Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates:
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal things[edit]Nominating[edit]Guidelines for nominators[edit]Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents[edit]There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs[edit]On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio[edit]Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominations[edit]If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new users[edit]Adding a new nomination[edit]If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. Voting[edit]Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policy[edit]General rules[edit]
Featuring and delisting rules[edit]A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be polite[edit]Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also[edit]
|
Table of contents[edit]
Featured picture candidates[edit]
File:Barrancas del Paraná-restored.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 18:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
- Info created by Giuseppe Agujari - uploaded by Isha - restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 18:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarateesteban 18:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Nice painting but is the sharpness really there for FP? Especially at only 7.5 megapixels. Good image but I feel like we have better painting digitisations. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Upper Salmon River6.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 17:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#New Brunswick
- Info: Upper Salmon River shrouded in mist; second nomination. The first one nearly passed; redeveloped to address the common criticism of the colours being too dull. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support as I did last time. Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't anything to look at. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- You don't what? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't SEE anything to look at. There is nothing interesting to look at. A very dull scene or a dull day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- You don't what? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is fine, but dull light and bland colors. You could have the same clouds with sunny parts somewhere. Gray landscape, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support again. There are some gray, foggy days and landscapes that are beautiful and give me a feeling of peace. I still remember visiting the temple complex in Besakih, on the slopes of Gunung Agung in Bali, in fog with a light, misty rain in 1976. This is a more purely natural landscape, but it has at one remove (because I'm not experiencing it in person) some of the same feeling to me. That's in addition to what I find a very satisfying composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Machhapuchhre or Fishtail Mountain 6,993 m (22,943 ft)- IMG 5246.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 08:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
- Info created by Bijay Chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay Chaurasia - nominated by Bijay Chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Problems with sky top left and right. Seems oversaturated or something too. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support ~Moheen (keep talking) 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I don't mind the blown highlights on the mountain and the clouds. It's just what they'd look like in bright sunlight Cmao20 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It's the dark blue sky top left and the light blue top right that isn't right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is there something about the direction in which the sunlight is shining that makes you sure it's not right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It's the dark blue sky top left and the light blue top right that isn't right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 20:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Prussian Creek Chain Bay, Kosciuszko Road, NSW.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 07:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Australia
- Info created and uploaded by Thennike - nominated by SHB2000 --SHB2000 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm fully aware that this might seem like "any other road", but this is from a rather unusual perspective and the landscapes are rare and atypical for Australia. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose "Not a fan of the compo and salience". Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a quality image, but I don't think it is outstanding. --Thi (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe the landscapes are unusual for Australia, but the foreground of yellow lines and squiggly asphalt that dominates this viewer's attention is ugly, and the landscape, once my eyes notice it, is nothing unusual-looking in general. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The image quality is certainly there. But could you tell me more about what is unusual/outstanding about these landscapes? Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Lenzuola di seta.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 06:28:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Tuscany
- Info created and uploaded by Pamela Doretti - nominated by SHB2000 --SHB2000 (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support This photo also won 2nd place in WLE-IT 2023. While I'm not fond of the blown-out sun, the wow takes it for me. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Indeed. Yann (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The composition had huge potential but presumably was taken with a phone/low quality camera (no EXIF) as there is little definition, noise and CA. No idea if the original could be reworked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support: refined the gallery to Tuscany. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Painterly and impressive scene. Quality is OK. – Aristeas (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I don't think it's a phone camera. It has too much detail at full size for that. There's noise but I think the wow of the subject is enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting webs, unfortunately Overprocessed image without metadata (like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... by the same author). Unrealistic landscape in my view, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Breil-Brigels in Graubünden 15-09-2022. (actm.) 24.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 05:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons (Graubünden)
- Info Breil-Brigels, Panorama road between Waltensburg / Vuorz and Breil/Brigels, Canton of Grisons, Switzerland. Carved out passage.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) - Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 15:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support The other side of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breil-Brigels in Graubünden. 23-09-2022. (actm.) 02.jpg with a more appealing vanishing point. But still not a truck track :-) Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Вакутин камень.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 01:48:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Volga Federal District
- Info Vakutin stone is a geological natural monument. The 100-meter-high gray stone stands on the right bank of the Irgina River, which in this place makes a steep 180-degree loop. / created by Dendaris - uploaded by Dendaris - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- JukoFF (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Vignetting? Overprocessed? ★ 02:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know. But even if I do, it's no more than any other:) JukoFF (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Seems oversaturated to me. It's a bit noisy but I can forgive that as part of the compromises necessary to capture this scene. Cmao20 (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support per OP and Cmao20. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose over-processed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Overprocessed with weird sky, and probably artificial vignetting -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Оса полист.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 01:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
- Info created by Shapomacro - uploaded by Shapomacro - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- JukoFF (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Oversharpened, but still good Cmao20 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It would be great if not so overprocessed. And I would have rotated the image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oversaturated colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:The Entombment of Christ-Caravaggio (c.1602-3).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 20:15:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
- Info Caravaggio, The Entombment of Christ - uploaded by Masur - nominated by --Thi
- Support --Thi (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Colleagues, how do we determine why one or another medieval painting might get status and another? The question is rhetorical, I have another favorite painting of this painter:) JukoFF (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I will support if it is a work by a reasonably well-known artist (i.e. notable enough to make their work important) that has at least some aesthetic appeal to me and if the quality of the reproduction is good. In this case the painting has a Wikipedia article so its notability is clear. Cmao20 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer, but I'm not sure that the presence of a Wikipedia article should influence the choice, in the case of choosing other digital images the presence of a Wikipedia article in 9 cases out of 10 plays no role at all. Why does it matter in this case? JukoFF (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I mean it's not essential. For the artist to have a WP article is probably enough for me. I think our job re. artworks on Commons FP is to build a library of high-quality digitisations of artwork that might plausibly be considered great or valuable. Cmao20 (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think our job re. artworks on Commons FP is to build a library of high-quality digitisations of artwork. I can't see the point. The version seems oversaturated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I will support if it is a work by a reasonably well-known artist (i.e. notable enough to make their work important) that has at least some aesthetic appeal to me and if the quality of the reproduction is good. In this case the painting has a Wikipedia article so its notability is clear. Cmao20 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Maisons à Bougival, automne, par Camille Pissarro, Getty Museum, edited.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 20:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
- Info Camille Pissarro, Houses at Bougival, 1870 - uploaded by Yann - nominated by --Thi
- Support --Thi (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Photographly. ★ 23:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question This look pretty accurate, but is it is right for us to add light and contrast to an image like this? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Fatima BW 2018-10-07 11-13-53.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 19:22:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner
- Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think the people help the photo. As a matter of fact, the "I'M NOT SARCASTIC" shirt distracts me too much from the really good compositional idea you had in terms of the architecture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Ikan. Really sorry but it would have been better at a moment with fewer people in the foreground, I get how hard that might be but it's just too distracting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support although it is clear that 2 millimeters decide ) JukoFF (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I caught a moment when there were relatively few people in the picture. But I still don't understand why humans in photos are disturbing. Especially at a place of pilgrimage that thousands of people visit every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthold Werner (talk • contribs) 11:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Because here they distract. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Berthold, you didn't get my point about the text on that shirt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes, on the one hand I would love to see this place without all the people in the foreground. On the other hand the people with their mundane clothes etc. provide an interesting contrast to the gigantic modern architecture of the foreground and the classic church in the background. So while this is not a perfect photo of the site, it is IMHO an impressive document of today’s pilgrimage and pilgrims in Fatima. – Aristeas (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 01:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Sebkha D'Oran.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 14:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
- Info created by Terki Hassaine Samir - uploaded by Terki Hassaine Samir - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question How likely is it that there would be a golden hour at 9am in that region? --Wilfredor (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Wilfredor The light of the sunrise creates this effect by adjusting the white balance on the camera. This method is called the Chinese ink style in photography, and it's challenging to combine all the elements to achieve this result. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is 9am sunrise? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp The answer is quite obvious, isn't it? Riad Salih (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please respect the question. Sunrise was at about 8 o'clock (as far as I can work out) so my question was to whether the colours are natural or enhanced in post-processing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp Natural colors. RAW is also available if you want. This place is called Sebkha. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please respect the question. Sunrise was at about 8 o'clock (as far as I can work out) so my question was to whether the colours are natural or enhanced in post-processing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is 9am sunrise? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful photograph. -- Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Havelock Island, Sandy lagoon, Andaman Islands.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 11:39:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
- Info Tropical beach in Havelock Island (Swaraj Dweep), Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andaman Sea, Indian Ocean. All by -- Argenberg (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Argenberg (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Lovely composition Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would prefer the tree slightly further away. It dominates the composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good and interesting. Do we already have FPs from these islands? Yann (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t see any except this one: File:Escenius midas (Midas blenny).jpg. And I have a few images more from the South Andaman Islands that I think might be good FP candidates. --Argenberg (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 16:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Definitely FP potential of a dead tree in a paradisiac white sand beach and turquoise water, but here I mostly only see the dead tree. The compo doesn't work for me, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good to me. Artist's choice to have the tree dominate the photo, no problem to my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Artist's choice, I agree. We don't have to like it though. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, you surely don't. I agree with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Artist's choice, I agree. We don't have to like it though. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Without the dead tree it would be one of thousands beautiful and boring dream beach photos. The tree makes the photo. – Aristeas (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Shadow in the foreground, tight crop at the left. Also per Poco. Not the best composition, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Hibiscus Rising sculpture from above. LEEDS 2023. 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 09:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
- Info created by Octovision Media - uploaded by Lajmmoore - nominated by Lajmmoore -- Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment this image was uploaded to Commons as part of a paid project, see WPːGLAM/Leeds2023 -- Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment this is my first FP nomination, so am learning the ropes, thank you for your time and patience Lajmmoore (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support adding support as nominator Lajmmoore (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support For your first nomination it's a very good one. Colourful and with amazing light. I wish that the top left corner didn't have that big ugly triangular shadow but there's nothing that could have been done except wait for a different time of day, which might have produced a worse result overall. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Commons rules say you can’t upload someone else’s work. What is the situation here Lajmmoore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- They do not. You can upload someone else's work if it's in the public domain or has a suitable Creative Commons Copyleft license on it and you credit your source. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Ikan Kekek, that was my understanding of the guidance @Charlesjsharp Lajmmoore (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- This tutorial must be wrong then... Ikan Kekek. It states no promotional photos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you mean "By default, you can’t upload someone else’s work"? Yes, that's the default. However, doing so is allowed in cases like the ones I outline, and for example, loads and loads of properly licensed photos have been uploaded from sites like Flickr. If you think this photo is purely promotional, I'm not sure why, but again, that's a default for images that are purely promotional and lack educational value. Look at "However, there are some exceptions" on that page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the artwork doesn't have artistic value but the nominator made it clear that this image was uploaded to Commons as part of a paid project. Octoviison media is not the photographer, just a production company employed by Leeds to promote the city. We have no information on copyright though I guess the photographer assigned his rights to the production company. Don't we need to know who took the photo? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Charlesjsharp - Octovision Media is a drone photographer based in Hull, who assigned their images to Leeds 2023 (Leeds Culture Trust) and gave permission for this image and a couple of others to be released under an open license. They are not a "production company employed by Leeds to promote the city". Secondly, again, I looked carefully at the guidelines here and I could not see where it precludes nominations from paid projects, indeed there are examples from other paid projects like this that have already been Featured on Commons. This one was voted for with support by a number of people, including yourself. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not so. Octovision Media is a corporate entity, not a photographer. It employs photographers/drone operators. And we can assume they were paid to take the promotional photo. The image I supported is sharing culture. Not the same as pushing the merits of Leeds as a city. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose No promotion please Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Charlesjsharp it's good to have open disucssion. 1) This is is a cultural project, part of a Wikimedian-in-Residence project to share Leeds' cultural heritage - like hundreds of other GLAM partnerships. 2) I don't think it matters that they were originally paid for the image, what matters for Commons is that it is now available in the public domain, which it is - this isn't precluded anywhere. If it was all the hundreds of historic photos taken in professional studios (that are now in the public domain) would be disallowed because at the time a photographer was paid for them by the sitters. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose No promotion please Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the artwork doesn't have artistic value but the nominator made it clear that this image was uploaded to Commons as part of a paid project. Octoviison media is not the photographer, just a production company employed by Leeds to promote the city. We have no information on copyright though I guess the photographer assigned his rights to the production company. Don't we need to know who took the photo? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- This tutorial must be wrong then... Ikan Kekek. It states no promotional photos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- They do not. You can upload someone else's work if it's in the public domain or has a suitable Creative Commons Copyleft license on it and you credit your source. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 16:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support for the photo; I hope the legal questions will be sorted. – Aristeas (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:WLE - 2022 - Parque nacional de Ordesa y Monte Perdido - 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 15:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain#Aragon
- Info The leading lines, the sense of movement in the water, the mist and the autumn colours all make this a strong candidate to me. created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The trees are all leaning out, the technical quality is so-so and I wonder why a square crop was chosen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support: perspective looks fine to me, but the square crop is odd indeed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I actually really like the square crop, it places the blurry water in the corner so that it leads the eye gently through the frame. But I do take Charles’s criticisms about the technical quality. Still FP to me but let’s see how the votes go. Cmao20 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I find the leaning trees most disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Spectacular to me. The way the trees are shown seems like a minor issue in context to this viewer. It's just a shame User:Moahim has no contributions since last year and is unlikely to see any of this discussion and choose how to address it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think he is one of these users who tends to show up when Wiki Loves Earth is happening, but doesn't really log in otherwise. Totally reasonable of course. Cmao20 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, on an all-volunteer site! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think he is one of these users who tends to show up when Wiki Loves Earth is happening, but doesn't really log in otherwise. Totally reasonable of course. Cmao20 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Dramatic. – Aristeas (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Großer Blaupfeil.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 15:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
- Info Sven Damerow at his best, more than 45 megapixels of sharp focus-stacked dragonfly. There may be some minor stacking errors but so far I have only found one and it is barely noticeable at all. created by Sven Damerow - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very high level of detail and nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great! --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm pretty sure that's the greatest dragonfly picture I've ever seen! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote. This is pretty close but I can see a couple more stacking errors in that one particularly round the head. So I think this one wins. Cmao20 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful. – Aristeas (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:N°2 HAÏK.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 15:03:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
- Info created by Mus52 - uploaded by Mus52 - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question What is different about it and what additional things does this nomination provide compared to this other one? --Wilfredor (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Wilfredor, the difference is that in this one, we can see the entire Haik (the white cloth) instead of only half of it as shown in the picture you mentioned. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support IMO nice, and although the highlights are technically blown, for me it's okay because this is what white clothing in bright sunlight would look like to the eye. Better composition than the existing FP Cmao20 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't agree that this subject is worthy of a second FP. It is too similar. People might think that that the jewellery being worn is part the the haik, but it is not. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp the image can also be used to showcase the accessory worn on the head called Khit er rouh. Best regards. Riad Salih (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too similar to the other one. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support The brightness and the half body portrait make this actually more interesting than previous one. The hands and the hand jewellery are also interesting parts of the composition. --Thi (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The right side is overexposed --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Трифонов Андрей It's natural, isn't it? Since the sun's light comes from that side at that time. Riad Salih (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed, and I like better the current FP. Yann (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Riad Salih (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Imperial Hall, Residenz Munich, Germany.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 13:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
- Info created by -- Wilfredor (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Eurasian sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus nisus) male.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 13:07:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Accipiter
- Info A lunchtime visitor to our garden, enjoying his pigeon. Two current FPs, one feeding. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Superb quality, and the contextualised surroundings, while not very nice, make this image interesting and informative. Cmao20 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is really great to have an eye like yours to watch, capture, and bring these wild action scenes here. Could you expand a bit the description on the file page, so that we understand better what's happening? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Could someone explain to me what happened here please? --Wilfredor (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The sparrowhawk grabbed a pigeon and brought it to ground, killing it and eating it in front of our kitchen window. Photo taken though a closed glass door. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please, could you add date and time of the shoot in the exif. Thanks Wilfredor (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I forgot to update camera clock. Shows Australian time!. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand you, I had a similar problem in Europe, there is no easy way to do this Wilfredor (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unless of course cameras are able to connect to satellites. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand you, I had a similar problem in Europe, there is no easy way to do this Wilfredor (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I forgot to update camera clock. Shows Australian time!. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The sparrowhawk grabbed a pigeon and brought it to ground, killing it and eating it in front of our kitchen window. Photo taken though a closed glass door. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent action shot. There's noise on and around the bird's tail feathers; I leave it to your discretion whether to do anything about that or leave it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, new version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent shot! You do a great work in showcasing birdlife from around the world, but it's great to see a bit of an insight into your home area (Oxfordshire?). --SHB2000 (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support and props to your window cleaner. BigDom (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, Quebec, Canada 22.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 01:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Québec
- Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 11:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would like more sky and 3x2 or something more panoramic. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think about this one ? Wilfredor (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still too much foreground for my taste. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good foreground. – Aristeas (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks to having a strong tripod I was able to place it in the middle of the river. Wilfredor (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Niagara River at Niagara Glen.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 23:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
- Info: autumn colours at Niagara Gorge; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Pretty and peaceful. I had no idea there was such a rural part of the Niagara River. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but the composition is not so exciting, in my view. Too much water, unspectacular sky, insignificant foreground. Vegetation is okay, slightly colorful, but not extremely special. Overall no wow, because something like a ship, an animal or an island is missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I would have liked more sky, more panoramic crop, less foreground water, no rock and a brighter day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support I like the colours and the mood but the composition leaves something to be desired for me. I think it'd be better if the rock was placed at a third, rather than just awkwardly off at the edge of the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Basile Poco a poco (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Lucha entre clanes de la tribu Mundari, Terekeka, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-29, DD 197.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 18:35:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual_sports
- Info Nuba wrestling of different clans of the Mundari tribe, Terekeka, South Sudan. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Is this nuba wrestling? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, I updated the description Poco a poco (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Blue, black and red clothes, skins covered with a film of sand, muscles, bracelets, landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support This reminds me of Chinua Achebe's novels, Things Fall Apart Riad Salih (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Jakubhal 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Cape Town (ZA), Wale Street -- 2024 -- 3536.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 17:45:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay 💬 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Attractive composition and high quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Well balanced composition and popping up content. La Vie en rose :-) Basile Morin (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support very cool composition. Tomer T (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wow! ★ 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Desert elephant (Loxodonta africana) spraying sand.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 09:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Elephantidae (Elephants)
- Info The desert elephant sprays sand on her back and head to keep cool while standing out in the sun guarding her baby. She has just placed a branch over the baby to protect it from the sun. I can't decide whether to crop the image or not... All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Would create an extracted image of original that is cropped 25% tighter all around. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks; happy to oblige. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic action of a wild animal in its natural environment, excellent view point -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ~Moheen (keep talking) 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 01:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Kunst-Raststätte Illertal-Ost 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 09:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
- Info The only art rest area in Germany was designed by the Austrian architect Herbert Maierhofer. The design costs amounted to almost a quarter of the total construction costs. The curved outer walls were made of expanded clay blocks with integrated thermal insulation made of rigid polystyrene foam. The three towers were each manufactured as a complete component in plastic and transported and assembled by helicopter; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Funky subject and good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too busy, in my opinion. Harsh light with black shadows at the lower right corner. Fun architecture but not breathtaking. Distracting industrial lamp post and red umbrellas. The deer sculpture in the center is a bit simple and badly lit. Overall cluttered composition, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too many distracting elements. Perhaps a drone picture would capture the architecture in a best way. --Thi (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Bloemknoppen van een gewone dotterbloem (Caltha palustris subsp. palustris). 17-03-2024. (d.j.b.).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 05:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
- Info Flower buds in development of a Caltha palustris hanging above a ditch. Focus stack of 20 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC) - Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing background and distracting yellow shape. The right border is gray and a bit awkward. Quality image but not up to FP for a somewhat easy subject, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. FYI: The background is the water in the ditch where the plant is overhanging. The yellow spot is a flower of the same plant that hangs a little further over the ditch. The right side is shaded by another plant.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Shade over the water seems unlikely, so probably the side of a blurred plant in the foreground? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose As Basile and there are unhelpful bright highlights. It is not very sharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry but that big yellow blob in the background is just too distracting for me. The image quality is good but the background is somewhere short of outstanding Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I concur with Cmao20 Poco a poco (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This is definitely a high-quality image of the buds, so it is very much a QI, but I agree that the yellow blob makes it a sub-optimal composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support appraising pro and contra. – Aristeas (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Fall Of Baghdad (Diez Albums).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 22:13:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Historical
- Info created by unknown 14th century artist, uploaded by पाटलिपुत्र, nominated by Yann
- Support High quality reproduction of a 14th-century representation of the Siege of Baghdad (1258). -- Yann (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 17:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent reproduction of a valuable depiction of a sad event that was one of the turning points in history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very high resolution and good quality for a 7 century old document -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Ganado, Imehejek, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-21, DD 10.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 18:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
- Info Cattle herd going through a street before sunset in Imehejek, South Sudan. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Amazing composition!, congrats Diego I love very much your work. Maybe some noise because oversharpening?, but FP for sure to me --Wilfredor (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Denoised, thank you for your feedback, Wilfredo :) Poco a poco (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much dust covering the background. JukoFF (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely, that's IMHO what makes this shot, together with the golden hour, so interesting. Poco a poco (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- JukoFF: would you reconsider your vote? --Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why, I'm always consistent in my decisions) Yes and it's nice for you to get so many positive votes! JukoFF (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- JukoFF: would you reconsider your vote? --Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Strange oppose. The dust is essential for the composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Wilfredor. Yann (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent and different to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Kritzolina (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support One of the best FP candidates in my opinion. Great mood, nice light, mystical dust and natural environment -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Stunning photo, everything has been said really Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ~Moheen (keep talking) 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great mood thanks to the light and the dust in the background. – Aristeas (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Kruger National Park (ZA), Elefant -- 2024 -- 0649.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 16:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Elephantidae_(Elephants)
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay 💬 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Not up there with current FPs in composition of technical excellence. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support It looks like this is technically as good or better than some elephant FPs, but it's also of a type of behavior we don't appear to have an FP of (correct me if I'm wrong). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- We don't. But I much prefer this image of an elephant covering herself in sand whilst standing out in the sun protecting her sleeping baby. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
OpposeComposition; especially foreground. Poor lighting from behind. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- One "oppose" should be enough. See above. ;-) --XRay 💬 13:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The light is not very good. From the shadows, it seems that the midday sun comes from in front. Probably not the best angle of view, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agree that the light could be better but the high sharpness on the elephant makes it FP to me Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I that dustbathing? to me it looks like water. A shame that the arch of water coming out of the trunk. And yes, the ligthing isn't good, Poco a poco (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's water and sand (mud). --XRay 💬 19:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Jacaré do pantanal.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 12:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Alligatoridae (Alligators and Caimans)
- Info Yacare caiman (Caiman yacare) during feeding, Pantanal Matogrossense National Park, Brazil. Located on the border of the states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, the park has an area of 135,606 hectares (335,090 acres). It is in the Pantanal biome. Created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by ★ -- ★ 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Not very high resolution but I think there're strong mitigating reasons here… (BTW, it reminds me of Snowmanstudios' works). -- ★ 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Tilted? -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but still FP. ★ 16:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not the previous version before this correction of the tilt made at 20:02 -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a nice shot, but it is quite tilted, quite small and has oversaturated colours. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I admit I was a bit hesitant to give this picture an upvote, fearing someone might comment about a "Brazilian friends group". However, I decided to cast those fears aside because, frankly, the photo is outstanding. I believe the size is perfectly appropriate given the rarity of images of this style and from this region. The composition truly deserves recognition. As for the colors, could they be considered too saturated? Personally, I don’t think so. To me, they are simply the reflection of a diverse and rich nature. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent! --Yann (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wilfredor: did you use Topaz to upscale it? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I "rollbacked" it. To add sharpness to the photos I do an upscaling with Topaz and then a downsize to return it to its original size, I just forgot the last stage, I already returned it to its original size, thanks for letting me know Wilfredor (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent to me - look at that eye! The photographer hasn't contributed since 2017, so we can't expect them to address the degree of saturation or tilt, but I'd be happy to see an alt if anyone would like to make one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose reso is quite low -- Ivar (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Oversaturated colors and low resolution, only 2,244 × 1,496 pixels -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral per Charles, it's obviously an impressive capture but it's only 3 megapixels and seems likely to be downsampled. Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Charles Poco a poco (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Guaita Fortress - San Marino - 2024 02 13 - GT 01 ver2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2024 at 17:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#San_Marino
- Info This panorama of the San Marino (City) is the result of the fusion of 60 photographs. Above you can see the Guaita Fortress and its famous feather. The whole panorama is breathtaking even if the background is slightly foggy: During the winters, especially in the months of February and March, it is possible to see advection fogs on the Adriatic Sea, which tend to invade the mainland for several kilometers from the coast. This phenomenon indicates the imminent arrival of spring. Created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It does not work for me, the colours are too dull probably due to the harsh light when the sun is near it's zenith. PierreSelim (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose midday light conditions. -- Ivar (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great resolution. --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Harsh light but mitigated by amazing resolution and detail and great motif Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Área de Proteção Ambiental Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Thomas-Fuhrmann (16) (cropped).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 13:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Phallaceae
- Info Clathrus chrysomycelinus in the Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Environmental Protection Area, São Paulo state, Brazil. It is a species of fungus in the stinkhorn family, found in South America. Created and initially uploaded by Snowmanstudios - cropped and nominated by ★ -- ★ 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I cropped it just because the foreground was a bit distracting and the original crop in general a bit unbalanced. Picturesque fungus. -- ★ 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Is the fungus supposed to be grey or white? The whole photo seems very underexposed. BigDom (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, it needs more brightness Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Brightness added. ★ 09:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, it needs more brightness Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting fungus --Poco a poco (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting and very strange topic --Wilfredor (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Poco2. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ArionStar thanks for nominating my image, cropping the image this way is much better, yes! thank you. Snowmanstudios (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Nice. Can halos be removed from 'top' edge please @Snowmanstudios: . Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Halos not removed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per others. I think this is quite small. Adding information about the size of the fungus would increase the already substantial educational value of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I request to change the meaningless file name. It should be related to what is shown in the image, i.e. Clathrus chrysomycelinus --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- You should do it Wilfredor (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Corniglia dal Sentiero Azzurro2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 13:18:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Liguria
- Info: village of Corniglia seen from the Azure Trail, Cinque Terre National Park; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Good composition but the light is a little bit dull/hazy. I think this view could be FP at a different time of day. Cmao20 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
File:St Vincent church in Soppe-le-Bas (1).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 09:48:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support All picture is in shadow, but is a nice church in sunset Ezarateesteban 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Very decent photo but not an extraordinary architecture, in my view. Two trees in front of the building are competing with the subject by hiding the main facade. I find the gate on the left distracting and the irregular flows of black asphalt on the road too dominant as part of the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Basile about the black asphalt streaks. Tournasol7, would you consider cropping out most of the road for an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any suggestions for crop? Tournasol7 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'll mark a suggested crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It would definitely be better with a tighter crop, but I fear that even so it would still fall into the 'strong QI' category for me, not FP. A good photo with a nice mood but just not enough wow for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:M Santos-Dumont Aéronaute (photographie (...)Atelier Nadar (btv1b53220531z)-restored.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2024 at 00:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1899
- Info created by Gaspard-Félix Tournachon - uploaded by Stv26 - restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 00:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarateesteban 00:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I prefer the Wilfredo's restoration, given that it preserves the original light sepia tone (maybe too much contrast applied?) and has less grain (or it's less visible) in the darker areas. ★ 00:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in the middle. This one has more contrast, but that one eliminated or greatly lessened dots, scratches and other surface damage, but of course they're less visible with less contrast. Might it be possible to combine the strengths of both restorations? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is a job for Adam the Restorer! ★ 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer, where possible, to help other restorers rather than take over. Ezarate, do you have Discord, perchance? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- yes, I have Discord @Adam Cuerden: thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Any conclusion? ★ 12:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- yes, I have Discord @Adam Cuerden: thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer, where possible, to help other restorers rather than take over. Ezarate, do you have Discord, perchance? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is a job for Adam the Restorer! ★ 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in the middle. This one has more contrast, but that one eliminated or greatly lessened dots, scratches and other surface damage, but of course they're less visible with less contrast. Might it be possible to combine the strengths of both restorations? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still more surface damage than I prefer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I made a new version, based on Wilfredor's version, but with more contrast: File:Alberto Santos-Dumont by Nadar.jpg. Yann (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Yann: Great! Please, nominate it separately. ★ 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I made a new version, based on Wilfredor's version, but with more contrast: File:Alberto Santos-Dumont by Nadar.jpg. Yann (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Wilfredor's version[edit]
- Support I prefer this Wil's alt. ★ 11:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Watching the Dancers by Edward S. Curtis 1906 - restored.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2024 at 12:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1900-1909
- Info created by Edward S. Curtis, restored and uploaded by W.carter, nominated by Yann
- Support 1906 picture of high quality. I like the symbolism here. -- Yann (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture has noticeable stains, scratches, and discoloration as a result of aging and inadequate preservation. The restoration attempts are only partially effective, resulting in a lack of dynamic range and a loss of information in the shadows and highlights. It is challenging to see finer details in contemporary photography due to the image's softness and lack of sharpness. Wolverine XI 18:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Please take into account that it is a 118-year old picture. The quality can't be compared to recent ones, or even to pictures from the second part of 20th century. Yann (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Searching for the best photographs on the website is the main goal of FPC. This image is out of date, and rather than wallowing in the past, we ought to work toward achieving higher and better quality photographs—even if it means removing images from the earlier 1900s. In short, we are moving forward, not backwards. Wolverine XI 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Sorry, but you are completely wrong here. Nothing is out of date, and certainly not old artistic photographs. You better study a bit more of photography before making such judgement. Yann (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I know more about photography than you can possibly imagine. You have not experienced what I have, you are not me, and you have not lived my life. And may I inquire, by which authority do you evaluate my photographic expertise? You make a lot of nasty remarks in your response, and to make matters worse, I just got back. The next time you disagree with someone, avoid targeting their personhood to further your point of view. I don't need your advice or instruction for that matter, thank you! Wolverine XI 06:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Sorry, but you are completely wrong here. Nothing is out of date, and certainly not old artistic photographs. You better study a bit more of photography before making such judgement. Yann (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Please take into account that it is a 118-year old picture. The quality can't be compared to recent ones, or even to pictures from the second part of 20th century. Yann (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support If the criticism isn't really of the quality of the restoration but of the photo as "out of date," that makes no sense as an appraisal of quality and importance of any artwork. Would you say that about Bach? Michelangelo? The sculptors in ancient Egypt, China and Greece? The architects of the pyramids and the Sphinx? I wouldn't! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're not getting what I'm saying; I made a very good case for my opposition above, and you still don't get it. Wolverine XI 06:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, I don't get it. Please feel free to rephrase it if you like, and I'll definitely consider it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying that what I put in my vote was unclear? "Out of date" refers to the quality being too poor to qualify for FP. Don't consider my reply to Yann, but the reason for my opposition. I hope that makes everything clear. Wolverine XI 09:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't implying anything, just agreeing with you that I must not have understood something about the case you're making and asking for a clarification. So in terms of the photo being too poor-quality, do you mean the photo in comparison to other photos of its time and/or the quality of the restoration? I'll look at it again, but I'm interested to understand your point of view better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying that what I put in my vote was unclear? "Out of date" refers to the quality being too poor to qualify for FP. Don't consider my reply to Yann, but the reason for my opposition. I hope that makes everything clear. Wolverine XI 09:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, I don't get it. Please feel free to rephrase it if you like, and I'll definitely consider it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're not getting what I'm saying; I made a very good case for my opposition above, and you still don't get it. Wolverine XI 06:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Important historical photograph in good quality for its time and very good restoration. --Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Yann and Ikan. Quality is never "Out of Date!" --Ooligan (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for nominating this Yann. This version is already an FP on en-Wiki, in case people don't know. What I love about this photo is the simple and elegant composition and its timeless subject. Four young women are up on a high point looking at dancers (who were predominantly male at that time) performing in the square below. It's not far-fetched to imagining them joking, teasing and making comments about the guys below, same as young people dotoday, and always have done. --Cart (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]
Mon 18 Mar → Sat 23 Mar Tue 19 Mar → Sun 24 Mar Wed 20 Mar → Mon 25 Mar Thu 21 Mar → Tue 26 Mar Fri 22 Mar → Wed 27 Mar Sat 23 Mar → Thu 28 Mar
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]
Thu 14 Mar → Sat 23 Mar Fri 15 Mar → Sun 24 Mar Sat 16 Mar → Mon 25 Mar Sun 17 Mar → Tue 26 Mar Mon 18 Mar → Wed 27 Mar Tue 19 Mar → Thu 28 Mar Wed 20 Mar → Fri 29 Mar Thu 21 Mar → Sat 30 Mar Fri 22 Mar → Sun 31 Mar Sat 23 Mar → Mon 01 Apr
Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]
The bot[edit]
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure[edit]
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2024.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.