hadeldorfstraße 5 Meiningen, Interior 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2017 at 15:32:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Five children on a motorycle.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2017 at 13:25:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Five children on a motorycle

File:Fishing boy in Laos.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2017 at 13:04:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fishing boy sitting on a boat in Laos

File:Edificio Metrópolis, calle de Alcalá, Madrid, España, 2017-05-18, DD 08.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2017 at 08:10:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Metropolis Building, an office building located in the center of Madrid, Spain.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View of the Metropolis Building, an office building located at the corner of Calle de Alcalá and Gran Vía, center of Madrid, Spain. The building, of Beaux-Arts style, which was quite unusual at the time, was designed by Jules and Raymond Février for the insurance company La Unión y el Fénix and was inaugurated in 1911. The ground level is topped by ornate colonnaded upper floors. The columns support 4 statues representing Mining, Agriculture, Industry and Commerce and the rounded cupola is covered with 30,000 leaves of 24 carat gold. All by me, Poco2 08:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 08:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The main subject is in the shadow, while the building at right is not. --Yann (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harsh light and strange choice of composition (tree on the left, and not sure what to look at, really) - Benh (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Saucer magnolia at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (81274s).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2017 at 04:59:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saucer magnolia buds starting to flower at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden.

File:Ujscie Warty PN 09-2017 img10.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2017 at 23:26:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ujście Warty National Park

File:Alberi nella nebbia con sole nella campagna pavese.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2017 at 20:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two trees and the sun in a foggy day in Pavia, Italy

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 22.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2017 at 18:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Kissingen Oberlicht Brunnenhaus 0417RM0686.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2017 at 13:55:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oberlicht im Brunnenhaus in Bad Kissingen
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was thinking about limiting myself to the square, but the mixture of daylight and artificial light points is interesting. Therefore it is better that the area around the window is not too bright.--Ermell (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Elvillar - Chabola de la Hechicera 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2017 at 21:25:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dolmen Chabola de la Hechicera ("The Sorceress' hut") in Elvillar. Álava, Basque Country, Spain
  • Of course I did, it's my home Face-smile.svg. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. I love the contrasts. :)--Peulle (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support impressive (though maybe oversharpened) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ehm...signos of (bad) editing are clearly visible near the stones....Paolobon140 (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - No vote from me, but could you please add some information in the file description about how big these rocks are, because we have no way to know that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Please add that to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not wow for me, just stones -- Jiel (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rocks are oversharpened. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Gazeta - Entrada de una finca 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2017 at 19:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Access to a private property in Gazeta, covered by a Parthenocissus quinquefolia. Álava, Basque Country, Spain
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is a case in which I think a feeling of frustration at not seeing the rest of the ivy that extends past the picture frame on the lower left is actually good for the composition, which has so much motion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special to me in this composition, sorry Jiel (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works because of the texture and colors. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the quality of the picture is evident, but imho the scene is not spectacular because the shrub covers a quite low wall. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Life by Tungabhadra river.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2017 at 07:44:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Life by Tungabhadra River

File:Camp Creek State Park - Campbell Falls WV 4bw LR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2017 at 03:27:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Camp Creek State Park - Campbell Falls WV
Glad you like it! I think it has a fugacious sensation to it. PumpkinSky talk 03:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Smile! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've uploaded a cropped version that I think is much better. PumpkinSky talk 21:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Even better now. The professional crop improved the photo. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 09:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wouldn't have thought this would work, but it does. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special to me in this composition, sorry Jiel (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is a technical issue, visible at 100%, especially on the rocks in the foreground: the horizontal contours seem to be doubled. Maybe the camera was moved during the exposure? (See image notes.) --Till (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Vista del Skyline de Chicago desde el Planetario, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 15.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 20:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chicago skyline, Illinois, USA.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Chicago skyline, Illinois, USA. Created and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Triplecaña (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Triplecaña (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you very much for the nom Triplecaña! Poco2 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diego, you are a shiny star in the sky of photographers. I bow my head. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is a bit too dark/underexposed for my taste. Late blue hour might have been a better choice (if possible, I wasn't there...) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Martin Falbisoner and before he suggested the blue hour, I was thinking to a full moon, in order to reveal the shapes of the buildings, especially those on the right. Here my regret is that the picture shows like small lights only in a full dark, since the walls have nearly the same color than the sky. "Too dark" was my first impression, too. Though I can imagine that better lighting conditions were difficult (or maybe impossible) to obtain, depending on the situation, I tend to believe that the image in this state lacks of something. The time of exposure seems also a bit short, with a f/3,5 diaphragm, which leads to blurring buildings on the right side. Displayed on the central windows, the message "light the night" is certainly interesting and valuable, but the global aspect is not attractive enough, I'm afraid. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. The tone, a dark mucky brown, just isn't appealing. There are better times to capture the evening/night. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very dark (and ordinary nightscape anyways). - Benh (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support LOVE IT!!!!! -- Prismo345 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Moderate support I suppose it could be better (I could see cropping in from the right), but this works for me. Do we have any other FPs of the Chicago skyline at night to compare? Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Daniel Case Jiel (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Ermita de Santo Cristo de Miranda, Santa María de las Hoyas, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 65.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 19:15:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hermitage of St Christ of Miranda, Santa María de las Hoyas, Province of Soria, Castile and León, Spain.

File:Cow giving birth, in Laos (step by step).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 12:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Calving
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded by Basile Morin nominated by --Mile (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ex {{FPD}}
  • You could also withdraw one of your other nominations if you prefer to make room for this one. --cart-Talk 13:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I will handle nom. Might be interesting stuff. --Mile (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC) p.S. Since it high noon, i would put vibrance to some 20-25 and maybe saturation to some +5. You get more unwashed colors.
  • Thanks for taking over the nom, Mile. I'll fix the rest of the un-closing of the nomination. --cart-Talk 14:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mile and Cart for your help. A new version has been uploaded with brighter colors. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is certainly a valuable photo, and I'd be inclined to support it for FP, too, except that I tend to think a set nomination of all the individual frames would be more useful. I feel similarly about a VI nomination, but unfortunately, VI sets are no longer awarded because of some kind of technical glitch. What does everyone think about a set nomination vs. one of this collage? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In a set nomination, every single photo needs to have FP quality and I think this series might fall a bit short there, but taken as a whole in this collage, it is an outstanding documentation. (Although I agree a bit with Mile regarding some fixes.) Also, the individual photos are there if just one of them is needed. --cart-Talk 18:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your answer, cart, but I have trouble understanding how the lesser degree of detail in a collage could make it a better FP than a set of full-size pictures would be. Are you making a case for downsizing pictures for them to look sharper? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I hadn't got to the size part yet, merely commenting on the scenes/photos/collection as such. You are reading far too much into my comment. :) Of course the FP collage (or each individual photo) should have as large resolution as possible but a smaller version can also be useful since it uploads easier. Sort of like this big one which is a crop from an even bigger file but also exists in a smaller more usable version. --cart-Talk 20:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Do you have the RAW files of each image? (I could help you to fix light problems) and more important, could you upload each image separately in full resolution? --The Photographer 19:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The collage, particularly since each source image has also been uploaded (though I suspect they are not at full resolution). I think it is fine to present an arrangement like this (my own File:Epilobium hirsutum - Seed head - Triptych.jpg). Users have the option to arrange differently if they want, but each individual image is not FP quality. Ikan, I don't think this is about downsizing as there isn't any need to downsize when creating a collage, other than perhaps to ensure the subject, when cropped, is proportioned appropriately. A set nomination would not then be appropriate, but we can celebrate this one in the knowledge that the individual frames are also available. -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This montage is from 2017 but the individual pictures were taken in 2012, and at this time I only shot in JPG (mid res) not in RAW. But the reason why the size of the assemblage is not so large in pixels compared to 3 times the size of each is because all the individuals have been cropped to fit with the subject, as you can see for example on the image 4/9 where the house behind the cow has disappeared on the montage. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I will Symbol support vote.svg Support, and the basis that while one could object to things like the tilt in the first frame, the totality of the collage is impressive and informative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Collage is good, so can be used by everyone in printed media, if set, they would be lost. Maybe white border is a bit to wide, but still OK. --Mile (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HEV Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 09:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Zygopetalum hybrid (Dunkle Blüte).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 08:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zygopetalum hybrid (Dunkle Blüte)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Orchidaceae
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Zygopetalum hybrid (Dunkle Blüte). My work. --Mile (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a lovely and delicate photograph, with beautiful colours. The green background adds value to the flowers and the centered composition gives importance to the main sublject. Compliments!Paolobon140 (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 11:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful light aned colours.--Peulle (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice arrangement. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice arrangement. -- PumpkinSky talk 12:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Time2wait.svg On hold Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've got a strong suspicion that this should be Dunkle Blüte, which would mean "dark flower" in German. "Dunklu" doesn't mean anything in German, and the Google translator suggests that the same is true for Slovenian. There are also zero search results for "dunklu Zygopetalum" outside of Commons. So I'm pretty certain that if "Dunklu" was indeed written on a sign in the Ljubljana Botanical Gardens, it was not more than a typo. Adding to that, "Zygopetalum "dunkle blüte"" also yields next to no results. So I think "dunkle Blüte" is just a description rather than an official name of a variety or cultivar (see en:Grex (horticulture) for naming of orchid hybrids) and should probably just be translated to "dark flower". I'm not an expert for orchids, though, maybe User:Orchi can help? I'll postpone voting until this is cleared up. --El Grafo (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanx El Grafo, was in problem to get some of Dunklu shots, they even write it on two signs, both Dunklu. I dont speak Gemran much, first i thought this must be Dutch. I will change the name. --Mile (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The name Dunkle Blüte does not appear in the International Orchid Register, so it is not an official name for an orchid grex. On the other hand the literal translation does not fit either, since it is anything but dark. It might be better to just call it Zygopetalum (which it appears to be), place it in "uncategorised" with a note as to how it is labelled. I have suggested before, since they are a local, that the photographer make inquiries of the garden horticultural staff. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The orchids at the University Botanical Garden are housed in the Tivoli Greenhouse, and an annual orchid show is held in April in conjunction with Ocean Orchids and the Orchid Society. It might also be worth checking with them. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:One World Trade Center through the Oculus (91538).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 06:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

One World Trade Center viewed from the interior of the Oculus.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me — Rhododendrites talk |  06:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Viewing the rebuilt One World Trade Center through the top of the Oculus, part of a new transportation hub adjacent to the World Trade Center site. For context, the design of the Oculus is directly connected to the September 11th attacks, with its axis following the angle of the sun that morning, at the time the second tower fell. Nominating after a suggestion at QIC. — Rhododendrites talk |  06:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This would work if blue line was on diagonal, rotated is better, but pixels are missing. I would reshoot. --Mile (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a very well composed photograph, where the slighty diagonal adds dinamicity to the whole sublject; those ights on the left are placed perfectly. The general grey tones looks very fine. In some way it looks like a palm tree leave. Excellent job!Paolobon140 (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo. I'm not sure the OWTC would fit in (and be upright) the opening if this was done diagonally. The juxtaposition of that significant building adds a layer to the compo. --cart-Talk 11:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PumpkinSky talk 12:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The horizontal aspect doesn't work for me. A vertical aspect crop (e.g. 3:4) strengthens and enlarges the central arc/building and has less of the rather grey walls. However, I'd prefer if this were done with a camera held that way, than further cropping this image -- it's already not particularly high resolution/detail. See File:WTC Transporation Hub interior 2017b.jpg -- not a great photo but shows the same subject in a vertical orientation. Looking at the category, I'm sure we can expect several FPs from this spectacular building, and several other attempts at this particular view (see [1], [2], [3], [4]). An HDR approach may also handle better the contrast between sky and interior which surely doesn't look that dark to the eye. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • So now we are opposing to photos on the grounds that there might some day be better photos here? Sounds strange to me, to be honest. Also this crop shows the "palm tree leaves" better. --cart-Talk 13:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • cart It's a generous suggestion. Don't underestimate hobby photographers what they can do to get great shot. Much more than reshoot. I did try that on Adobe, before I wrote. --Mile (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Cart, no, that's not the main reason for my oppose, which is the frame-orientation and the lighting. However, although this view was new to me, and is an interesting combination of the two elements, I'd like to support a photo at FPC because it is a great photo, not just because someone pointed a camera at a great subject. And also I do try to ensure the image is among the "finest" by checking out the category. Hence I shared my opinion that this building was spectacular and worthy of several FPs.
If you search on Google Images for "st paul's from one new change" you will see many photos where the photographer has framed St Pauls cathedral with the glass sides of "One New Change" shopping centre. Or search for "st paul's millennium bridge" where St Pauls is framed with the leading lines of the Millenium Bridge. Both views of St Pauls are "wow" views, captured innumerable times by millions of tourists, but that doesn't necessarily make any photo of it a "wow" photo. So, I think this here is a wow view, in a building with lots of potential, but I don't think the photo here is a wow photo for me. And I'm happy to wait for one. -- Colin (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for explaning. You had me worried there for a while. --cart-Talk 14:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Pesenbach Kirche Hochaltar 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 06:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is not the kind of photography i personally like a lot, also becasue of the uncommon format of the picture which would be quite difficult to print, but I must say its well composed; the altar gets importance and the arcades at the top complete the whole picture, closing the composition. Excellent job. Paolobon140 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent detail! Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- --fedaro (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Camp Creek State Park - Campbell Falls WV 2 LR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2017 at 03:28:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Campbell Waterfall at Camp Creek State Park
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_States_of_America
  • Campbell Waterfall at Camp Creek State Park, West Virginia. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 03:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like in the days of old when trail blazers discovered the New World. Quiet, peaceful, untouched. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it is well composed, nothing to say, with its thirds and everything, but i dont see a rel wow feeling here. Looks more like an honest picture similar to other thousands. The dry vegetation gives a sense of sadness. Paolobon140 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmmm. The pool and the small waterfalls are exquisite but Paolobon has a point. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to concentrate on the pool with a radical crop (see note or something like it) The photo is large enough to stand such. --cart-Talk 11:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @W.carter: The crop has been made. I agree it is better. PumpkinSky talk 11:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! Now we have a wow-factor. I would gladly use this for my desktop. Very nice. --cart-Talk 11:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Glad you like it so much! PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Uhm, there is something I must be missing. When a photographer is taking a photograph, we are assuming that he hes already in his mind and eyes how the picture will be. By composing in his viewfinder, he alredy has very clear in his eyes a preview of the printed photo. If a photographer is taking a picture and then reach a result by cropping and reviewing what he has shot, hes not a photographer, he is a graphic, maybe good for the web. Am i wrong? Or am i missing the final scope of photography? Paolobon140 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That may be true if you are a seasoned professional photographer. Here most of us are hobby/amateur photogaphers and we often discuss improvements in each other's photos. That way we learn from each other and can take better photos in the future. The Wikiproject is not only about gathering knowledge and images, it is also about learning. --cart-Talk 15:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Well said, Cart. Paolo, we often crop images here to improve them. On any given day, you can probably find 1-2 current FPCs that were cropped. It's quite common. PumpkinSky talk 15:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Like this photo, Paolobon140 !? ;-) Besides, a lot of motifs simply can't be properly taken without doing some necessary work in post - like cropping. Example: architecture shots without TS lenses. You keep your ultra wide angle lense straight (=perpendicular) and cut of any unwanted foreground later. Besides, as a media archivist: Historically, many important/iconic/famous images were actually cropped to some extent. I kid you not. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes dear Martin, exaclty like taht photo! That photo is part of a larger series (about 36 photos) which was a kind of travel documentary between Vietnam and Thailand. All the 36 pics were taken to be cropped and printed with the ratio you see in the file which has been adapted to 1000x444 pixels. All the 36 pics have been worked to obtain the same acid colour, similar to some cross-processing. In that way the whole set of photos has the same printing size and the same colour look. When i was shooting in the streets or on trains, markets etc, i was already imagining that the final pic would have been cropped to that ratio and i kept some air on top or on the bottom part. It is quite diffcult to do, but we can get used:-) Unfortunately this particular pic is a bit blurred on the right woman's face and has been discared. But notice when the photograph is printed at 25 cm width you cannot notice the blurred area (thats why i think pictures should only judged when printed) But i can upload the full size originaal pic so you can judge. I understand your point of view: my way of photographing is "no crop" so that every pic can keep the same lens width: if you shoot with a 28mm the picture must look like if it is taken with a 28 mm, not a crop of the pic. That is the reason why i only use fixed lenses, so that the photographer will have to move to search for the good scene, and not the lens. Its a suggestion i always give: use fixed lenses so that you will have to move to search frr the best scene-) Paolobon140 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, I think I got you now re: "cropping despite a no-crop policy." Besides, please do keep in mind that there's a couple of very experienced photographers here on FPC. I'm sure you just hope to give valuable hints and input (which you actually do for many beginners) - but be careful not to sound overly condescending when doing so. Just a (truly friendly) advice. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear Martin, yes i understand everyone has his own way of seeing photography and when i comment on a photo here, I never look at the name of the photographer and i never look at his portfolio on Commons, just to avoid being influenced from other pictures of the same photographer. I find it a good idea for myself, as it gives me the possibility to concentrate on the picture only. I have seen really good pictures here and i like many of them, and when i see a picture i like, i get enthusiastic! For the crop-no crop policy: I always try to compose a picture trying to preview how the pic will look without cropping it; its a god exercise (for me, of course) becasue it forces me in finding the best composition and keeping the characteristics of the lens intact. I usually shoot with 28 and 35mm lenses; i abandoned 20mm becasue they are too wide for my taste. I recognize the very experienced photographers here and i feel a bit shy to comment on their pictures cause i feel they dont need comments:-) By the way, for the crop-no crop matter, here is the original format of my picture taken on a train: https://ibb.co/eB88A6 I keep liking the non cropped one more and may i ask your point of view?.
  • Interesting pic, crop or no crop. There's a couple of technical issues that might give a potential nom here a hard time - but from a purely pictorial point of view a keenly spotted example of travel photography. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And here comes my question: where does the reason of uploading full size pictures come? When you print a picture most of the flaws disappear:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, you come on very strong in your opinion about photography. I'm sure no one will ever dare to suggest a crop of any of your photos after this explanation, but please keep in mind that there are as many ways of photographing as there are photographers. I hope you will allow us to continue our suggestions and discussions here between us on other nominations than yours. --cart-Talk 18:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • LOL Cart, if this is a kind way of saying you will not comment of any pic of mine anymore, well, I am a bit sad for that. I like to comment on pictures and i like to share the ones I find sharable here:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course not. You will have my two cents in spades. :) I will only think twice before suggesting a crop. I will see your photos as something I can support or not, but I'll not suggest any alterations since I understand that you are uncomfortable with such. Oh, and you might want to re-think the "look at his portfolio", there are women here too, strange as it may seem. ;) --cart-Talk 20:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good! The crop was essential, though. That's the advantage of these high MP cameras, you can crop whatever you want! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Baso, glad you like it so much and I agree about the crop. PumpkinSky talk 18:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, I forgot: Congratulations on your new camera! :) You've come a long way since this. --cart-Talk 19:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Cart! I've had some great mentors ;-) PumpkinSky talk 19:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe a closer crop on the cascades would work, but as it is this image is doing too much for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The composition doesn't really work for me. I think if you cropped about 1/3 of the remaining pool and to the edge of the waterfall on the left, it would work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above - Jiel (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Has a peaceful and tranquil Zen feel to it. HalfGig talk 13:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Hunza Valley, view from Eagle's Nest.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2017 at 23:27:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hunza Valley in Pakistan
  • Could you indicate a few examples? Couldn't find any (but it's a huge file) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Added notes above. --A.Savin 12:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose Foreground way too unsharp for this sort of picture, looks like there was diffraction but without any aperture setting in the metadata I can't tell. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alexander and Daniel. PumpkinSky talk 00:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Scaphopoda.svg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2017 at 07:56:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Anatomical diagram of a scaphopod (an unusual kind of mollusc)

File:Black Swan at SF Zoo.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2017 at 18:57:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Picture of a Black Swan
  • LivioAndronico Yes I agree with the DOF at the back is not the same as front but it does not seem to affect the overall composition and look of the picture especially in the presence of the sharp frontal area. I did select a lower DOF to blur the background a bit when shooting animals at the zoo. Thanks for your input. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
LivioAndronico had been blocked and maybe can't answer you --The Photographer 15:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Blocked by whom? Thanks for letting me know. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Blue color temperature and centered composition, btw distracting element on top right corner. Nice picture and lovely, however, not wow IMHO --The Photographer 15:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@The Photographer: Uploaded a second version with added slight warming effect and removed distracting grass --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The top right problem is gone, however, there is something with this image that does not convince me totally, for example, maybe a excessive clarity filter (white are too whites), jpg artifacts and posterization in background. --The Photographer 20:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No clarity filter has been applied by me other than slight sharpening. In my opinion its just the characteristic of the bird's fur/feathers. Check out this another picture that shows similar whites are too whites. Also the artifacts probably are due to higher ISO of 500.
Black Swan RWD2
--Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Sunset on the Aresquiers beach.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2017 at 14:36:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset on the Aresquiers beach
@Basile Morin: ok no problem, I just want to precise that : "and most such pictures are not in essence different from others " is very different from "you will have to oppose all these images by principle" as an extra difficulty for sunset photos, it is quite the opposite : "are not in essence different from others" mean if the image is special then the sunset have not to be "extra special". That is, sunset must not be promoted simply because they are sunset but the opposite is also true sunset must not be declined simply because they are sunset. This image is special because I carefully tried to compose it, with the lines made by the beach and the waves, the silhouettes in the sun light, the perspective, the exposure time carefully chosen to have water not too creamy but just enough creamy, the timing (not easy) to have the waves making lines for the eyes, and of course this colour! ect... I guess, and I hope, that you think the image is not "in some way special" and that it is not just a matter of principle. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Christian. Rules shouldn't be an end unto themselves. PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: To answer you, I think this is a good picture, maybe a quality image. But why featured ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Because it may be, from my point of view among our finest, the purpose of that page, you will see in Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena 2 or 3 good sunset showing waves, no more, and if you check the most general sunset category you will easily see that the photos that combine good quality (without over or under exposition) + good composition + special mood + visual interest are not so common, far from that, and my image may be indeed one of the finest. This is only my point of view and of course I agree that you can think this image is not enough special.
But your "copy and paste" from our guideline made me think that you just took there a reason to oppose. And that made me think that you took more time when going to the guideline, searching the right place, copying the right sentence and then pasting it here, than a real review of this image. There is something unwritten in the guideline : "better is a boring image than a boring reviewer", but that is again only my personal point of view. And if you are not concerned by my last sentence, if you really took the time to look at the image and that you are really convinced that the image is not among the finest then ignore my last sentence and I present you my most apologetic...sincerely. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not a question of principle, just the guidelines seems perfectly right here, to my eyes (subjective). But valid featured images of sunset are for example File:Sugarloaf_Sunrise_2.jpg or File:Bodenseeregatta_Rund_um_2015.jpg, for sure !
Concerning the characteristics of the image, as you ask my personal opinion, I'm sorry to say I find the image rather poor, first underexposed, and then annoying. Flat waves (not breaking at all), flat sky, and dark sand. Only sharp far away, and blurring in front. The beautiful yellow could have been gained on photoshop, this is not the essence of the image, while the blue is pale. So basically I find the picture uninteresting. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh that's it, that's what I asked, thank you for the review, I'm reassured you've reviewed it. Sorry for taking you off. Thank you again. I just add that I think "underexposed" is not appropriate, I think it is very close to the reality, and the goal of my processing was to stay close to reality, this is dusk, and sooner later it was dark night, therefore the sand is widely enough "clear". Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FP. --Laitche (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A normal sunset like another beach sunset and Basile Morin thanks for the cite. Maybe for someone from the cold countries this picture could be amazing, however, for me (I come from the Caribe sea island Margarita) this image is very common --The Photographer 15:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
lol :) "cold countries" also have sunsets. "thanks for the cite" : glad you finally could read our guideline. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Clear sunsets in countries near the poles are less common due to the weather, in addition the color temperature is more neutral and less vibrant then the Caribe, for example "Los Roques", a place near my house. "The amount of dust in the air -- such as from the explosion of Mount Pinatubo -- increases deflection of red rays of the sun at twilight morning and evening. So the colors are purer. And being in a place where there are 2 long bands of cloud from North to South can allow for a very long-lasting sunset. The light manages first to bounce directly off of the nearer band of cloud producing very deep reds, oranges and can bring a great amount of bright gold to some of the clouds. As the earth turns away the sun still shines and reflects off of the bottom of the band of clouds further west. The red still penetrates. The later light is not as intense or polychromatic, but when seated appreciating the serenity and beauty of a sunset, an extra half hour is ever-so satisfying". [5] BTW, Dear Christian Ferrer, please assume good faith and don't take the comments personally and remember that when you post a photo candidature here you agree to accept criticism and respond politely, for example, my recommendation is avoid making appeal to ridicule like "glad you finally could read our guideline". --The Photographer 19:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination This is too complicated to read, and I did not understood it. Far too much time lost for this image, likely not an image to be featured IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is one of your finest photos, seeing this as sunset image is nonsense imho. Please consider unwithdraw. --Laitche (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks you all and sorry for my skid, me too I think it is a bit more than just a sunset, I changed the fp category to "place". I should avoid embarking on endless and unproductive debates, it always leads me into the wall... Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good.--Ermell (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I dont know, it is not easy to give my point of view here: it is a good composition with nice colours but what i find a bit disturing are those building on the right, that interrupt the harmony of the view...Paolobon140 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another photo with that "Clocks" feel. Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Zen-like HalfGig talk 13:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- --fedaro (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Crest dil Cut and Crest Ault as seen from Präzer Höhi 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2017 at 07:43:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Ceiling of the Room of the giants in Palazzo del Tè, Mantua.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2017 at 20:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ceiling of the Room of the giants in Palazzo del Tè, Mantua
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info These magnificent room, once furnished to complement the ducal court of the Gonzaga family, saw many of the most illustrious figures of their era entertained such as the Emperor Charles V, who, when visiting in 1530, elevated his host Federico II of Gonzaga from Marquess to Duke of Mantua. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Peulle (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Surely the purpose of capturing a photo of an artwork, on an educational media repository like Commons, or for an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia, is to accurately represent the artwork. No more. No less. Looking on Google Images (and the few images on Commons) this is far from an accurate photo (though it is very detailed). The white balance is too blue. The centuries-old pastel colours of the original have been "enhanced" with extra contrast/clarity/saturation so the result is a modern cartoon. A lesser point: the theme of the artwork is "The fall of the giants", and by concentrating on the dome, one doesn't actually see any giants, who are being destroyed on the side walls. Images that show a portion of ceiling along with the wall arguably represent the artwork better. Btw, a 360 video of the room is available here. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Here Colin the only cartoon is your opinion that as always makes laugh ..... comparing a video with a photo .... it's ridiculous, different expotion,camera etc.... However, I (naturally) calculated your negative vote. Anyway I understand that some lies you have to invent, otherwise what do you live in doing? Face-wink.svg--LivioAndronico (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Besides this is the "ceiling of the room if the giants" if you don't see giants you have complained to Palazzo Te, if there are angels,gods or snakes ... the ceiling is this!--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Dark borders - Benh (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The borders are dark but they accentuate the swirling clouds, making the tunnel effect into the center even stronger. PumpkinSky talk 19:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice to see pictures of yours here again. And what a picture! It's excellent. The dark borders magnify the ceiling. I really like it. --Harlock81 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colin has a point about the colors ... they are at odds with every other picture we have of this. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, due to colors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    The ceiling was restored some years ago. In this recent picture the colors ar not so different, just a bit paler. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    We are comparing to that photo, which is six years old, and is considerably less blue and considerably paler and less contrasty. These are the issues: if you are photographing an artwork, your job is to faithfully reproduce the artwork. Here I just see all the things one gets when sliding Lightroom's controls to the max. So tempting to boost clarity (local contrast), saturation, global contrast, tone, and one can see the results are crowd pleasing. Sigh. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    I can agree that maybe he wants to catch the gaze of the observer, but - inasmuch as we propose both the versions on Commons - why this should be so disgraceful? We are not trying to mislead anyone. A picture with natural colors can be a more faitfull reproduction of the actual status of the frescoes, but the vividness of that image is imho a quality in itself. --Harlock81 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    You seem to be suggesting we can forgive the false colours in this one because Commons hosts another photo with realistic colours that someone could use instead. I think this is indeed misleading (subject to the limitations that you and I aren't sitting in the room right now but only looking at other photos people have taken). The flaws here are quite recognisable to anyone familiar with the Lightroom/Photoshop adjustments one can make, so all completely avoidable. The image has some value since it captures the scene in good detail, but the colours, contrast and tone of a painting are vital aspects of the work, and if they are wrong or misleading, then its educational value weakens considerably. Clearly not everyone thinks being faithful to the artwork is important, and I find that rather sad given that this is Commons, not Flickr. -- Colin (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    I think it might be acceptable to feature a work that does not faithfully represent an artwork, but only if some phrase like "altered colors" was included not only in the file description but the filename, so that no-one would be likely to be confused. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    I agree with both of you that the description could be more observant in clarifying this aspect. Anyway, a quite five hundred years old fresco has gone across many phases and its actual status is surelly different with respect to when it was realised. Consequently, I would not feel comfortable at shortly objecting Livio's choise of enhancing its colors. This doesn't mean that his choice is surely the best one, but image processing may be proposed, discussed, implemented and analysed, if the image will be judged unsuitable in this status. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "It looked different in the past" is not a good justification. If this were a scholarly attempt to show what art historians think the fresco looked like when it was newly painted, that would be so noted. It is not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks pretty different to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, due to colors. -- Jiel (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin --Code (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Dome of the Clementine Chapel in Saint Peter 's Basilica.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2017 at 20:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome of the Clementine Chapel in Saint Peter 's Basilica
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Clementine Chapel was commissioned by Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605), whose coat of arms stands out against the paving. It was begun by Michelangelo and completed by Giacomo Della Porta (1540-1602) for the Jubilee in 1600. The altar is dedicated to St. Gregory the Great (590-604). In a sarcophagus beneath the altar his remains are preserved, brought here in 1606. This Pope, also called the "Savior of the Church" and the "Defender of Rome", is associated with the name of the Gregorian chant or plainsong which he promoted. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Uneven lighting and uneven sharpness. The top left is dark and blue and the bottom is over-exposed. An HDR technique plus some local adjustment could have compensated for the uneven lighting situation. The image is strangly sharp and unsharp in areas that do not seem related to depth-of-field and look more like camera shake. Is this a stitched image? If so, some of your frames are bad. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Is a single photo and perfectly and of course perfectly clear but as I have already said I (naturally) calculated your false negative vote. --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. The unsharp areas indeed look strange. Maybe the lens is seriously broken. The bottom part seems overexposed as well. --Code (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite sharp, good composition, nice colors. Yann (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like sharpness is wanting, but I don't know what condition the ceiling is in. You're sure it's quite sharp? Then why do at least two viewers think otherwise? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Simply Ikan Kekek because, as I have already written but you do not follow, they are in bad faith. But then what do you care about the vote of others? Think about your ...--LivioAndronico (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You think you're more likely to get my vote with that "argument"? You'd do better to let Yann explain his viewpoint. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yann, I've added some notes where the unsharp bits are. It isn't a focus issue. It is a long exposure, so perhaps the camera or ceiling shook a little due to tourist traffic? Can't really explain why some bits are sharp other than if created from more than one exposure or serious lens trouble. In addition to these sharpness issues, the light handling is far below the standard we expect from others at FP. I really don't think you'd expect a dark blue corner or a blown bottom from a Diliff, of Code, or myself, or numerous others.... -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Colin always the same things, always buying photos with Diliff ... are you in love? You should tell him --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Only for your information Colin and the users in this nomination, the user LivioAndronico had been blocked temporarily for his repetitive lack of respect. LivioAndronico I sincerely hope that in the future your behavior will be at the level of your excellent work. --The Photographer 15:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others Jiel (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:چشمه بلقیس.png[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2017 at 17:35:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

cheshme belgheis garden, choram, iran
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mr.Polaz - uploaded by Mr.Polaz - nominated by Mr.Polaz -- Mr.Polaz (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mr.Polaz (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The image is fine but why is there a white line that is on the bottom right? -- Prismo345 (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed!--Mr.Polaz (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It looks to me like the trees could use a bit of perspective correction. Also, I like the motif, but I'm not fully sold on the degree of focus at this size or the particular kind of hazy look. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Trees are softer than one would like, and frankly I'm not thrilled by the composition. Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to agree with Daniel. PumpkinSky talk 12:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above Jiel (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Un ragazzo filippino ricoperto di sabbia vulcanica.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2017 at 16:45:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A filipino guy is covered with volcanic sand in Mindanao
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A filipino guy is covered with volcanic sand in Mindanao created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- Paolobon140 (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is the Vignetting natural or is it added in post-processing? Is it possible for you to add information about where the photo is taken? Preferably by using {{Location}}. Is the child in the photo aware of that this picture can be used for any purpose? --cart-Talk 19:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Anawers: 1) as you surely know as you are commenting here, when you shoot at f/2 with a 35mm lens on a ful frame sensor or a 35mm fim camera, the result is quite an evident vignetting: this is the reason why photographers shoot at f/2 with a 35mm, to have a vignetted, dreamy, unsharp, acid coloured picute with an unfocused background. Its a quite common techinque used in some kinds of portraits; 2) yes, its possible but i will not add details on the localtion, which is somewhere in Mindanao, Phlippines; 3) yes the boy (whos about 19 and is absolutely unrecognizable in this picture) is perfectly aware as well as his family who are my good friends, have a wonderful print of this picture and know about my profession Now, can i ask you why you didnt put the same quetion here where the girls are perfectly recognizable? Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list#File:Young Girls Strike a Pose - Busua - Ghana .284737816187.29.jpg Waiting for your reply, Paolobon140 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all the clarifications. Much appreciated. One reason I didn't ask on the other photo was because it was not made by a Commons user and I could not speak directly here on the nomination page with the photographer, the other is that this boy (it is hard to see exactly how old he is) is mostly naked and the other kids are completely dressed. I wouldn't say that this boy is "absolutely unrecognizable", I'm sure his friends and family would recognize him even with the mud. --cart-Talk 23:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Far too much (chroma) noise for me to support this for FP, despite the good composition. Also, the right shoulder is out of focus; I wouldn't mind as much if that was the only problem, but it doesn't help.--Peulle (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear Peulle, by watching your pics uploaded here on Commons I feel to suggest you to check if your monitor is well calibrated: they all have quite an evident cyan dominant that you might not be noticing. The issue might interfere while you watch others' photographs.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your suggestion; I first looked at this on my ASUS VS247NR 23,6" LED monitor, and it reveals "flaws" more easily given the high resolution. However, when looking at my new Macbook Pro monitor, I'm still seeing quite a bit of noise and lack of sharpness here.--Peulle (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support refreshingly different --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support When making a portrait, the whole body doesn't have to be sharp as well. Like Martin said, it's different and I find it slightly disturbing in a sort of "Lord of the Flies" kind of way... But that means it extracted an emotion from me, and that's what good photographs do: Create emotions. A "wow" doesn't have to be a good warm fuzzy feeling. --cart-Talk 13:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support Nice composition --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not understand the reason for the camera settings 1/8.000 secs with f/2. The minimal DOF does not work for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Photographs speak for themselves. If you don't understand, why oppose? a comment is more than enough.Paolobon140 (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like it, but it looks (partially) underexposed to me: There's almost no detail in the hair, for example, and his irises are almost as black as his pupils (even with very dark brown eyes it should be possible to distinguish them). The cornea are also pretty grey (or actually green due to some kind of noise) – not that one should try to make it pure white ([7]), but this is certainly on the darker side. Quick sanity check: 1/8000 @ f/2 @ 100 ISO is pretty much sunny 16 (so far that combination does indeed make sense if you want a shallow DOF), but it's quite early in the day and the weather looks rather overcast, so I'd probably add at least one stop to that (for a "normal" shot). That being said, I think I get the idea: It's supposed to be dark gloomy. I like that and I totally agree with cart's comments. The problem is not that the over-all picture is a bit on the dark side; that's intended and it works well. The problem is, in my humble opinion, that the head is too dark in relation to the rest of the scene. I understand that this was most likely a spontaneous shot and you probably didn't carry a reflector or a flash with you. But I think a tiny little bit of fill light on the face could have brought you much closer to producing the image you had in mind when you pressed the shutter button. --El Grafo (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear El Grafo, ty for having spent so much of your time in commenting on my photograph. But id like to put you a question: "Did you think that it might be that this photograph is exactly how i wanted it to be?" I wanted a dark picture, with a dark figure in the middle on a dreamy, unsharp and unfocuse almost lunar background. And the fugure is covered with dark send that has colourful relflections. Thats all. I wanted exactly this picture. Print it on a large format and you will catch what i mean. Frame it with a white passepartout and hang it on the wall and you will see a dark picture of a dark guy on a lunar beach. I will not add more, photographs talk for themselves. But i thought here on Commons we might talk about photography, but im sad to notice here on Commons most of the people talk about sharpness, dead pixels, cropping, the pixel on the right top that seems to have a strange colour, millimetres. I didnt see one single portrait, but sunsets, panormanas, montains and all those exciting things. here one person even said that in one of my photographs culds were "disturbing" Lol. Others said that wires shoudnt be in a photograph, Lol. That is not photography, that is techincalism brought by surveyor whose pics (not photographs) wouldnt even be able to stand in an ABC manual for beginners. Some here said they ignored there is a rule of the thirds. Im not talking about you of course, but all i have seen here is people saying "I dont like th DoF", "if you cropped 5 pixels the pic would be better"; "the left top corner is not enough sharp". Sorry, this is not photography: everyone with s mobile phone camera can take a sharp pic. Other thing is imagining a scene at f/2 in the late afternoon (in your techincal analysis you forgot to notice that being my clock set on an italian time and being th Philippines 6 hours ahead, the photograph must have been taken in the afternoon, right before the seunset. In the Philippines sunset is around 6 pm). Who said a photogrph must be sunny, sharp and with all the dull colours in the right place? SOmeone who is proudly listing his poor photographic cameras and lenses in his Commons profile? Come on, El Grafo, let's be serious and let's talk about photography. Lets leave sharpness, dead pixels, flashes (how many people know how to use a flash here?) and croppings to those who learnt photographing on a mobile phone, where softwares take the pic:-) With respect and sympathy, my last words here.Paolobon140 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Paolobon140: Sorry, not much time today, so I'll have to make it a quick answer. I totally agree with most of what you wrote above. Thanks for clearing up the time thing, I was indeed a bit irritated when I saw the time stamp as the scene really didn't look like early morning. I was trying to talk about photography in the second half of my review, feel free to completely ignore the first half: You obviously had a plan for this image and you executed it very well. When I say that I find the head a bit too dark in comparison to the rest, that's from a "photography" perspective and considering that the dark styling of the photograph. But that's a matter of taste and in any case not severe enough to warrant the oppose I initially gave, so after thinking about it a bit more I've removed my vote. I'm actually leaning towards supporting today, but I think I need some more time to make up my mind. --El Grafo (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rare image -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as another National Geographic-level image. Interesting to me how the things that I might normally hold against it, such as the vignetting, shallow depth and excess space on the sides, actually work in its favor here. This boy is definitely a product of his environment.

    And then there is the expression on his face. From whence comes this intensity? Is he friend or foe? I know the photographer has clarified in response to cart's questions above that he is the former, but even knowing that the uncertainty lingers in the image ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you Daniel for your deep words that i appreciate a lot becasue they describe this photograph. A photograph is in some way a part of the photographer and being understood is absolutely important. For the shallow depth and excess space: I hav been lately working a lot on the use of negative space in my pictures and if you could see mmy newer ones, you would notice it even more; shallow depth is something i cannot forget in this kind of pictures, where the real look of the background is absolutely not important, being it only like wings in a theatre; background is only negative space that must be filled with a hint of reality.Paolobon140 (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Rhododendrites talk |  00:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, finally made up my mind. More actual photographs, please! --El Grafo (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not wow for me, sorry Jiel (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Rhodes Colossus Punch 1892.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2017 at 13:02:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Punch Rhodes colossus
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Cartoon
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created by Edward Linley Sambourne and published in Punch in 1892, "The Rhodes Colossus" is an editorial cartoon depicting a satirical take on Cecil Rhodes' vision of British colonial rule in Africa. It is considered one of the most iconic images of its time and has since come to represent "the Scramble for Africa" as well as Western colonialism as a whole, being often reprinted both in its time and right up to the present day in various publications and school books. This original Punch page was scanned and created as a digital file by Cornell University Library; uploaded to Commons and nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Peulle (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - In good condition and doesn't need digital restoration, IMO. The importance of the cartoon should be obvious. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 21:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Bar Aqueduct (by Pudelek).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2017 at 09:38:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bar Aqueduct, Montenegro
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find it a good picture. Maybe colours are a bit shallow, but that is the light you have found. COmposition is perfect, with that curve given by the bridge and the mountains in the background. Maybe you have might dared a bit more including the whole arcade on the right in the picture, but its done:-)Paolobon140 (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd preferred a vertical panorama to see more of the aqueduct --Llez (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aqueduct is cut. Yann (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I've gone back and forth with this photo, but ultimately, I think that it's interesting and merits a feature. To my mind, objecting that the aqueduct is cropped misses the point: My feeling is that the point of the photo is to make the viewer think s/he is seeing the view from a fairly centralized place atop the aqueduct, and of course if you were standing on top of the aqueduct, you wouldn't see part of the aqueduct. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Традиционално сервиран ајвар.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2017 at 08:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Traditionally served Macedonian ajvar
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mila.atkovska - uploaded by Mila.atkovska - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support A musty and excellent composition of food, I just wish the garlic wasn't blown. Could you also please make the description a bit more detailed and also add categories for the other items in the photo. --cart-Talk 10:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I have expanded the description and improved the categorisation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose The colours are very nice and the composition good, it's refreshing to see something different here. Categories need improving, but that's easily corrected. The reason I oppose is the lack of sharpness at the top half; due to the shallow DoF, too much of the image is unsharp.--Peulle (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support sharpness... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find it an excellent composition, well enlighted and with a lovely placing of the different objects. Diagonals add a lot. Compliments. Sharpness at the top hald is "technicality", not photography.Paolobon140 (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support Per Martin --Poco2 15:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--g. balaxaZe★ 13:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First view: I like the composition, wonderful. Second view: It's not sharp enough. The spoon is sharp, the food not. Wrong focus, sorry. --XRay talk 18:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per XRay. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others - a good photo, but not IMO an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 21:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now. I'm torn: Just plain gorgeous as a thumbnail, but lacking in sharpness at screen size. I can see no artistic reason for choosing f/2.5, so why not stop down a bit more for a sharp image? --El Grafo (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Very weak oppose There is something sort of painterly about it. But while I think the shallow depth works in that quality's favor inside the box (literally!), the edges of the box should all be uniformly sharp. I also get thrown by the near-blown highlight on the cheese (or whatever that is) in the saucepot ... surely that could have been fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I dont know if that spoon was neccessary, but its a bit to big. It could be beside dish, not in. Otherwise fine shot. --Mile (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent composition Jiel (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but have to oppose per Daniel and El Grafo. PumpkinSky talk 23:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition and colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Sydneyoperahouse at night.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2017 at 19:44:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sydney opera house at night
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Alphacontrol - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Prismo345 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I love the light reflected on the water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp night shoot, good composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice but the file name should be changed or added to. A three-letter abbreviation is too ambiguous for an FP. --cart-Talk 10:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tight crop left, compo is not so good. --Mile (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per W.carter.--Peulle (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Agreed that the crop is not so good. But other than that it's great. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree too, unfortunately my 85mm lens could barely fit the whole opera house in the frame. Perhaps I could do a content-aware fill in PS to give a bit more space on the left. Thanks for the constructive criticism, Alphacontrol
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Alphacontrol is there a way to remove the blue flare next to the strong ligth source on the right behind the opera building? --Poco2 15:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Is the flare from a natural light? If so, I would vote to keep it. I like it. It makes the photo more interesting. If it's a lens flare, then I'd say remove it. PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Hi Guys, it's definitely not lens flare but a tree in the background with blue light projected onto it. It was taken during the Vivid Festival and there were coloured lights everywhere. Thanks, Alphacontrol
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 20:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Alphacontrol tried to change the name to "‎File:sydneyoperahouse.jpg", but since they are not really used to how things are done here, I'll see if I can fix this, but I'll move the file to "‎File:Sydneyoperahouse at night.jpg" instead since the first name is already used. --cart-Talk 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think not only the left but also the top crop is too tight. --Laitche (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not wow for me -- Jiel (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Elstertalbrücke 0813-PSD.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2017 at 13:42:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Railway bridge across the river Elster in Saxony
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- The main subject seems to be the river, while the bridge too far looks insignifiant on the picture. Isn't there another angle where this construction could be better defined ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unfortunately, that is the only position available. But waders would certainly help to find new perspectives.--Ermell (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is it this bridge ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No that bridge is not very far from here but much longer.--Ermell (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe a bit oversharpened but a very nice composition. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support HalfGig talk 21:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I sort of like it as the reverse angle of the view most people are likely to have of this sort of scene ... from the train. Sometimes you look out at a scene some distance away and wonder "What does it look like from down there?" This is that picture. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)



Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Mon 27 Nov → Sat 02 Dec
Tue 28 Nov → Sun 03 Dec
Wed 29 Nov → Mon 04 Dec
Thu 30 Nov → Tue 05 Dec
Fri 01 Dec → Wed 06 Dec
Sat 02 Dec → Thu 07 Dec

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]

Thu 23 Nov → Sat 02 Dec
Fri 24 Nov → Sun 03 Dec
Sat 25 Nov → Mon 04 Dec
Sun 26 Nov → Tue 05 Dec
Mon 27 Nov → Wed 06 Dec
Tue 28 Nov → Thu 07 Dec
Wed 29 Nov → Fri 08 Dec
Thu 30 Nov → Sat 09 Dec
Fri 01 Dec → Sun 10 Dec
Sat 02 Dec → Mon 11 Dec

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 (except to add categories on the file page, because need a human user to do it). 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.

  1. 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)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
     (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. 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 ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category 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 an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • 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.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a human user to complete it.
  5. 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/December 2017), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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 ===
  3. 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/December 2017.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. 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). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. 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.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=264901768"