Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2021

File:Bloem van een Oenothera stricta 'Sulphurea'. 24-06-2021 (actm.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2021 at 04:25:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Onagraceae
Info Flower of an Oenothera stricta 'Sulphurea'. Focus stack of 17 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! -- Radomianin (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~a shame that the stack did not include the stem.~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really a pity that the flower stem is not completely sharp. But despite this flaw, I think the picture is good enough for FP. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the flower spike. The flower hangs a few cm. for the flower stem. To get the stem super sharp, a number of photos are placed between the stem and the flower. My experience is that this is often at the expense of the flower. So I made the flower stem subordinate to the flower.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations :) It is a very good photo and the stem is of secondary importance. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agnes, I don't think it's needed here, but one way to address this issue in future images is to use the 'slabbing' technique: instead of making a single stack for both the flower and the stem (which, as you mentioned, could result in a less sharp or even ghostly flower), you make two sub-stacks (one for the flower and one for the stem) and then stack those together. Zerene Stacker has an automatic slabbing option, but the same can also be achieved manually in Helicon Focus or Photoshop. Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your suggestion. I don't know that edit. But I'm going to delve into it.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Flower goes to yellow-green so green back isnt so good option here. --Mile (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subtle -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 07:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) Gokarna 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2021 at 19:34:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Cercopithecidae_(Old_World_Monkeys)
Info This is how you feel when you've just missed out on winning an Olympic medal. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The monkey may have lost the race, but he has good looks to console himself with. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan :)) -- Radomianin (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination ;–). Gallery link refined to get the photo directly into the correct subsection. --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 07:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Cercopithecidae_(Old_World_Monkeys)

File:Picea abies young female cone - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2021 at 15:41:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Pinaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work! -- Radomianin (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support a few insignificant 'smudges' in the background top and top left. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support some mistakes but compo is fine. --Mile (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 03:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 07:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support— sadopaul (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Александр Байдуков (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RhB ABe 8-12 Malans winter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2021 at 15:20:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question The train is a bit insignificant here, would the photographer consider a crop? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unsure. I'm not entirely happy with the composition of this photo. I do think though that the suggested crop goes too far, but still some cropping on the right may improve things. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me it's a nice enough landscape as is ... the train is far from the only reason to look at it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed crop would be an improvement; currently there is too much space at the bottom right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it as it is (uncropped). As Daniel says, it's not just about the train, it's also about the landscape. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I would not crop it.) --XRay 💬 07:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support without crop, per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 07:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Plumeria alba4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2021 at 00:01:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Apocynaceae
Info created by User:Meshari Alawfi - uploaded by User:Meshari Alawfi - nominated by Meshari Alawfi -- Meshari Alawfi (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Welcome! But I'm sorry, this isn't very sharp or shot in great light, so it's far from one of the very best images on the site, which is what Featured Pictures are. It's possible this might pass at COM:QIC, though I'm not sure about that, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henry Scott Tuke - Beach Study.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2021 at 21:47:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Nudes
Info created by Henry Scott Tuke - uploaded by Verseturns - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed that in the gallery the ratio between male and female paintings in 2:17, which is could be a Wikipedia illustration for gender inequality (see also: en:Sexual objectification). --Andrei (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first one to notice that; I think it reflects that historically a lot of painters have been men, and they have either been commissioned or chosen to paint a lot more women. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good thinking, but not that interesting a painting to me. w:Henry Scott Tuke shows a number of more interesting compositions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scott is complicated because most of his works are kept in small galleries or private collections. Those, unlike major national museums, do not have serious digitalization projects and therefore most of his paintings are simply not available in good quality. And not everything is in PD. On the other hand, this particular piece provides "in a nutshell" all his characteristic features, including the marine theme, sensitivity, youth, combining nature and human, isolation and anonymity. Similar yet a bit more promoted painting can be found here (National Trust, not HD quality). In the broad category can be found more complex scenes, yet they often lack the atmosphere which is present here (or sometimes they are slightly badly framed). --Andrei (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also great male nudes by Renaissance master painters and so forth, just saying, and of course loads of sculptors have made male nude sculptures. Some very famous and great artists who aren't known as specializing in male nudes for the majority of their work nevertheless did great male nudes. So there should be lots to choose from if we're looking at this by motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt in that, yet, on my opinion Henry Scott Tuke is important enough and deserves a nomination --Andrei (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I do see some other compositions that look more interesting to me. I disagree with Daniel's opinion: Inevitably, part of the evaluation of whether a photo of an artwork has wow is a person's reaction to the work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is not Commons:Featured paintings, but featured pictures. We make this decision on the quality of the digitization, not the quality of the digitized artwork. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel -- Radomianin (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support –– Cbrescia (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 07:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Nudes

File:Lake Seliger. Ostashkov. View of Voroniy Island.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2021 at 07:45:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Central Federal District
Info created & uploaded by Александр Байдуков - nominated by Александр Байдуков -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A foggy and humid morning over a famous lake. The fog is very dense of a bluish hue Александр Байдуков (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info This has nice ambient. Just correct tilt, seem a bit clockwise. --Mile (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks! There are many islands on the lake, the shores are winding, sometimes approaching, sometimes moving away. The panorama is not the same as on the sea. I took pictures, of course, from a tripod, carefully aligned everything ... I'd rather not touch the horizon ... Александр Байдуков (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to Александр Байдуков. The reflections show the image is tilted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK! I downloaded a new version with perspective correction. I tried to make reflections of trees in the water without distorting the vertical Александр Байдуков (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy at the bottom -- fixable? --A.Savin 19:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info I saw it, but the fact is that these are not noises: the water near the shore is transparent and you can see the bottom, on which there are areas of sand (light spots) and areas of silt (dark spots). It turned out such a spotty picture, but such a lake ... Александр Байдуков (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 07:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- Karelj (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bestoernesto (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Russia#Central Federal District

File:Northern pintail at Taudaha Kathmandu.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2021 at 07:00:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Anas
Info created by Prasan Shrestha - uploaded by Prasan Shrestha - nominated by Nirmal Dulal -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 07:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Ermell (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Anas

File:Saint Frezal chapel in Canourgue 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2021 at 19:30:26 (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) 19:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice mood but a lot of things going on there compositionally. Too many for me to support as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the mood and actually like the very natural look of the composition. Yes, there are many things going on, but they do not distract from the beauty of the spot, they are part of the beauty of the spot. --Kritzolina (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Kritzolina. The mood and scene is lovely, even if crowded. It's an image that made me stop and say "ooh" while scrolling the list of current FPCs. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina. --Aristeas (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The mood of this photo is decisive for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support After some consideration, the mood of the image convinces me. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the motive of the photo, you can forgive the technical details Александр Байдуков (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina. --GRDN711 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina. -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:F-35 Lightning II MOD 45166254.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2021 at 13:33:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Military_jet_aircraft
Info created by Sgt Nik Howe - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gbawden (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors and mood, but a very busy composition with some uncomfortably tight crops. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question A propos Daniel's comment above: Any possibility of increasing the crop on top at least, and maybe on the left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Massif de Lherz and Vallee du Saleix 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2021 at 15:34:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Ariège
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Well-done technically, and a QI for sure, but unfortunately the light's too harsh for me to consider it an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not really a compelling composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeongjeon, Jongmyo (Summer, 2013).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2021 at 06:12:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#South Korea
Info created by Cultural Heritage Administration - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — sadopaul (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — sadopaul (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support The shadows were suppressed a little more than they needed to be IMO, but otherwise fine. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nirmal Dulal (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very relaxing photo (I was thinking Zen, but w:Jongmyo is actually a Confucianist shrine), only very slightly marred by the crane in the right (but that's part of the life of a functional country). I wish the photo were twice as big, but I think this 2013 picture still deserves the star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel and Ikan. – I have taken the liberty to refine the gallery link because this is (sort of) a religious building exterior, right? --Aristeas (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above -- Radomianin (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berlin Heizkraftwerk Wilmersdorf asv2021-04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2021 at 11:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Germany
Info View of the Power station Berlin-Wilmersdorf after rainfall; with the Motorway A100 in the foreground. All by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice dark clouds, excellent balanced (even the cars on the road) --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Michielverbeek --IamMM (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The slight re-sharpening pattern in the sky is disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I might have cropped it in on the sides more to emphasize the smokestacks more, but there are also arguments to be made for the present framing. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light. --Aristeas (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel and Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Doubled vote. --A.Savin 09:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like this better with a closer crop on the left, but this nomination will pass as is, and I respect that. There's much to like about this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Bug Peek.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2021 at 09:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Others
Info created by Mildeep - uploaded by Mildeep - nominated by Nirmal Dulal -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Good shot, what is in the back to be in such color ?--Mile (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was yellow and redis colored grass and picture was taken in the little light of morning sun which turned out that color with macro lens.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mildeep (talk • contribs)

Question lovely idea, well executed, but the (surely not spontaneous Mildeep?) background is off-putting. Why the colour? I would like to know the bug id. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Is this focus-stacked? - looking at the antennae etc. there are strange changes in focus. I assume the bug is alive, but it is strange that it has poked its antennae through a leaf - which must be held up by hand? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know the ID of this Arthropods. Yeah that is 3 images stacked. The bug was alive and it was in the small tree branch but not held up by hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mildeep (talk • contribs)

Neutral pending resolution of background question. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing composition, however, a bit oversharpened. DoF is completely understood because the conditions --Wilfredor (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bestoernesto (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wilfredor. --Aristeas (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ślewiński Władysław, Woman Combing her Hair.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2021 at 11:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings
Info created by Władysław Ślewiński - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice painting and huge resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile -- Radomianin (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always love it in an image like this where you can easily see the craquelure ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I need metadata --Co mmon ists 19:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Google AP never has it. For example, File:Vincent van Gogh - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project (454045).jpg --Andrei (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings

Typical drinks of Madeira, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2021 at 12:39:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info These two doors at the Rua de Santa Maria (House number 168 and 170), part of the "ArT of opEN doors project", Funchal, Madeira, show two typical drinks of Madeira: Coral Lager which is produced by the Madeira Brewery, and Poncha, a traditional drink made of aguardiente de cana, honey, sugar, and either orange juice or lemon juice, stirred with a "mexelote", also called "caralhinho", a kind of a muddler; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, i like it. But is you didn't draw it than should be as art-picture. One is photographer and the other is an author. What we have here ? --Mile (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Thanks. I changed the Author to "Unknown artist" for it is not autographed. --Llez (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Aren't both images very slightly tilted? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I checked it. In the left there was a minimal tilt (now corrected), the right has no tilt. --Llez (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great resolution and an interesting thing to document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nirmal Dulal (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Doors

File:Buddha Dhatu Jadi DJI 0249-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2021 at 19:13:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Bangladesh
Info created and uploaded by Azimronnie - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting bird's eye view. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting perspective, beautiful colors --Kritzolina (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 07:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Composition feels unbalanced to me. Perhaps a small crop on the bottom? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that too. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True, it seems very strange position. 3D moving could help.--Mile (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support But I would 2nd the bottom crop idea. – Gallery link improved: fits better into our “Religious buildings” gallery. --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality not convincing. There are CA's and the tower at the right is out of focus. --A.Savin 09:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but please fix the CAs. --XRay 💬 10:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bombus ruderarius - Taraxacum officinale - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2021 at 05:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Apidae_(Bumble_Bees,_Honey_Bees,_Carpenter_Bees,_Cuckoo_Bees,_Orchid_Bees,_and_Stingless_Bees)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 05:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Apidae_(Bumble_Bees,_Honey_Bees,_Carpenter_Bees,_Cuckoo_Bees,_Orchid_Bees,_and_Stingless_Bees)

File:Jacky Winter - Glen Davis.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2021 at 05:45:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Petroicidae_(Australasian_Robins)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add the scientific name on the description page (a link to the corresponding wikipedia article would also be useful) --Llez (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support all done I think. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Support I linked it to Wikipedia additionally --Llez (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. (see note Llez)--Famberhorst (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 05:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice background -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Forest Fairy Tale.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2021 at 20:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Northwestern Federal District
Info The banks of the forest river Roshinka after a heavy snowfall. All by Александр Байдуков -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose COM:OVERCAT, sorry. --A.Savin 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the category “Snow covered tree branches” (which had been added by me) because “Trees in snow” (added later) seems more appropriate. --Aristeas (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So difficult it seems... Why removing "Trees in snow in Russia", but keeping "Trees in snow"? One year ago, I had everything explained. --A.Savin 13:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It’s a well done picture, surely QI, but nothing special to me, no wow, and a bit oversharpened. --Kreuz schnabel 10:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Александр Байдуков (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speckled mousebirds (Colius striatus kikuyensis) pair.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2021 at 15:30:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Coliidae (Mousebirds)
Info No FPs of this family or the order Coliiformes. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So much to like about this picture—the colors, the mood—but while definitely a QI, the background is too distracting for it to work for me as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestoernesto (talk • contribs)
Support I like this one because the birds are seen in their natural environment. --Cayambe (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Cluttered composition with the busy background. A nice QI, still -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Very useful photo, but not a great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastern amberwing (75121).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2021 at 17:26:53 (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 Male eastern amberwing dragonfly. For scale, this is probably about 2cm long, taken with a macro lens. I debated whether to nominate File:Eastern amberwing (75148).jpg instead, because it is a bit sharper, but I like how expressive this one is (a moment of suddenly looking upwards while hunting -- I don't know if that "expressiveness" will come through to anyone who wasn't watching it for 15 minutes, though :) ). all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wouldn't choose this as having FP sharpness. Should add male to description. It's not hunting while perched. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose withdrawn because of tiny size. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is it doing? It seemed to be repeatedly sallying out from this and nearby perches. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resting between forays. Many dragonflies (but not damselflies) return to the same perch to rest. This makes them quite easy to photograph. Many photographers (not me) use tripods. Others, like the large hawkers, seldom stop are are a nightware to find perched. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So when they perch, they are no longer looking for prey? They wait until they take off to do that? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Of course they may be hunting for a female. I've never seen this dragonfly, but it seems to be about half the size you suggest. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those who stop by but opt not to vote, I'd be curious if File:Eastern amberwing (75148).jpg would be a better candidate. It's a bit sharper -- I just liked the look of this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry about changing my mind, but the alternative is FP for me and much better than this one, head position included, even with the instrusive reed more prominent. You might consider removing it. Can you add as an alt? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's typically frowned upon to have an alt of a different image (as opposed to a different version of the same image). Before this goes much further, let's put it to the supporters thus far. @Kritzolina, Michielverbeek, Daniel Case, Tournasol7, and Vulphere: should I withdraw this one and nominate File:Eastern amberwing (75148).jpg in its place? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other one might be technically more perfect, but I still prefer this one for the pose. --Kritzolina (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other one is much better, but let's wait for others before withdrawing this nom.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand, with only one oppose and nobody striking their support, this is going to pass. I think I have to understand no response after ping + new supports = keep this nomination open. I would nominate the other one separately, suggesting that we only promote the one with more support, but I do not have another FPC slot open. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 19:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially given the tiny size. --Aristeas (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Bestoernesto (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bestoernesto: Please add the missing {{s}} or {{o}} or whatever; without it your vote cannot be counted ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Libellulidae_(Chasers,_Skimmers,_Darters_and_others)

File:Tiger swallowtail (74863).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2021 at 17:03:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Papilionidae_(Swallowtails)
Info Male tiger swallowtail on mountainmint. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This should not succeed as the crucial tails are missing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So nothing to do with the picture, but because the butterfly lost a piece of itself somewhere? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't consider that valid oppose. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good reason for this nomination to fail at COM:VIC. FPC isn't only about the prototypical representation of a species. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "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 image would not/should not be used on any projects. Without knowing what the butterfly should look like, people could use this - thinking 'well, it's Wiki Commond FP, must be fine'. Damaged insects are much easier to photograph and we always search for 'fresh' ones - not always succeeding. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question How about if the lack of the tails is mentioned in the file description? Could you add that, Rhododendrites? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Started to do just that yesterday but didn't save, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is nature. Elephant without one horn can not be FP !? --Mile (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horn? --A.Savin 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One tusk would not likely not make an elephant FP, when there are so many to photograph with two. Of course there can be 'character' FPs with obviously damaged limbs or whatever. The point about this butterfly image is that you cannot tell it is damaged unless you know what it should look like. We risk devaluing Commons FPs. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good.--Ermell (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mile ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 19:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bestoernesto (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Papilionidae_(Swallowtails)

File:Mohiniyattam at Kerala School Kalolsavam 2019 12.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2021 at 07:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info Mohiniyattam is a classical dance form of India.

All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link added ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dear Aristeas Shagil Kannur (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one was featured already. Very similar -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many similar images are there in FP gallery!! Shagil Kannur (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Can you show us two similar portraits from the gallery? Unless there is a clear mitigated reason, the lack of singularity is usually a valid reason to rebuke a candidate, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bottom crop too tight. Also, see my comments (attacked by the nominator) on another FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i remember. You oppose only because you unlike staged photographs. Mohiniyattam is a drama like dance which tells a story. Thus facial expressions are main attraction of this dance form. Please consider. --Shagil Kannur (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider providing more room at the bottom and please consider taking a photo with the hands in focus. And please consider showing the dancer's hair bun which is lost against the background.Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now it is a meaningful criticism. Thank you Charlesjsharp --Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending resolution of the hair issue. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Charlesjsharp. Black hair on a black background is not a good idea IMO --Llez (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose there are already two FPs of this event, and they are making a bit better impression --Andrei (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andrei. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basilique Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2021 at 23:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Ambitious, but too much of it is unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice shot! It's really impressive, but unfortunately the quality is not as good as FP. The color patterns of the windows are not visible properly, as is the altar. --IamMM (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I reluctantly agree with the others - absolutely beautiful, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good framing, would be absolutely beautiful … Could you repeat this shot with a tripod, or is no tripod allowed in that church? It could also help to focus just a bit nearer, loosing a little bit sharpness on the altar, but gaining much sharpness in the middle ground. --Aristeas (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible, some churches in Quebec do not give permission to take photos with a tripod. I asked the parish priest and the archdioses for permission to no avail. It is the best take I could do, I could have uploaded a downsized version but I preferred to upload a full size version. Thanks for your question and comments --Wilfredor (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, it’s a pity! Yes, sometimes the Church people are very helpful (once a sexton even asked me if she should turn on additional lighting which is normally used only for Xmas ;–), and sometimes they have absolutely no understanding; sometimes asking for permission works, sometimes it fails … In the case of this beautiful church that is especially regrettable. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used a well-written letter format and sent it to many religious organizations. The most beautiful churches answered no, unfortunately, since they had their own photographer. It was difficult to explain that the photos had to be licensed for commercial use. It is very unfortunate that I cannot use a tripod. I also had very positive experiences in which they left me with full access to the Lights panel, I spent a whole day in the Church taking photos, but as I said they are not the most beautiful --Wilfredor (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support viewing at 100% size does make it look a bit blurry, but the very high number of pixels in the image plus tripod restrictions makes this minor limitation easy to forgive. Buidhe (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:BUNGLON.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2021 at 08:28:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Agamidae_(Dragon_Lizards)
Info created by Ganjarmustika1904 - uploaded by Ganjarmustika1904 - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop is too tight, especially on the top. Seven Pandas (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful very weak oppose due to the crops. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support big wow and visually attractive. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Christian. A slightly more generous crop at the top would be ideal, but I don't think we need photos to be completely ideal in every way to be FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bestoernesto (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop at top Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very difficult this evaluation, my vote is only slightly inclined in favor of the impressiveness of the details, but definitely the cut so closed is a big mistake. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Impressive close-up, but the more I look at this image, the more I notice the crop gnawing at the top -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gelada (Theropithecus gelada gelada) male.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2021 at 09:30:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae (Old World Monkeys)
Info Male dozing. The gelada "baboon" is also known as the bleeding-heart monkey. They are endemic to the highlands of Ethiopia. Adult males have an impressive cape of hair on their backs. No FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp picture of the monkey, and I love the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Well-done as always and definitely a QI. But I find the plant on the animal's right a distraction from it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That bush is so similar to monkey. --Mile (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm OK with the background, the plant is interesting and in its original size did not distract me. --IamMM (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bestoernesto (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It’s a pity about the same-colour bush, but everything else is very good. --Aristeas (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mile, background not good. -- Karelj (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) 6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2021 at 05:13:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Rhinocerotidae (Rhinoceros)
Info created by and uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Nirmal Dulal -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a pretty much perfect degree of separation from the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I even like the warm glow from the sun ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom. The hazy background is typical of the weather/pollution conditions in Chitwan. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like this image (the warm lighting helps) but there is another one - Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) 4.jpg, taken on the same day at the same place that is already an FP. To my eyes, the Rhinoceros unicornis in this image looks a little older. Does having the Rhino face right or left make a difference? Both are adults but I am not great in determining if they are male or female – is this known and offer a further distinction? --GRDN711 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same animal, I guess the 'look' can change easily Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mirror images of the same Rhinoceros unicornis taken a couple of minutes apart is not the same as two different versions of the same picture. I like both images, but probably this one a little better. I suspect we all look a little better in a warmer light… --GRDN711 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Rhinocerotidae (Rhinoceros)

File:Olah Pencak Silat Warisan Dunia Dari Indonesia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2021 at 08:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info created by Deni Dahniel - uploaded by Deni Dahniel - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Huge purple CA's at the bottom and lack of sharpness -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with this degree of motion blur but would like to see the chromatic aberration Basile notes to be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deni Dahniel, in case pings work on FPC (they apparently don't on QIC), would you like to try eliminating the areas of purple chromatic aberration? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big WOW. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very interesting. Sharpness could be better, CAs should be removed. --XRay 💬 10:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of King Yeongjo - Chae Yong Shin (蔡龍臣 1850-1941) Cho Seok-jin (趙錫晉 1853-1920) et (cropped).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2021 at 06:35:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by Chae Yong Shin and Cho Seok-jin - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — sadopaul (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — sadopaul (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm glad the Zoom Viewer is working for me today. The level of resolution in this photo is so high, it might be excessive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info I changed the gallery from Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1700-1800.— Sadopaul 📁 06:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 17:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/People#Paintings

File:Final 2013 Fencing WCH FMS-EQ t194733.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2021 at 14:06:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Sports#Individual_sports
Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it is pretty intriguing and unusual photo. Battle in progress. -- Andrei (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. So much of fencing happens in brief bursts of speed, and this captures that frenzy in between stances really well. Are they wearing lights on their heads? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They do! Different pair, but can be seen here File:Final 2013 Fencing WCH FMS-EQ t194440.jpg --Andrei (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites. --Aristeas (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Reminds me of some futurist art like this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting trails are nice add-on -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and highly inventive. I might be tempted to trim just a little of the black on both sides and the top to bring more emphasis on the figures. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting --IamMM (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others -- Radomianin (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its 100% art in action --Wilfredor (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Individual_sports

File:Gemeiner Spaltblättling, Schizophyllum commune-20191216-RM-152856.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2021 at 20:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family_:_Stereaceae

Info Schizophyllum commune in the Bruderwald in Bamberg. Focus stack of 18 frames. All by ermell -- Ermell (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one note added (cropping/cloning error). I suggest to crop out narrow oof part on the bottom. Description is missing date. --Ivar (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Solved. Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mile (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically well-done save for that one cloning error but I just don't see an FP here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question About how big are these mushrooms? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Info 2-3 cm.--Ermell (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. That makes the picture more impressive, and you might note that in the file descriptions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral oof area still at the bottom and imo too much empty space at top. --Ivar (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I'd prefer also a tighter crop at the top --Llez (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I thought of that too. But if you take the blurred background into consideration, I find the progression and shape of the colours quite interesting. The oof foreground also fits in with this.--Ermell (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bestoernesto (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. (I would not crop it, or only a tiny little bit at the top.) --Aristeas (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why don't you cut the blurred part at the bottom? --Co mmon ists 19:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO OK, but I would crop out the little unsharp area at the bottom. --XRay 💬 10:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think, that this object could be diplayed from better camera position, another angle... -- Karelj (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per XRAY. --Cayambe (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family_:_Stereaceae

File:First MQ-4C Triton test flight.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2021 at 21:53:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Others
Info created by United States Navy - uploaded & nominated by ToprakM --ToprakM ^✉ 21:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ToprakM ^✉ 21:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Maybe it's the dull background, but this just doesn't stand out enough from other photographs of military aircraft in flight for me to see it as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lgihting is low key but the design of of this high altitude survelillance aircraft is unusual and raises interest. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andasol Solar Power Station 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2021 at 18:13:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Spain
Info Andasol is the first parabolic trough power plant in Europe. This aerial photograph shows the plant and its surroundings in the Andalucian climate. Created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna. —kallerna (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crops. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are few versions without cutting crops (and more fore- and background), taken on different days. However, IMO this composition is most striking of this quite spectacular view. —kallerna (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I like Andasol_Guadix_4.jpg better. Buidhe (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Daniel Case and Buidhe. Andasol Guadix 4.jpg with no cropping provides the best perspective of this solar field. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, very good composition, though I'm not sure that one is sharp enough to be an FP. I wouldn't be surprised if it passed, if nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support Andasol Guadix 4.jpg with some partial sharpening. --Ivar (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, would not support proposed alternative version myself. —kallerna (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manjanggul lava column, largest in the world.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2021 at 05:59:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#South Korea
Info created by Ahmed - uploaded by Ahmed - nominated by Ahmed -- Ahmed (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ahmed (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poorly composed—there's a lot distracting you from the subject—and poorly done from a technical standpoint: there's a lot of unsharpness, purple fringing on the floodlight, and a near-blown highlight in the middle. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link refined ;–). For gallery pages like “Places/Natural”, please add also the country section. --Aristeas (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case for technical shortcomings, this is too far from perfect. Fascinating object of course but that alone does not qualify for a feature – we’re judging pictures, not objects :) --Kreuz schnabel 17:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bestoernesto (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The spotlights are very distracting and the compo looks a bit random -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oppeln - Młynówka chanel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2021 at 16:08:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear and clean winter light. --Aristeas (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I would remove the cropped bird at the top --Llez (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done --Pudelek (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 12:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not amazing quality for 7.8 MP, but a very pleasant scene. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:구리 동구릉 원릉 전경(항공).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2021 at 14:22:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#South Korea
Info created by en:Cultural Heritage Administration - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 📁 14:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 📁 14:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seriously unsharp background. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harlingen. Sint-Michaëlkerk. Hoofdaltaar. HDR. 12-07-2021. (d.j.b) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2021 at 04:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Netherlands
Info Harlingen. Saint Michael's Church. main altar. Donated by the Winkeler family.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop is a bit tight at the top --Llez (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the top crop with the cropped statue is not acceptable for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 07:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ambigram Escher and tessellation background - photomontage with reversible hands.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2021 at 06:31:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Others or Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created & uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Made with much care and attention to detail. --Aristeas (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cheers ! (anagram of Escher) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dziewczynka z wazonem z kwiatami,1902.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2021 at 22:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Children
Info created by Stanisław Wyspiański - uploaded by Bastet78 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unbalanced composition, bad crop on top, tilted. :-P Seriously, I quite like it, and it's really well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction, interesting style (I would have thought the picture was from the 1960s or so ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like Wyspiański's works, I once admired his painting Motherhood in the Warsaw National Museum. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Children

Two pictures of hwache[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2021 at 14:19:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

A bowl of omija hwachae (omija refers magnolia berries) and a cup of pomegranate hwachae
A glass bowl of grape hwachae and some hwajeons on lacquered octagon plate

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Drinks
Info created by wizdata - uploaded by Phonet - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 📁 14:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 📁 14:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Nice pictures but these don't meet the criteria for a set, being just two of any number of possible dishes made with hwachae. -- Colin (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Arabis hirsuta - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2021 at 16:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Brassicaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice background -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Is the background nature?--Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a home studio photo. --Ivar (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful plant and very good quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 12:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - what kind of lighting do you use? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites: Falcon Eyes Continuous Light Set. --Ivar (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RENFE 333.388 Samper.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2021 at 16:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the blurry und unsharp region above the train due to hot air produced by the locimotive? --Llez (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Llez: yes, that's correct. --Ivar (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 11:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:John atkinson grimshaw a wet moon putney road).jpg

File:Frederic Remington - Aiding a Comrade - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2021 at 06:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Historical
Info created by Frederic Remington - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting painting by a notable artist, very high resolution digitization -- Buidhe (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Russian painting is more to my taste (this is more like an illustration to me), but Remington was absolutely a historically important painter who helped define the American iconography and mythology of the Old West, and this is an exciting scene and a good-looking reproduction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Others#Historical

File:Second Tower in San Marino and Paragliding.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2021 at 12:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Italy
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 12:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 12:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please remove the violet borders at the castle --Llez (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks--Co mmon ists 13:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK now --Llez (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basile Morin (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed gallery from Sports#Individual sports to Places/Architecture/Towers#Italy. MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/delisted to not featured per this and that discussion. --Aristeas (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Symphorian - Zell am Harmersbach - Main altar 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2021 at 08:47:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info Please note, the picture is not tilted. The partition wall and the base of the organ are not horizontal in reality as you can see if you compare it with the altar table and the altar cross; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 12:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautifully designed altar cross. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Иван К. Айвазовский - От Млеты до Гудаури (1868).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2021 at 06:44:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Ivan Ayvazovsky - photograph by Google Cultural Institute - uploaded by Trzęsacz - nominated by Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting painting by a famous artist, great quality digitization. The painting apparently shows mountains in Georgia (the country). -- Buidhe (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Strange that none of the people have faces; that could be making a significant point about how the painter and other Russians regarded Muslim subjects in conquered lands. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how we can tell they're Muslim. I notice that one person appears to be wearing a headscarf, but most of Georgia's population is Orthodox Christian and (especially in the past) Orthodox Christian women also wear such garments. Buidhe (talk

) 08:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to that. In Jordan, the women in the Christian minority also wear head-covering garments; it's how they wear them that distinguishes them from Muslim women. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, but still a subject people in Czarist Russia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support When i see Aivazovsky i think on sea and ships. New to me. Good to spot they dont have faces, there must be strong suggestion about that. I see there are 2 "negroes" with turban, drawn in the time when fez was replacing turban in Ottoman Empire. But my grandad wore fez in the time of Ottoman Empire and even after the Balkan war and expelling Turks from Balkan. It was more folklore than religious rule. You can see lot of Jewish rabbis in turban too. Good photo. --Mile (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes

File:Pointe Percee from Lac de Joux Plane 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2021 at 18:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the bikers add something to make this special. Nice of them to stand there to help balance the composition, too. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites. Indeed a nice juxtaposition. --Aristeas (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites. Was going to oppose until I saw the bikers. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above -- Radomianin (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie

File:RioSanAntonio-CarlosPaz6.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2021 at 17:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of San Antonio river in Villa Carlos Paz, Argentina

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 17:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 17:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current image is tilted and strangely dark, although it looks like the light was bright. The previous version looks to be a totally different shot (the egret is gone), and is much more appealing (the light, colors, perspective), even if the level of detail probably still is not up to FPC standards (the highlights are blown out, for example, which may be why we have a new version?). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it was a different picture, I reprocessed the original from RAW again reducing highlights, thanks!! Ezarateesteban 20:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even brightened, it's still an undistinguished waterside cityscape to me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trustom Pond in the fog (12453p)2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2021 at 20:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#United_States
Info Trustom Pond is a closed lagoon in Rhode Island. When I visited on a recent trip to the region, it was very foggy. Not so good for close shots of wildlife, but I found the islands behind the fog very beautiful. I took a bunch of shots and I think this one, with the tangles of branches and ospreys visible was most successful, but this is one of those nominations where I really don't know what FPC will think. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It’s not easy to photograph fog. This image catches the fog atmosphere very nicely, and the ospreys are an exciting detail. --Aristeas (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fog makes it special. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely picture; I love the bonus ospreys, and the tangles of bare branches. I am wondering if it would be possible to increase the contrast/reduce the fog ever so slightly on the foreground to bring it out a bit more, without ruining the mood. It's a delicate balance, since that fogginess and low contrast is part of what makes this image stand out, but I feel like it's just slightly challenging to separate out the foreground and details, and a touch more contrast might help accentuate the layering of the fog. I wouldn't say it's necessary, just wondering if you'd tried it. --Lambda (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I did play with it quite a bit in Lightroom, experimenting with how to handle the fog and foreground/background. Ultimately I wound up with something pretty close to the original. You can see a couple other attempts in here, though I didn't upload any where the island was quite clear (I didn't find them as interesting, and too removed from the scene I saw, which was indeed quite foggy). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fair enough; figured you might have, but wanted to check. --Lambda (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and the positive comments of Lambda. I'm wondering if the sexes of the ospreys can be identified. I'm guessing the upper one is the female, but I don't know; I'm more familiar with bald eagles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Female ospreys are a little bigger on average, and have more dark chest feathers on average, but there's enough variation that it's hard to say conclusively for any one bird. Seeing a pair together makes it easier, but I can't tell from this photo (I'm also not sure this is a pair -- there were about five ospreys hanging around this pond). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no sub gallery for Rhode Island in Places/Natural/United States so I changed gallery to Places/Other#United_States. MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#United_States

File:Harlingen. Spiraalveren oude treinwagon 12-07-2021. (actm.).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2021 at 04:53:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info Coil springs old train carriage. NS D 6066. Faded glory from the last century, plaything of the elements. Industrial art?
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The spider’s webs decorate the faded glory nicely. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Aristeas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed gallery from Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles to Objects#Machines becuse whole train vehicle is not visible. MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trophy British International Championship.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2021 at 00:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info Great rendition of this British cup trophy, full of details. created by MacMoreno - uploaded by MacMoreno - nominated by Fma12 -- Fma12 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fma12 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very simple, automatic rasterization from bitmap and not a authentic manual design or vectorization --Wilfredor (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe it could be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MacMoreno 19:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)The design of the published trophy aims to increase the content of Wikipedia. Designed and made available to the community, as many of us do it with photos and texts. I believe this design differs from the true three-dimensional trophy, even if the general aspect is similar, it has no proportionality compared to the original and the details of the decorations are not the same, but simply remembers these elements. This reproduction can be considered as a parodistic work and not a copy. In response to the comments mentioned above I can say that it is not a simple automatic rasterization, but the image has been rebuilt with a vector program. Thanks for your attention.[reply]
Comment I nominated the file because it is not obviously "a simple rasterization" but a (IMO) beautiful depiction with such level of detail and plenty of elements that caught my attention. As another user said, it could be also nominated for "valued" image , so I consider effort and dedication by the uploader to design (and not rasterize from a photo) this vector graphic deserves recognition. Fma12 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't see an FP here, sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Université Laval School of Architecture, Quebec city, Canada 35.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2021 at 00:50:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info All by Wilfredor (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IMO most parts are too dark. --XRay 💬 18:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with XRay, it's a great idea but there's not enough to the composition unless we can see what's going on in the extremities. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I think cropping in on the arch would work better here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate that you want to catch the contrast between the darkness of the building passage (interrupted only by the lantern) and the light on the façade in the background, but like the others I feel that there is too much empty darkness. Maybe we could try a compromise? I have been thinking about a square crop – see image note – which keeps enough of the darkness to show it (including the lantern), but shifts the balance a bit more towards the light … Just an idea, of course! --Aristeas (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the crop as suggested by Aristeas, I find this is improved with a slight increase of overall exposure or a tone curve adjustment that brings up the high end. Even the bright part of this image looks a little bit dark, and you have some latitude to bring it up before you start clipping. --Lambda (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: Have you seen our comments? ;–) (I totally respect if you want to leave the picture as it is!) All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeas Thanks so much for your suggestion. Can I add (crop by Aristeas) in the Author description? --Wilfredor (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredor Yes, of course, if you want. I think the image statement is more concise now. – Unfortunately, the nomination has now already been closed. What can we do about it? Maybe you could also consider Lambda’s hint (i.e., make the whole picture a little brighter) and/or sharpen the bright façade in the background a little bit. Then the picture would be changed so much that, in my opinion, a new nomination would be OK. Or I could (re-)nominate the image for you, if you like. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeas Thanks for your fast feedback and sorry for my delay. I will make the changes and I will nominate it again taking into consideration the recommendations --Wilfredor (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chłodnia Kominowa Nr 2 EC2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2021 at 10:43:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Poland
Info created and uploaded by Marian Naworski - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slight purple fringing on aperture, moirée on the grid on the ground. Please correct, if possible. Interesting shot. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was so looking forward to making some sort of Bespin joke and adding it to my support ... but then I took my obligatory close look. Overprocessing and CA evident in many areas. If it is plausibly to be fixed you're in for a lot of work. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Until the problems are fixed. --IamMM (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Peninsula Paris' Chinese restaurant LiLi, 12 August 2014.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2021 at 12:49:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#France
Info created by PPR 19 - uploaded by PPR 19 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a subject that we commonly get interior shots of at FPC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Lambda (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View of Ribeira from Jardim do Morro (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2021 at 18:13:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Portugal
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me the composition is unbalanced, too top-heavy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. Unfortunate framing, would love to see the horizon above for a balanced composition. --Kreuz schnabel 06:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I don't mind the view, but I do wish it could have been a little sharper. You can still get lost looking at all the people on the waterfront. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:20210718 Pleurotus ostreatus 116-138.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2021 at 06:33:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Pleurotaceae
Info created & uploaded by Zinnmann - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting image—I thought it was an extreme closeup of mold growing on cream cheese—but it's extremely busy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support similar to Daniel, but the weirdness and confusion was such that I find myself very interested about the picture/subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Karelj (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, Felder und Bäume -- 2017 -- 3160-6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2021 at 05:23:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#North_Rhine-Westphalia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 05:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 05:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric with a beautiful contrast between the cold, dark, subdued colours in the foreground and the warm, bright, vivid colours in the sky, the fog acts as transition zone. --Aristeas (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lambda (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. -- -donald- (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to print this out and put it in my office, colours and tones to look like a painting.--Co mmon ists 20:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky colours and the mood of this picture, just so pleasing to look at (and as Commonists has said, very good to print and put as room decoration).--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#North_Rhine-Westphalia

File:Ernst Ludwig Kirchner - Czardas dancers - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2021 at 09:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups
Info created by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent reproduction of a painting representative of Kirchner’s œuvre. --Aristeas (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But bad crop at the left ;-) --Llez (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And overprocessed! The dancer has a green face! --Andrei (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Groups

File:T-28 Trojan NAS Ft Worth Air Show 2016-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2021 at 06:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Propeller_aircraft
Info created by Balon Greyjoy - uploaded by Balon Greyjoy - nominated by Balon Greyjoy -- Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 14:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark --IamMM (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it is a valuable picture, after examining others in the same category I don't see what makes it one of the best pictures on Commons. Besides the darkness, noise is also worse than other pictures of the same aircraft. Buidhe (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per IamMM and Buidhe --Lambda (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose light, exposure--Mile (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Buidhe. Not bad, surely, but not that outstanding either. --Kreuz schnabel 16:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial image of the Coburg Fortress.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2021 at 19:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Carsten Steger -- Carsten Steger (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Carsten Steger (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems a little overprocessed ... trees, for one, don't look natural. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. Too bad, because it's a nice composition. Maybe it's fixable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Daniel Case, @Ikan Kekek: Thank you very much for your reviews and for appreciating the composition of the image! Since this is my first nomination, it would be very helpful for me if you could be more specific about the reasons why the image looks overprocessed to you (colors, sharpness, ...?). I would very much like to try to rework the image according to your comments. --Carsten Steger (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the main thing is that some of the trees look oversharpened, such that they have what look more like spiky areas of green than leaves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! This is really helpful for me. How would you rate the unsharpened version of the image (the version dated 16:25, 5 August 2021)? --Carsten Steger (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fortress looks better (sharper) to me in the edited version, but the trees look more natural to me in the first version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback! I appreciate it very much. I have uploaded a new version of the image in which I used a different sharpening mode. I hope this version looks more natural. I would be grateful if you could review the image again. --Carsten Steger (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The darker the trees are, the more unsharp they seem. I still don't think this is one of the best images on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Daniel. Trees look as if this was a phone shot (I am aware it isn’t), rather watercoloured than photographed. Then, it’s a bit dull and lacking contrast IMHO. Resolution is not great, which can’t be made up by sharpening. Why ISO 800 and f/14? Wouldn’t ISO 200 and f/8 have given a sharper image? --Kreuz schnabel 16:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The airplane I am piloting while taking this kind of aerial images moves at 50 m/s. Furthermore, the aircraft is probably rolling, yawing, and pitching a little bit while the shot is being taken. In addition, there typically is thermal movement of the air, potentially causing the aircraft to shake, especially on a sunny day around noon, like in the picture. Finally, aircraft windows are typically tinted with a brownish color. Therefore, I take these photos with the pilot's window open. The 180 km/h virtual wind that is caused by the movement of the aircraft creates turbulence in the cockpit, and thus potentially causes the camera to shake. All of this creates potential motion blur. Therefore, the exposure time must be very short to have a decent chance to get a sharp image. In addition, one should fly at least 2000 ft (600 m) above ground for noise abatement reasons in Germany. This means that you are at least 1 km away (typically, much farther) from the object you are trying to photograph since you are not looking straight down but at an angle. Therefore, you have to use fairly long focal lengths (unless the object you are trying to photograph is very large), which means too little depth of field if you are using large apertures (small f-numbers). Hence the large f-number. To achieve large f-numbers and short exposure times, I use larger ISO values. I have experimented for a while with smaller ISO values, but this resulted in a much larger percentage of shots that were motion blurred and the ones that weren't didn't look sharper. This setting is the best compromise I have found so far. I hope this explains the technical challenges of taking aerial images a little bit. --Carsten Steger (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Das deutschlandspezifische Überlandflughöhenminimum von 2000 ft wurde meines Wissens 2015 durch SERA abgeschafft, d.h. abseits von Ortschaften und Menschenansammlungen darfst du rechtlich jederzeit auf 500 ft AGL runter. Und ohne das jetzt durchzurechnen, glaube ich nicht, dass auf die hier gegebene Entfernung f/8 eine zu geringe Schärfentiefe erzeugt hätte, aber deinem Ziel einer möglichst kurzen Belichtungszeit wäre sie durchaus entgegengekommen und hätte weniger Beugungsunschärfe erzeugt. Generell bewerten wir hier ausschließlich Bildergebnisse, ohne widrige Umstände gegenzurechnen :) --Kreuz schnabel 22:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für Deine Bemerkung in Bezug auf Druchrechnen des Tiefenschärfebereichs! Die finde ich ganz hervorragend. Das hätte ich gleich machen sollen statt mich auf meine Intuition zu verlassen. Ich habe das jetzt nachgeholt. Du hast vollkommen recht: f/8 reicht von der Tiefenschärfe für alle Szenarien in der Luftbildfotografie, die für mich relevant sind. --Carsten Steger (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for reviewing my nomination and for your constructive comments! I appreciate that very much. I have learned a lot from your comments that I can use to create better aerial images in the future. —-Carsten Steger (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Çiftleşen zıpzıp kelebekleri.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2021 at 03:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Hesperiidae_(Skippers)
Info created by Assyrtiko - uploaded by Assyrtiko - nominated by Assyrtiko -- Assyrtiko (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Assyrtiko (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think it would work better cropped in on both sides to make it more of the vertical it wants to be, but that might make it too small for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The top right bit of the background is distracting me. SHB2000 (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset at Montmajour 1888 Van Gogh.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2021 at 20:41:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Vincent van Gogh - uploaded by Uncle Alf - nominated by sajbadina -- Sajbadina (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support May not show a near-microscopic level of detail like some photos of paintings we've been featuring, but it's quite detailed and good enough, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love Vincent--Co mmon ists 20:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes

File:Bloem van een Astrantia major 'Roma'. 24-06-2021 (actm.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2021 at 07:59:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Apiaceae (Carrot family)
Info created & uploaded by Agnes Monkelbaan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! --Ivar (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome colors! -- Radomianin (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful composition, one of your best! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good combo of colors --Mile (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 19:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination of my photo.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dinkum (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sajbadina (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the best. SHB2000 (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Apiaceae (Carrot family)

File:Self-portrait in White Dress - Jacek Malczewski.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2021 at 07:07:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings
Info created by Jacek Malczewski - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Google's translation of "Autoportret w białym stroju" is "Self-portrait in a white outfit". Is it a white shirt or a white dress? I can't tell for sure because we don't see what's below the belt, but it does look frilly like a dress. Anyway, it's a striking self-portrait and a good reproduction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But "dress" can also be "clothing of a specified kind for men or women", no? So here's a dress of a painter/butcher. Museum also proposes "attire". Its a mess, as always. --Andrei (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dress" can mean anything worn, but "a dress" to me is a specific kind of 1-piece garment traditionally worn by women. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge dictionary translates stroj as dress. --Andrei (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about we render it in English as Self-Portrait Dressed in White? That works best for me. (And I hope that's supposed to be paint on his belly and he didn't take a wound there before painting. Or did he stash a fresh cut of meat there?) Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion sounds good but I can not find any sources which would refer to it by this title --Andrei (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great painter. I have admired some of his works in the Jacek Malczewski Museum in his birthplace Radom. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Radom houses a surprisingly diverse, largely unknown collection (for such a small provincial town) --Andrei (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, maybe it's because Malczewski is a child of Radom. By the way, Radom is considered a big city with over 200,000 inhabitants ;) but I agree that it partly has a provincial charm. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it has big population and even considered to be a capital of Masovia, but Warsaw often grabs main attention :) --Andrei (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Warsaw as a world city deservedly always attracts attention. That's why I wanted to stand up a bit for Radom here :) -- Radomianin (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thats why I am almost never nominating Warsaw! --Andrei (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sajbadina (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings

File:Olympus E-M1 Mark III Zuiko 12-100mm.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2021 at 18:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
Info Olympus E-M1 Mark III with Zuiko 12-100mm. My photo -- Mile (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! How many photos did you stitch together? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek I checked EXIF, said 7. Anyway, dont care much how many today when all is automated 2 or 200 is same stuff. It was more hard when you do manual. Now many have in-built. --Mile (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's an em1 camera taken by an em1? Do you have two? Or was this taken by an older version? I did not know it had built-in focus stacking. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rhododendrites: I expressed wrong, they do have Focus bracketing, i just do stack in other software, since often u need serious one and even there are plenty corrections. On photo is Mark III, shot with Mark I.--Mile (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the first thing you did with your Mark III when you took it out of the box? There's hardly any dust... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somethink like that, i had test shot but kept it inboxed till this, after it full use. --Mile (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmmm ... purple! Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 19:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sajbadina (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support C'est trés creatif! SHB2000 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Purple lens won my attention.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ring-billed gulls in Red Hook (42792).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2021 at 19:57:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Larus
Info Three adult nonbreeding ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) lined up on the Red Hook, Brooklyn waterfront. Cart pointed out they look like "dock thugs" and this actually happens to be the place where the movie On the Waterfront was set. FPC regulars may note that there was a close-up of an individual bird from this set nominated early this year. I think the group shot is sufficiently different in motif/composition to merit a separate nomination. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support "What picture do you wanna see? THREE BIRDS!!!!". Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background and No 3 is looking away. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 23:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Larus

File:Lycaena phlaeas - Kulna.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2021 at 07:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Lycaenidae_(Blues,_coppers_and_hairstreaks)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 19:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sajbadina (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this somehow a dead specimen (probably not)? If no, how did you manage to take 11 photos for stacking without it moving? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rhododendrites: in the early morning is the air temperature lower and insects are usually covered with dew. They are unmoving until drying/warming up. --Ivar (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Lycaenidae_(Blues,_coppers_and_hairstreaks)

File:Ornamentglas B - Ansicht 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2021 at 08:00:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created and uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is a picture of opposites: straight lines and indefinable surfaces, complementary colors, sharpness and blurring. --XRay 💬 08:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 08:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, XRay, for the nomination! – I guess you may wonder what you are looking at ;–). The photo shows a detail of a window, ca. 8.5 × 5.7 cm (3.35 × 2.23 inch). The window pane is made from a simple kind of so-called decorative glass (a.k.a. patterned glass, textured or obscure glass); it looks like this product, and the vertical stripes in the photo are produced by the fluted structure of the glass. The decorative glass acts as a diffuser. The colours you see in the photo are actually an image of the outside world, but heavily diffused or “abstracted” by the decorative glass; the red comes from the roof of a house, the green from the plants in the garden. Because the glass works as a diffuser, everything in the photo consists of smaller and larger gradations. IMHO it’s amazing that something as simple as a fluted window pane, if you only look closely enough, shows these complex gradients and creates an abstract image. --Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abstract beauty! -- Radomianin (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very striking, nicely spotted and captured! --Lambda (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 07:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I do not see here anything interesting from encyclopedic point of view and also from art of photography. IHMO, the photo of this material inside building (this product in the text of Aristeas) looks much better. -- Karelj (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again and again: Not every image has to be primarily suitable for Wikipedia. An encyclopedic value is not required. However, my imagination does not go that far to rule out a possible use in this context as well. It would be good if we could concentrate here on one look through the eyes of a media library and not always indulge in the limitations of the encyclopedic value. --XRay 💬 11:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again and again: This image is IHMO out of category FP. -- Karelj (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this could be an excellent cover image for a textbook, such as a book on optics; or it could be a good illustration of the aesthetic value of decorative glass in architecture. Commons is not simply a repository of media for Wikipedia, it is an open content repository for any educational media, whether it is appropriate for use in an encyclopedia, textbook, news, reference, or anything else. And of course, it can be used as an illustration of the obscuring properties of decorative glass like this; even if it's possible that an image which shows both the glass and the scene behind it would be better for such a purpose, featured picture is based on "wow" factor, not necessarily peak illustrative value, and this particular image does have that "wow" factor. --Lambda (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I thought when I first saw this that Cart had returned to nominate another of her own images . And I, too, can see many educational uses for it, such as illustrating diffraction. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel, this isn't diffraction. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Looks like it, though ... well then what is it, optically? Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeas describes it already. Diffraction is a lightwave interference effect, best seen with light of one wavelength such as a laser. -- Colin (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like an op art painting -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anénoma de mar común (Anemonia viridis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2021 at 21:53:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Snakelocks anemone (Anemonia viridis), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. What you see here is a predator, related to jellyfish (but without a medusa stage in their lifecycle), that ensnares prey of suitable size that comes within reach of its tentacles immobilizing it with the aid of their nematocysts (explosive cells that contain one giant secretory organelle that can deliver a sting). The prey is then transported to the mouth and thrust into the pharynx. This species is widely consumed in Andalusia and is known as ortiguillas de mar (literally, "little sea nettles", because it has urticant properties before it is cooked). The whole animal is marinated in vinegar, coated in a tempura-like batter, and deep-fried in olive oil. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I find it more pleasing vertically (quarter-turn rotation CCW) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Neutral~~ for the moment. Per Basile Morin. I would also prefer a vertical version. I downloaded the picture and had a look on the rotated version. Then the surrounding and the background look natural, not like a vertical wall as in this case here. --Llez (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, no problem, 2 requests already, looks indeed fine, Llez (and FYI Basile Morin) Poco a poco (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK now --Llez (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Llez, btw, right now you're voting twice --Poco a poco (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support There are technical shortcomings, but it was a complicated image shot underwater. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 23:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa

File:Liberty Science Center Jersey City October 2020 panorama 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2021 at 04:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info Liberty Science Center in the morning fog -- all by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting building, nice trees, beautiful light, pleasant fog, but you could consider cropping out close to 1/3 of the picture in the foreground. If you don't, I might support, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan’s proposal seems very reasonable to me. --Aristeas (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but IMO no wow, I don't find this building nice. --A.Savin 07:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite there for me. As Ikan Kakek mentions, could use a crop; the foreground grass and trees just swallow up the building. Horizontal lines on tower camera left are slightly off horizontal, leading it to feel unbalanced. Fog is a bit thin and doesn't add much to this photo. And a bit lacking in "wow" as Karelj mentions. Fixing the crop and distortion would bring this up to neutral for me, might need something else to add "wow" for support. --Lambda (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edits bring this from oppose to neutral for me. Not quite the "wow" to support, but good enough not to oppose. --Lambda (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek, Aristeas, A.Savin, Karelj, and Lambda: I have made a cropped and corrected version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. I like it better, but I still would support some more cropping. I'll come back to this later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you! Good for me; feels much more balanced now. --Aristeas (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light isn't working. I think you need to find a time/date when that dome will be lit such that one appreciates its roundness. The hint of mist and golden light isn't enough to rescue what is rather a drab facade. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really possible; this view is from the northeast, so illuminating the dome while not leaving the entire facade in shadow would require the sun to be directly due north, which doesn't exist in the Northern Hemisphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: "...would require the sun to be directly due north, which doesn't exist in the Northern Hemisphere." Yes it does. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what you might have been trying to do but it doesn't come across here. Frankly I've always thought the better views of this building are from the other side, where you can get the Manhattan skyline into it as a background (and unfortunately I remember that view most because of coming down there a few days after 9/11 and getting, along with hundreds of other people just staring silently at it, a reasonably closeup view of the twisting column of black smoke still rising from the center of Lower Manhattan. Better and worse than seeing it on TV at the same time. Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I still feel like I'd like more cropping, but I also feel like there's enough of interest in the composition to sustain a supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a difficult one to me, so I will whether oppose not support. The crop is probably too wide, the ligthing nice but it would have been probably better waiting a bit more, not sure. The facade isn't he nicest indeed but not ugly. Poco a poco (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the lighting gets stronger over time, but the fog was rapidly dissipating and I needed to capture this before it was all gone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States

Blue Shark Azores, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2021 at 13:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Detail view of the head
Back view
Bottom view
Side view
Front view
Tail view

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Carcharhinidae_(Requiem_Sharks)
Info I'm nominating a set that provides a comprehensive view of a blue shark (Prionace glauca) photographed between the islands of Pico and Faial, Azores, Portugal. The blue shark is a species of en:requiem shark, in the family Carcharhinidae, that inhabits deep waters (images taken though between 5 and 10 meter below water) averaging around 3.1 m (10 ft) and preferring cooler waters. They can live up to 20 years, can move very quickly and feed primarily on small fish and squid, although they can take larger prey. I hope you like it and IMHO a nice way to say "hello!" again :) All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful series. Welcome back.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome back! --Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ahmed (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Head detail is perfect, following are ok, but front (head is oof) and rear view (posterization, quite low resolution and noise) are no go for me. --Ivar (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, some shots are better than others. I can on the other side hardly think of more challenging conditions that those here to take this kind of shots. Real underwater, wild animal, that moves very quickly. --Poco a poco (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm somewhat new here, and I don't see any guidelines on how to evaluate image sets, so I'll just comment for now. If evaluating them individually for FPC, I'd agree with Ivar on both of the last two. If taking them as a set, I'd say that the slight OOF head on the front view is fine, while it might not be technically perfect individually, it's a valuable addition to the set. The tail image is still not, it's dark and noisy and posterized, and I would drop it from the set or find an alternative. Viewed as a set, one last comment is that the colors and tones aren't quite balanced between the images; the tail image is darker than the others, the blues don't quite mach, and while there may be some occlusion of the shark from closer and further pictures, the colors of the shark could be better balanced between the images as well. --Lambda (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your constructive comment, Lambda. I agree with what you say, the front view is probably the best shot because it is indeed menacing, the problem (from the photographic point of view, but indeed a good thing) is that sharks were not targeting me and therefore that shot was pretty exceptional, in an aquarium you could have more luck with that angle. Please, have a new look to the image again, I've applied some improvements. I could still offer a second shot for the front: File:Tiburón azul (Prionace glauca), canal Fayal-Pico, islas Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 27.jpg but I still prefer the one I nominated.

I also improved the tail shot, now is brigter and denoised. I can offer 2 alts for that one if you believe it is still not over the bar: File:Tiburón azul (Prionace glauca), canal Fayal-Pico, islas Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 12 alt.jpg or File:Tiburón azul (Prionace glauca), canal Fayal-Pico, islas Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 29.jpg. I believe that a view from the tail is necessary for the set to have it complete.

I also tried to harmonize a bit colors/luminosity and therefore I retouched the head, the tail and the top view, but please, don't expect equal tones. WB is anyhow a big challenge underwater. Even having the same WB settings the tones will dramatically vary depending on the depth I was at that moment, the amount of water between me and the subject and (mostly) whether I looked up or down to take the shot. Poco a poco (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the edits! Definitely a support now. There's still some posterization on the tail photo, but with the other cleanups I think it goes well as part of the set. I definitely understand, you're not going to be able to balance them exactly, but this is the kind of edit I was thinking of. --Lambda (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remembers me the different views of my shells --Llez (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree :) you are probably quicker than me in this case, 1 day to prepare it, 1 day in the ocean to take the shots and 1 day to sort them out...but principally, the idea was, like you do, to offer all possible views of the subject --Poco a poco (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome back Poco --IamMM (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, glad you returned. I wish there was better definition of what a set should be and whether each image has to be FP on its own. I wouldn't nominate this lot as a set, but can we establish the rules? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used the third condition for a set (A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints) and I understand that it needs to be comprehensive which I think, is given here. One of the few advantages of underwater photography vs surface photography is the fact that it's possible to photograph a fish from all viewpoints. That's difficult for a spider, a lizzard or even a bird. And don't worry, I don't have many sets in the pipeline, maybe another one with 2 images, but I believe this photographic session was kind of special and deserves a FP set. Still, I agree that it is possible to precise the requirements for sets a bit more, yes. --Poco a poco (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see you've been swimming with the sharks during your absence . Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others have noted, this is a bit of a mixed bag. The only one I think approaches FP technically is the head shot, being relatively sharp and clear. The only one at FP for composition is the front view, which is indeed a good catch, but only the rear is sharp and the face is blurred. The side view's not bad, and I could see that illustrating the various features of the shark body, though the tail is blurred. The detail view of the head is arguably just a "crop with your flippers" version of the side view, not a different angle. The rear shot is very weak (3MP). As a whole, it is very useful to have various viewpoints of the same shark, but I don't think that alone is enough to earn a set nomination at FP. Many of us have taken photos of subjects from various angles, and find that only one is good enough, or even that none quite tick all the boxes. Llez makes a comparison with the shell photos of different angles, but those are nominated as a single collage photo, not as a set nomination, and all the angles are equally high standard technically, even if some angles are more beautiful than others. I appreciate there are technical challenges in underwater photography. The photos in an FP set are expected to all be of FP standard, and only a bit of allowance made for a weak entry. This set doesn't reach that standard IMO. It is not uncommon for a set with weak parts to be renominated for the good bits. -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just to many of them. Let keep some normal quantity.--Mile (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate your comment, Mile? which one of the 6 images should be removed from the set in your opinion? Please, bear in mind that my target here was to provide a comprehensive view of the subject following the 3. set criteria (A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints). I'd understand (and share) you comment in a case like this one, but not here. Poco a poco (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have 30 nominations, guess what mess would become if all would have 6 shots per nominee. To remove, i just checked Front view, foucs is in the middle and not on face. Even if all others are fine, this one spoil it. See goodness of one by one. --Mile (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good to see your images again, Poco. While the invidual images have strength, they work best for FP as a set - most wow and multiple view angles. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have opened a topic at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Set Criteria which gives examples of sets that fail for either "That doesn't meet the criteria for being a set" or "Those don't all meet the criteria for featured picture quality". -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The rear view is not of adequate quality to be part of the set. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
King of Hearts and what do you think now? I replaced the image with another one of higher resolution. I already offered it above in my reply to Lambda. @Iifar: Poco a poco (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll need some more time to think about it. My gut feeling is that the head + side + front seems just a bit repetitive to me (they are all from the left side of the shark). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could offer some views form the other side (like this one after a bit or rework or upload a new one), but I'm not sure about the need for that, as far as I know shark look the same from both sides. Poco a poco (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tail is better now, but not quite in focus and the front view head is still out of focus. --Ivar (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Poco a poco: is it the same shark at all? This and this are not the same to me (look at tails). Rule of the set: A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints. Same subject doesn't mean same species. This and this are definitely two different sharks, which means there were more than one around. --Ivar (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a second one around but definitely more shy than this one. --Poco a poco (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This set is full of stunning pictures.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GRDN711 -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 11:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Carcharhinidae_(Requiem_Sharks)

File:Al quartiere latino, bozzetto di Adolf Hohenstein per La Bohème (1896) - Archivio Storico Ricordi ICON000086 - Restoration.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2021 at 06:02:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed
Info created by Adolfo Hohenstein, restored by Adam Cuerden - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info We already have it here --Mile (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Oh, I didn't know. Thank Mile! Paris 16 (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:고양 서오릉 경릉(소혜왕후) 무석인.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2021 at 13:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
Info created by Cultural Heritage Administration - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 📁 13:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 📁 13:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lambda (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like this photo and will support, but I think it's important to describe the statues more. I see on the category page that they're from the Joseon Dynasty. Have archaeologists given an estimated date for them? (Also, perhaps the green is oversaturated, but I'm not sure and wouldn't require any edit.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advising! I added some words, but the lack of language.. instead, I added three photos to help readers to understand.— Sadopaul 📁 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems a bit over-saturated. The composition is unfortunate - the fence leads into the horses eye, which has a little hut "on its back". -- Colin (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A little desaturation wouldn't hurt but it's not essential. However, the too-visible filter gradient up top needs to be dealt with. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could you say more about the gradient, so I can try to see what you're seeing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Daniel is referring to how both the sky and the trees darken in the top inch of the photo. I assumed the lower trees being lighter was due to some low lying mist, and the sky does often naturally brighten nearer the horizon, but both could be due to a gradient filter. I note that there is an uncropped embedded thumbnail, which has similar effect on the sky, and might represent the out-of-camera version. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. That's OK with me, and while your criticisms of the composition are perfectly reasonable, those things didn't bother me before you mentioned them and still really don't bother me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over saturated and over processed. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks nice with a nice mood --SHB2000 (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image looks unnatural to me, overcooked and the shadows in the sculptures are not consistent with the shadows on the floor. Furthermore the page has no categories. --Poco a poco (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I manually added the category Gyeongneung but it gone hidden since the category is disambigution page. I fixed and thank you for noticing :)— Sadopaul 📁 11:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Otherwise i more like 1st photo, and also would be nice to see it in full size. Dont downsize them. --Mile (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 11:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this looks really unnatural to me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vexilla vexillum 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2021 at 08:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Muricidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- impresive as always. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mocha swirl this time ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the crop is a bit tight. I could see twice more space around on each side -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 23:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Muricidae

File:Helenium 'El Dorado'. Opengebarsten bloemknop. 18-07-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2021 at 04:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Cracked flower bud of a Helenium 'El Dorado' in a misty early morning. Focus stack of 23 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome except that there are 2 red hot pixels under the left side of the flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wrong pixels removed. Thanks for the review.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. – Gallery link improved ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice! One frame could have better focus though. --Ivar (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done!--Ermell (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 17:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 23:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Somehow compo is strange but quality is very good. I would say this M series, also used by Agnes M., have so differnt sensor than DSLR series. Colors, texture are more likeable. --Mile (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice motif but there are some flaws here, at least 2 stitching issue, see notes. Poco a poco (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Your notes are not visible to me.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Dinkum (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae

File:Obama family in mist in Rio de Janeiro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on ?? at ??
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
Info created by Pete Souza - uploaded by JMK - nominated by JMK -- JMK (talk)
Support -- The statue somewhat off center, should perhaps be cropped, but I like the oval halo centered on both the statue and Mr Obama, the notability of the subjects, the alignment of the subjects which mostly present separate figures, the mood which is enhanced by the mist, the interesting purplish colour, the focal points of family and gazing statue, and their gaze or attention which is mostly focused on the statue. The steps below obscure their feet and is one of several distractions, but at least its a straight line. JMK (talk)
Support -- I find that the obstacles and slight assimetries actually enhance this image. The "distractions" make it feel natural and non-staged while not obscuring too much the subjects, which are notable and interesting. YuriNikolai (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I would like this if it were the family of Joe Schmo in the picture, rather than Barack Obama. Therefore, I support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric. – Has anybody got an idea about the appropriate gallery section? First I considered Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1990-now, but per Ikan’s argument this is not a typical “historical” photo: it would work also with an arbitrary family and it does not show Obama doing official political work etc. And Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors does not fit because the statue of Christ is not the main subject of the photo. So Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people seems appropriate, but is rather vague. Any suggestions? --Aristeas (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult question because we're seeing people's backs and the statue in fog. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeas, my suggestion is Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog because mist (fog) is the main factor in this picture. MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MZaplotnik: A nice idea! Well, it’s still difficult to decide – all ideas apply, but no one is is simply convincing … (Probably it is a special strength of this photo that it does not fit easily in any typical pigeonhole, but is creative and unmanageable ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suggests a movie onesheet. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery changed to Natural phenomena#Fog per above discussion. MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old timer structural worker2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2021 at 20:18:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1930-1940
Info created by Lewis Hine - uploaded by Durova - nominated by sajbadina -- Sajbadina (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great photo, of course, but at the same size, it's noisier than File:Photograph of a Workman on the Framework of the Empire State Building - NARA - 518290.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that's because in this one somebody tried to enhance the contrast so that in the shadow areas the blacks are clipping. Similarly, the highlights on the glove have been pushed too far. They are rolling off nicely in the other version, but here they are clipping harshly. Over-all that makes the image appear sharper at small sizes, but is comes at a price. --El Grafo (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 11:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above: great photograph, but this particular digital reproduction is broken. --El Grafo (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Van Wagenen House September 2020.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2021 at 21:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 19:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely a valued picture and a QI, maybe en:Wikipedia:Featured pictures too, but from a non-encyclopedic / uninformed point of view it's just a house and the perspective is non-ideal due to the available distance to camera. --Trougnouf (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the close distance was out of necessity - check out the Google Street View for the place, there's a fence in front and tons of telephone wires everywhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less per Trougnouf. Certainly a good and pleasant picture, but nothing amazing to me. Distracting part of a building on the right, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Looks good to me, but I also fear concerns brought up by Ikan Kekek SHB2000 (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --El Grafo (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ikan, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hwachae.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2021 at 07:06:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Drinks
Info created by wizdata - uploaded by Phonet - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 📁 07:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 📁 07:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely a valuable photo, but I'd prefer a deeper depth of field, so that the magnolia berries were sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be taken outfocused, but the original subject seems to be as soaked as decolored (like back one). So it could be too softened rather than outfocused.— Sadopaul 📁 12:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done food photography and good composition. The colours of the cloths mirror the colours in the bowls and form intersecting lines through the circles. I'd like to know a bit more about what I was seeing. The omija-hwachae article suggests the pale submerged lumps may be little chunks of Asian pear and that pine nuts are floating as garnish. Ikan, I'm not sure what you are referring to wrt sharpness. I think the magnoia berries have perhaps been used to extract a juice/punch, but aren't present as whole berries here. It seems sharp enough to me. I wonder if the bowl in the background is a different fruit punch? Can the description be enhanced. -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to whatever the bits under the surface are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added information about the back one.— Sadopaul 📁 12:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Central composition deos not suit me here, noise is a bit high and both dish are touching, smaller one could be placed a bit further to diagonale. --Mile (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was going to oppose the set nomination due to the noise being worse in this one. Great composition though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition, light, color, subject. the noise doesn't bother me too much. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It’s a pity about the noise, but for me noisy is better than mushy, and the composition is fine. --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per PetarM. SHB2000 (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite some technical shortcomings, I still appreciate the composition of this picture.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 12:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, quality is below the standard and the setting is not convincing to me Poco a poco (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greater Coat of Arms of Chile (1819-1834).svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2021 at 23:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Heraldry
Info created by 2813 - uploaded by James2813 - nominated by James2813 -- James2813 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- James2813 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, might be a VI. I don't think any of this kind of image is one of the greatest images on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Doesn't stand out enough from other images of coats of arms. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Surely this isn't what people think of the best we have. SHB2000 (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 11:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:White-cheeked Honeyeater - Maddens Plains.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2021 at 07:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Meliphagidae_(Honeyeaters)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the ~~fake~~appearance of the background is altogether too ~~obvious~~unrealistic here for me. --Kreuz schnabel 16:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuzschnabel: please read here. --Ivar (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. Anyway, I just don’t like the look of it. Especially around the lower leg and foot the edge looks unnaturally harsh like a poorly done cutout. And I still judge pictures here, not the price tags of the lenses used :) --Kreuz schnabel 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuzschnabel Could you please strike your comment about the "fake background". You can oppose if you don't like the appearance but false statements should be retracted. -- Colin (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sajbadina (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fountain of the Esplanade in Nimes (7).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2021 at 18:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Fountains
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - high quality, certainly a QI, but for this kind of shot I find the light really unappealing, sorry — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I actually like the grittiness of the image and I'm OK with the light, but if you're going to frame it this way it would be better with less trees and no cloud texture (I actually wonder how this would work in grayscale). Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greater Racket-tailed Drongo in flight.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2021 at 18:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by Savi.odl - uploaded by Savi.odl - nominated by D -- Savi.odl (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Savi.odl (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link fixed ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I really don’t see anything featurable here. Low resolution, yet grainy and blurred. Why do you think this is one of the very best images on Commons? --Kreuz schnabel 22:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I must agree. Nowhere near FP. --Peulle (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea, but Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea a lot, but the wing tips could be sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. SHB2000 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality --Mile (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is not good.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Savi.odl, would you like to withdraw? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a photograph thats clicked of a bird in flight! They do not pose for you, Its a one in a million shot when you get the whole spread of the wings and the both rackets so perfectly placed, and with a perfect background. Please reconsider your votes! Savi.odl (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, good luck. You might want to do a search for featured pictures in Category:Birds in flight to get more of an idea of what tends to pass on this page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure this is a rare shot but that alone does not make it cream of the crop. Have a look at Commons:Valued Images instead, your pic is quite likely to be promoted there as the best in its scope. --Kreuz schnabel 09:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 11:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- It is an impressive shot, unfortunately the quality is not so good. But I understand the enthusiasm of Savi, it is a rare shot. Sorry. Dinkum (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:MET DP264118.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2021 at 19:48:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Figurines_and_statuettes
Info created by Metropolitan Museum of Art - uploaded by Pharos - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Because Afghan cultural heritage is currently in danger, it is important to document what is left and what is safe. One of the most interesting pieces from the US collections, created in V century. --Andrei (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
top crop ? --Mile (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are some rules for portrait photos, and eyes must be in some specific place, but this is a photo of a museum artifact. Its simply, roughly centered. Its aim is just to be as neutral as possible. --Andrei (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, regardless of what you do with the crop (and maybe you shouldn't alter a photo taken for a museum), because the quality is so high. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delighted to see one of the results of our best Wiki-NYC GLAM collaborations here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful sculpture in very good photograph. --Aristeas (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lesser yellowlegs at JBWR (30664).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2021 at 22:13:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Tringa
Info Lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) foraging in the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in Queens, NY. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Is that seaweed that the bird has foraged? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support High-quality image, excellent capture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~need edition, anoticed.~~ --Mile (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good shot. --Mile (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not an appealing prey and some overexposed spots but compensated with good quality and detail, FP to me. Poco a poco (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support great -- Colin (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Tringa

File:Valère et Haut de Cry.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2021 at 22:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Switzerland
Info created by Espandero - uploaded by Espandero - nominated by Espandero -- Espandero (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Espandero (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The local tourist agency could consider using this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The snow seems a bit pink, and also a bit dark? Overall contrast should be boosted, and noise in the sky reduced. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King is right. Please work on it, Espandero. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gallery link refined. It should include also the section for the country ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ikan Kekek and King of Hearts : I have uploaded a new version with the fixes you asked. Please note that the snow might be reddish in places because of sand from the Sahara (more info here). An example of high concentration of sand may be found on the top right of the picture. - Espandero (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I think you can be a bit more aggressive in brightening the image; the snow still isn't really bright enough. I don't think the snow is really this pink, since the initial version of your image didn't have this tint. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a go. Let me know if it is not enough. - Espandero (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do see the sand, now that you point it out. I wouldn't have registered it because the idea of Saharan sand on peaks in the Alps isn't intuitive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine to me, curves may have some room for improvement, but this is hell of a view Poco a poco (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice how the mountain echoes the shape of the castle. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Your comment reminded me of the classic view of LA with the Mount Baldy in the background. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco. Thank you for the improvements. --Aristeas (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jupiters iconic Great Red Spot.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2021 at 21:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Planets_(including_dwarf_planets)
Info created by NASA - uploaded by Polonoid - nominated by Realmaxxver -- Realmaxxver (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Realmaxxver (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It is too small - photos nominated at FPC must be at least 2 megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Reftinsky reservoir of Sverdlovsk region.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2021 at 11:39:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Russia
Info created and uploaded by Vasily Iakovlev - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting to look at -- Tungster24 (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Interesting subject because it shows how we pollute, quality less --Co mmon ists 14:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is a solid FP Poco a poco (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 05:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support (GPS location would be nice.) --XRay 💬 06:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support— Sadopaul 📁 13:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GuavaTrain (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 21:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zielonooki ^(talk) Zielonooki (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow 30+ ... a new record? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 32 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Генуезька фортеця. Панорама.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2021 at 11:30:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Ukraine
Info created and uploaded by Zysko serhii - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good colours and light. (Funny detail in the foreground: is the platform used to climb more easily on the camel?! ;–)
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 21:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:American lady on purple coneflower (74770).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2021 at 16:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Nymphalidae_(Brush-footed_Butterflies)
Info American lady (Vanessa virginiensis) on purple coneflower. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support colors ! --Mile (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice, but I would crop more of the flower as it is partially cropped already. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please add the scientific names also to the description --Llez (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. I actually had this image saved and was planning to nominate here once I got access to a desktop computer. Beautiful pic. --GuavaTrain (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 21:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Nymphalidae_(Brush-footed_Butterflies)

File:Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS -Front view.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2021 at 14:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 14:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 14:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like wider top and bottom crops. Is that possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry Ikan, I tried to get it as close as possible to get as much detail as possible, sorry.--Co mmon ists 18:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This may be a good candidate for VI, Wikipedia FP and/or maybe QI (although the stack is not perfect and the lightning is suboptimal). It is good and useful. But it is a straight-forward studio shot that does not excel at anything, that does not stick out among the masses of similar shots in any kind of way. Sorry: no WOW for me. --El Grafo (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. Stitching is far from perfect, some blurry areas within sharp ones at same distance. Shadow too dark IMHO, plus crop too tight. A more interesting background could have supplied some wow. --Kreuz schnabel 08:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 50mm is not a good lens for macro, forcing you to be too close to the subject thus resulting in close-up distortion. There are also uneven shadows. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think differently [1] Thanks--Co mmon ists 15:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it all depends on the effect you want to achieve. In my opinion, a lens should be depicted neutrally from a normal viewing distance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That it is unsuitable is one thing, that it has an effect you might not like is another. Anyway, thanks for your time, all suggestions are welcome. Thank you.😉--Co mmon ists 17:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since the crop is too tight and cannot be changed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad light. Distracting background effect top right. Take the hood off, it hides the lens. Try to remove more dust and failing that, remove it in post. At the end of the day, this is just a black tube with some glass inside, so pretty boring unless you can light it well. There's little point in focus stacking a tube. As others have noted, the short focal length of the lens used makes this a bit too much "in your face" for comfortable product photography. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trollius europaeus seed head - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2021 at 15:37:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Ranunculaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The flower spike is on the hazy side for me. But I love the colours.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a flag or a logo. Or both. Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 15:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 21:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp at 80%. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Retrato de una abeja.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2021 at 13:22:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Apidae_(Bumble_Bees,_Honey_Bees,_Carpenter_Bees,_Cuckoo_Bees,_Orchid_Bees,_and_Stingless_Bees)
Info created by FEDARO - uploaded by FEDARO - nominated by FEDARO -- fedaro (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's a cool closeup of a bee, but there are several "seams" probably from stitching, and a lack of sharpness/detail overall. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, the seams and tiny water spots or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the seams, yes. --Cayambe (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --SHB2000 (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Mile (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretably per above.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even without looking closely, I find the crops uncomfortable and awkward. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Time to withdraw. I don't think we want 10 oppose votes. FEDARO, would you like to withdraw? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 11:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caballito de mar común (Hippocampus hippocampus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 74.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2021 at 14:25:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Syngnathidae_(Seahorses,_Pipefishes_and_Seadragons)
Info Short-snouted seahorse (Hippocampus hippocampus), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. Seahorses have a very restricted home range because they have very limited daily movements. Hippocampus hippocampus are known to be ambush predators whom feed on live, moving food, mostly tiny shrimps (ca. 30-50 a day). They will remain still until a small animal passes within reach and then grab it. They do not have teeth or a stomach so they use their snout to suck their food straight into their gut. Seahorses are considered ovoviviparous but the particulariy that the female deposits eggs into a pouch on the males stomach, called a brood pouch, and the male goes through pregnancy and labour. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background. --Mile (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PetarM: Do you mean foreground? I don't see anything objectionable in the background, but the thing in front is distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, both actually, i even add it as p.S. but erased. This should be clear shot in the sea with all blue around it. Lens could be wide open. --Mile (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC) p.S. But that wont help neither, there is sand all over. Poco what is so special about it, to be FP !?[reply]

Are you seriously asking what is special about it and also expecting that all around is blue?
I'd rather ask what is special about flowers that you find in a meadow, don't run away and you can spend 1 hour to take the shot. How would you expect the same results in terms of detail, dof, bokeh, compo and so on in a studio photo of a sport shoe taken at home or a flower in a botanic garden and in a case like here? have you ever seen a seahorse at all outside an aquarium? do you often see this kind of subject here at FPC? no? then guess why.
If you had read the introduction of this nom, you'd maybe realize that there will always be something nearby the seahorse, as they are not good swimmers and look for something to hold. You don't find this animal in the middle of the ocean like in the case of a shark.
You can oppose as usual if you like, but please no bullshit that others could confuse. Thank you. Poco a poco (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco i suggest you to check the Category before doing a nominee. Flower, sport shoe you mention is stuff where you use knowledge and more time than do nothing "you can spend 1 hour to take the shot". Please keep your potty mouth away. --Mile (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mile: The difference here is that you have no idea about wildlife photography, underwater and all challenges there. I've spent several hours for studio shots, spherical panos and all that stuff. The fact that you have to insult proves in fact that you have no arguments. Next attack will be reported and I'll ask for a block. Poco a poco (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco not sure who should be blocked here. Can you report it and ask ? --Mile (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, you are "back" less than two weeks, and already you are making personal attacks and swearing at reviewers for daring to oppose (KoH and Charles leaving negative comments but not daring to put an oppose vote down is quite illustrative of the problem that causes). We are tired of reading how reviewers "have no idea" and so are incapable of measuring your greatness. While personal experience may help, it is not a prerequisite for reviewing at FPC and insulting the knowledge of reviewers is a personal attack. It is particularly ridiculous for you to get all "I'm surrounded by ignorant fools" on this photo which illustrates a well known newbie mistake in diving photography. Poco, you are heading towards a topic ban at FPC if you carry on like this. -- Colin (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mile. -- Karelj (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generally fairly cluttered, and similar tones make it a little hard to tell what's what. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know nothing of underwater photography and a sea horse is a rare find, but this current FP shows what can be achieved. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad light; distracting foreground; distracting particles floating in background; only 7MP image from 50MP camera. The main EV for this image could be to illustrate a well known underwater photography mistake that beginners make: backscatter. A quick Google turns up:
- Backscatter underwater photography -- DivePhotoGuide.com
- How to avoid BACKSCATTER in underwater photos
- Backscatter Underwater / Causes and how to avoid it in your photographs
- 5 Easy Ways to Avoid Backscatter in Underwater Photos
- Backscatter.com Flash Placement There's even an underwater photography website called Backscatter.com. Look at the photos on that website. They are taken in the sea and are clear and well lit. -- Colin (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agapanthus -- 2021 -- 3928.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2021 at 04:22:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Amaryllidaceae
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 04:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 04:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support great in so many ways --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the high contrast. -- -donald- (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning -- Tungster24 (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe at least stems would be all in focus stack maybe 2-3 shots. --Mile (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. Less fond of the bold green and wonder what it would have been like if that was purple or dark instead. -- Colin (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support maar per Mile.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Amaryllidaceae

File:Anchusa officinalis.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2021 at 08:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Boraginaceae
Info flower Anchusa officinalis, makro to around 1.2 : 1 My work. -- Mile (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The flower that is stacked is impressive, but the two that are behind are sooo out of focus that it looks a bit strange. I think it would have been better to isolate the flower so that there wasn't anything nearby. Alternatively, I wonder if there a way to merge this stacked photo with another taken with much great DoF where the rear flowers are out of focus but not nearly so much. You could use f/22 even because we don't care about diffraction softening. -- Colin (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange because it is more than 1:1 - typical macro lens ratio (anyway we even dont see here much on 1:1). For other suggestion, probably it is possible, but i would go other way, i would set biger step, some 4-5 (here was minimal on 1) and make with the same setting, just would focus from end to further from 1st flower. Wondering what would back of flowers look like on f/22 if some part would be on f/8 and other on f/22 (not same EV). We might try some day to get clear. --Mile (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gallery link refined ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin's points are valid but I think this deserves the star, anyway. Really impressive detail work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The other flowers out of focus indeed look a bit strange, but I think it is better so than if they were sharp. -- -donald- (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good flower stack, but composition has some disadvantages (upper crop, WB too cold?). --Ivar (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temp is decreased, but they are thoose of blue, some are more red colored. Upper crop is colateral damage, main object was to put stigma into good position and close as possible. --Mile (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

temp is decreased? I know that flowers are blue, but the background looks also quite cold. --Ivar (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Back are walls in shadow. Is about sunset time, i waited golden hour. --Mile (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 23:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality and lighting of the flower in the foreground is really good, but the other 2 in the back are adding no value and indeed spoiling the compo with that awkward crop, sorry, Poco a poco (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GuavaTrain (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --IamMM (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vista de la isla de Terceira desde el miradouro da Serra do Cume, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-24, DD 23-30 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2021 at 07:07:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Portugal
Info View of Terceira Island from miradouro da Serra do Cume, Azores, Portugal. The outlook is located in the east side of the island and looking towards the west. The volcanic island of Terceira is one of the larger islands of the Azores archipelago, with a population of 56,000 inhabitants in an area of approximately 396.75 square kilometres (153.19 square miles). Terceira is also the location of the Azores' oldest city, Angra do Heroísmo, the historical capital of the archipelago and UNESCO World Heritage Site. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several minor stitching errors at the horizont line of the sea --Llez (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will fix them tonight, thank you for your feedback Poco a poco (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am Done now, earlier as expected, FYI Llez, Poco a poco (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support A splendid panorama; I love the little patches of the fields with their countless shades of greens etc. (You will easily fix the little errors mentioned by Llez.) --Aristeas (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Portugal

File:Dülmen, Leuste, Bäume im Nebel -- 2020 -- 5041.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2021 at 04:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 04:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 04:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would prefer just a little more space at the top and bottom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the image isn't cropped. So there is no more space. But IMO it's good as it is. --XRay 💬 06:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, just doesn't move me. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sometimes you get a feeling quite early on whether a picture is a good candidate or not. In this case: "or not". Thank you for your reviews. --XRay 💬 06:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll wait. --XRay 💬 15:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 11:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think image is great. I dont miss some on top but should go wide. More grass on both side and tree in third rule, to make in it more panoramic. --Mile (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think grass right and left isn't possible. There are structures of the trees behind and these can't continued. The rule of third is fulfilled with the trees. --XRay 💬 15:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support After looking a while at it in full size (without text etc. around it) this photo really moves me. A great image to depict grief and mourning, but also to intimate the consolation and comfort one can discover in silence and solitude. (Of course this is just my personal interpretation and definitely not the only or “correct” one; there are certainly other ways to see and to appreciate this image.) --Aristeas (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm glad you didn't withdraw; it took me a while to get it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose love the double tree, love the fog, but the over-all composition does not quite convince me. --El Grafo (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and interesting but something missing to me for FP, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another image of trees in fog, I do not see here anything so special for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it is too much "just some trees in fog" and not enough "artistic minimalist". Forget rule-of-thirds. I think it would be better if there was more sky above and left. Without the little tree. Without the distracting green/yellow crop in the foreground. I think for such a simple motif, it needs to be a stronger composition and better choice of elements. -- Colin (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery changed to Natural phenomena#Fog.--MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Meeting in Panjshir Province.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2021 at 02:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Afghanistan
Info created by Staff Sgt. Teddy Wade - uploaded by User:Zoozaz1 - nominated by Zoozaz1 -- Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is my first time nominating a featured picture, so I am not entirely sure if this (2010) image meets all the technical requirements, but I think the gradual transformation of the dark brown buildings and terrain at the foreground towards the white/gray of the background merited at least a nomination.-- Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is dull and most of the image is not very sharp. But don't let this discourage you from nominating another image if you feel it would meet the criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - DVIDSHUB - Giant standing Buddhas of Bamiyan still cast shadows (Image 2 of 8).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2021 at 10:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Afghanistan
Info created by Sgt. Ken Scar - uploaded by Matanya - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uncomfortable crops and I'm not sure what's supposed to be the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 11:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The top crop is unfortunate. Regarding the subject I think that the photographer wanted to show the juxtaposition or confrontation of the empty cave of the Buddha statue (only its shadow remains) with the two veiled women, in order to portray the consequences of the rule of the Taliban. In this respect, both the cave and the women, or the juxtaposition of both of them is the subject, and especially in the light of recent events I like the idea a lot – the image seems to prophesy the future of Afghanistan. --Aristeas (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You get it, as always. Reality and future passing the past. --Andrei (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background cut at the top. Also quite a small resolution in 2021. It's always tempting to mix actuality with FPC, we had similar nominations related to Hong Kong, Bolsonaro, and other hot events, unfortunately the result is rarely in adequacy with what we call "best picture". Better to take a step back in my opinion in these circumstances, and wait for better candidates -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong is different, the city is open for visitors. In Afghanistan, on the other hand, visiting is complicated (especially outside of big cities). This photo is made by the army, who used to have slightly better access to resources. It was taken in 2012 so it is also historical. Photographing women in the country is also extremely unwelcomed. In 1996–2001 photography was banned altogether. I do not think we will get better quality photos any time soon. --Andrei (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it supposed to be an extraordinary picture because it features covered women? There are millions like these in the world. The only special thing I see here is the historical background, unfortunately missed by the photographer. Cut top means "I don't care" in my view. You say "photographing women in the country is extremely unwelcomed"? well, I wonder what these women think, then, being shot that way. 2012 is not so old. Every picture is "historical" in its kind. Not an FP for me. Composition problem -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All your work is extremely well staged and framed. But this is just a different style :) There's NatGeo and there's VICE. --Andrei (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here this is VICE, then, right? Technically, the colors are bland and the light dull. Moreover, they don't match the source. According to Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer, the brightness has been increased 50%. Not sure you take pictures, Andrei, I don't remember any nomination from your camera. In any case, there are better pictures of Afghanistan (in my opinion) in the numerous related categories, in particular Women wearing burqa. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support A strong narrative of the truth of Afghanistan. Image capture time makes it even more interesting. --IamMM (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support very high value image for documentary, photojournalism, and sociopolitical context, which compensates for any technical shortcomings — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with the concerns above, low resolution, bad top crop, not working compo IMHO, traces of CA Poco a poco (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad top crop.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite some technical shortcomings, the narrative is still strong enough for me.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arkelin (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Afghanistan

File:Moulting King Penguin (31268607673).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2021 at 11:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Spheniscidae (Penguins)
Info created by Rob Oo - uploaded by Eyes Roger - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link fixed ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really stand out from other photos the way the penguin stands out from the crowd. Might be a good VI though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo, but penguins in the front are not sharp and spoil the composition a bit --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work for me. Sorry. Dinkum (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruppertsberg-Teepavillon IMG 9863.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2021 at 08:58:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best from your series about that nice pavillon. Gallery link fixed ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 21:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Île de la Cité and Île Saint-Louis, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2021 at 13:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Map of Île de la Cité and Île Saint-Louis, Paris, France.
Orthophoto of Île de la Cité and Île Saint-Louis, Paris, France.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps#Maps of Europe
Info created by Paris 16 and the National Institute of Geographic and Forest Information (France) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Given recent hemming and hawing about this issue, are we clear on this constituting a valid set? Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support we are --Andrei (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the map: We should use the phrase “Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors” and include a link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, both on the description page and in the metadata of the SVG file. The hint “Map data from OpenStreetMap” is a bit vague and does not mention copyright. OSM data are not public domain, they are licensed under the ODbL; everybody can use OSM data but must respect the terms of the ODbL, especially by declaring that the map data are “© OpenStreetMap contributors” and adding a link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright (see that page for details). --Aristeas (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Aristeas ! I added "OpenStreetMap contributors" in the description.--Paris 16 (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I simply fail to see anything special or skilful or beautiful or otherwise wow-y here. For me, it’s just an aerial image of mediocre quality upscaled to 400 percent of its original resolution, and the corresponding area rendered from OSM data. Maybe I’m missing an important point here. --Kreuz schnabel 16:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One is 2018 (before the fire), one 2021. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but Kreuz, how did you figure out it was upscaled? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: It's obvious from the 100% view. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor-quality at large sizes, but why 4x? I guess that's an estimate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was an estimate from the pixel blocks’ size. --Kreuz schnabel 08:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the concept, but aerial photo is upsampled. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per what others have written above. I'd also like to point out some things I noticed about the map. I think it's on a good way already, but not quite FP level yet. On a technical level, the main problem with this map is, imho, that it has a strange balance of simplification vs. detail. The the general look & feel of this map is that of a simple overview street map for a tourist, like the ones you get for free at the hotel reception. It prominently shows names of the most important roads, landmarks, and what appears to be metro stations (legend is missing!) in a clear and simplistic way. The buildings, on the other hand, are very detailed. However, all that detail is practically lost because of the low contrast of 1) buildings vs. roads and 2) building areas vs. building outlines. For a simple tourist map, it would make sense to merge adjoining building polygons of individual houses into simplified polygons for entire blocks (also applies to parks an other greenery). Alternatively, I may have misunderstood the purpose of this map and I'm supposed to use it in a zoomed-in state where I can clearly see the individual buildings. In that state the opposite problem exists: most of the minor roads have no labels at all. Or is it intended to be used in combination with the aerial image, as an annotation layer so to speak? That feels a bit cumbersome, why not label the image directly ... So you see that on the non-technical level, the map's purpose/intended use remains largely unclear to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kitzingen 50 Pfennig 1921 Schiffbauer.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2021 at 11:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info Designed by Heinz Schiestl, issued by the City of Kitzingen in 1921, reproduced, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A "Notgeld" banknote of very fine quality, quite rare in this condition. -- Palauenc05 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination/Palauenc05. --Aristeas (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Renamed (Schifbauer to Schiffbauer) before anybody opposes because of the little typo in the image filename ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for nominating. — Băng Tỏa (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Money & Seals

File:Baseteleferico-CarlosPaz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2021 at 16:09:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Aerial lifts (Cableways)
Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 16:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 16:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo, but no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Michiel. Actually, also looks overprocessed when you look at it closely. Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link refined. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of Ribeira (15).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2021 at 18:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Portugal
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, and pretty sharp at 80%. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Loses sharpness near the edges, but not egregiously so and that's what you'd expect. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad light and arbitrary crop. Compare File:Cais da Ribeira, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 10.JPG which isn't as detailed but gives a better impression of the scene, or File:View of Ribeira from Jardim do Morro (2).jpg which is more three-dimensional. If this had been a highly detailed stitched panorama, with better light, it might have reached FP. -- Colin (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. —kallerna (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyangwonjeong (Winter, 2013).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2021 at 05:48:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#South_Korea
Info created by en:Cultural Heritage Administration - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 📁 05:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 📁 05:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric and beautiful, both a good view of that place and a painterly winter image. I wish the resolution was higher, but 6.75 MPix is OK. --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would love to see higher resolution, though. --Ivar (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The fact that it's sharp corner-to-corner makes the 6.75 MP resolution OK for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Colin and Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a painting. --Mile (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad... :) --Poco a poco (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SNCF X73500 La Bastide Saint-Laurent - Villefort.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2021 at 09:47:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yes. --A.Savin 11:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support rather shorter train than usual... Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The shadow at the bottom is somewhat distracting, but overall a very good shot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support View from a great vantage point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Arkelin (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:The Mother of God Trenousa (17-18. century).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2021 at 07:13:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info Icon of Unknown author, National Museum of Serbia. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution for an easy shot and otherwise nothing special to me. Poco a poco (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great to me. — Băng Tỏa (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity

File:Speckled mousebird (Colius striatus kiwuensis) 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2021 at 16:40:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Coliidae (Mousebirds)
Info No mousebird FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much foliage blocking the view of parts of the bird for FP, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a different look might appeal. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Charles, maybe you have withdrawn too fast? I had no time to look at the image yet, but looking at it now I would vote for it because IMHO the foliage is not a big problem (no distinctive features of the bird are hidden) and the light is very nice. Of course, it doesn’t depend on me, but maybe there are also other users who like this photo … Best, --Aristeas (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, Aristeas; withdrawn template removed Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support As above: Lovely light; the foliage is IMHO not a big problem because it does not hide any distinctive features of the bird, and it even has the advantage to make this shot look very natural – the picture does not look arranged, as is sometimes the case when the bird stands completely free. --Aristeas (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it because it highlights the head of this remarkable bird. --Cayambe (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I actually don't mind some foliage in front, especially for what is definitely a valuable shot of a beautiful bird (although I would typically expect you to be the first to oppose for any foliage in front of the subject). The big issue isn't that there's foliage in front, but that one of the defining features of this group -- the very long tail -- is too obscured and pushes against the very bottom of the frame such that, at first glance, I thought it was part of the tree. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination again. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Franeker. Stadhuis. 03-08-2021. (d.j.b) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2021 at 04:40:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors Decoration.
Info Franeker City Hall. Secretary's room, decoration above the door of the room.
by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much reflected light on the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Minor correction of the incidence of light on the lower part of the decoration. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:LSG-00561.01 Rückersbacher Schlucht.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2021 at 21:04:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info created by KaiBorgeest - uploaded by KaiBorgeest - nominated by KaiBorgeest -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality for FPC. SHB2000 (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not too impressive as far as forest contre-jour images are concerned. The illuminated leaves are blown out, and overall the image is lacking in saturation and color. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice composition, but I agree with KoH that it's not quite an FP. Compare File:Bruderwald-Winter-PC030149.jpg, which also has the benefit of including two horses and riders walking away in the picture. Nothing is blown out and I find that it has a more satisfying composition, partly because it's framed by tall trees on both sides and the ground isn't a lot higher on one side than the other, relative to the scale. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. It’s really a nice mood and lighting, but the blown bright parts nail it for me. Maybe this can be redone from raw file at less contrast? Furthermore, I don’t like the focus being on the foreground, leaving most of the frame slightly out-of-focus. Either choose a real shallow DoF with a bokeh background, or take a sharp frame. --Kreuz schnabel 15:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a out-of-camera JPEG file, right? Just as a hint: I would highly recommend to photograph such scenes always using the raw image format of your camera (in the case of a Canon camera, this means a CRW/CR2/CR3 file). In order to capture the extreme contrast and the deep/dark colours of such scenes, you need the full bit depth and information of the camera’s image sensor, you only get this with the raw image format. Of course shooting in raw requires also to learn how to develop the raw image files. That’s a big step, I know, and can take some time, but shooting and developing raw can really lift your photography to the next level. --Aristeas (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Aristeas, cheers for writing 'raw' and not 'RAW', hopefully you'll create a following :) Julesvernex2 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - *flip* *flip* *flip* I was first! :D --Kreuzschnabel 17:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, certainly :–). I have to confess that I have written ‘RAW’ sometimes because often people misunderstand ‘raw image format’ and think it just means the original out-of-camera JPEG file. :–( As this misunderstanding shows, quite some people are not aware of the fact that the original out-of-camera JPEG file is not an original, but was generated by their camera from the raw image data. Please let us work together to spread, in a friendly and sympathetic manner, more knowledge about the importance of the raw image format and the advantages it provides to photographers. --Aristeas (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I blame camera manuals for perpetuating both the misunderstanding that 'raw' is an acronym that should be capitalised - rather than an adjective that should not - and the notion that shooting and developing raw images is hard to do! To Aristeas great point on spreading the gospel of raw, I offer my own path to enlightenment to those considering the plunge: some five years ago, I switched my cameras to record both a JPEG and a raw file for each picture. When developing the latter, I would frequently take a peek at the former, to check how my editing compared to the camera's. Once I was confident that I could consistently develop a better image that the camera could, I started shooting raw only. Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. The light on a sunny day make really hard conditions for shooting in woodland. The contrast between dark and light is too much for the camera or JPG. Here unfortunately the light doesn't extend along the path, only a short distance. Per the image Ikan references, it is interesting that most images of paths on Commons have no people in them, and yet the opposite is true outside of Commons. I can understand why, but it does make it harder to connect. -- Colin (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:ParthenosSylviaButterfly.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2021 at 23:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created by Vincent Vega - uploaded by Vincent Vega - nominated by Vincent Vega -- Vincent Vega (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Vincent Vega (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category fixed, gallery link refined. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Aristeas! Vincent Vega (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This could be a candidate (marginal) at QI, not here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination For QI Vincent Vega (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Semipalmated sandpiper at JBWR (30545).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2021 at 18:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Calidris
Info A semipalmated sandpiper. Unlike the much larger, gangly yellowlegs I nominated a few days ago, this is among the smallest shorebirds. In fact, its specific name, C. pusilla means "very small." all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Few problems, anoticed (4×). --Mile (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @PetarM: Fixed the noise and dot on the eye, but I can't tell what you mean by "brush smudge"? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brush when used, you can catch object and make unwated move - smudge came out. I still think bird is a bit oversharpened, best seen on birds eye sun reflextion. I would cover that pink-violet pixels. That is more pixlepeeping, main reason i wont support is composition-colors. I thinked on polarizator on this shot. --Mile (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the only brush I used was a Lightroom adjustment brush to adjust tones here and there. Nothing that could create a smudge. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Possibly one overexposed area on its neck, but very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, very good subject isolation. --Aristeas (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Calidris

File:Kearny Generating Station September 2020 BW.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2021 at 03:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good as a black & white shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kraftwerk! Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GuavaTrain (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the colour one is significantly better. The BW processing here (making blue dark) causes the patch of pale blue sky to be a dark band that distractingly clashes with the chimney tops. The colour has really nice browns, rusts, ochre and pastel pale blue sky. I can understand using BW here if there were distracting colours or the facade was well lit, but the colours are great and the facade in shadow. -- Colin (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Colin’s hint is convincing; I like the B&W version and continue to support it, but the colour version seems even better. Maybe you could provide it as alternative version? --Aristeas (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (I would improve the dark midtones.) --XRay 💬 10:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main facade in shadow, BW. —kallerna (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pomegranate fruit - whole and piece with arils.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2021 at 08:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rosh ha-Shana is approaching! --Andrei (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 16:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:Abandoned electric water pump-IMG 1056.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2021 at 06:33:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Machines
Info created by Bijay Chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay Chaurasia - nominated by Bijay Chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop, low resolution, strong JPEG artifacts visible, some motion blur, and somewhat uninspired composition … sorry, I really don’t see much to feature here. --Kreuz schnabel 11:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exactly per Kreuzschnabel. --Cayambe (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose I like the idea but Kreuz is correct about the technical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Surely the idea is fine, but the image resulting from it sadly isn’t. Even a sqare crop cutting off the leftmost part would make it more interesting. --Kreuz schnabel 07:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the valuable comments. --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ernst Ludwig Kirchner - Poster for the exhibition for the artists' group "Die Brücke" at the Arnold Gallery Dresden - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2021 at 12:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Posters_and_advertisements
Info created by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good reproduction of an exemplary Kirchner poster. --Aristeas (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great reproduction, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Posters_and_advertisements

File:Jon Snow forcing the Ruza Reservoir.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2021 at 19:28:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Canidae_(Canids)
Info created by Dmitry Nikolaev - uploaded by Niklitov - nominated by Niklitov -- Niklitov (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niklitov (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but I think it has too much noise and isn't sharp enough to be one of the best photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head is out of focus, too much is unsharp in this picture, and very noisy background. Still an interesting action -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, great shot but noisy, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Grand Congratulatory Ceremony to Celebrate the Fortieth Birthday of Queen Dowager Jo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2021 at 13:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by unknown (Official painter of the Joseon Dynaty) - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 📁 13:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 📁 13:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really impressive resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really big and interesting, of very high educational value. The file should be renamed after the nomination is over, though. "Congratulatory" is misspelled. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Cayambe (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IHMO there is nothing special on this image for FP nomination (with exception of extreme high resoluton, off course). -- Karelj (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question No educational value? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Educational value extremely high for people learning japanese alphabet (not my case, sorry). But this has nothing to do with FP nomination, IHMO, -- Karelj (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info The scripts on this folding screen is written in Chinese character, not Japanese. By the way, I appreciate your vote. Thank you.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 22:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict:] This isn't Japanese (which also doesn't have an alphabet, but that's a tangent here) and isn't only calligraphy, but I don't understand why you vote against features because you say they lack educational value, whereas in this case, it obviously has educational value if you look at what is depicted, and you admit the quality is very high. I feel like you're somehow trying to have it both ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral until the filename typo is corrected per my {{Rename}} request. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done I would have preferred to do this after the nomination is over, as Ikan has suggested, because renaming an active nomination is complicated and error-prone, but I hope I did everything correctly. --Aristeas (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive. — Băng Tỏa (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1850-1900

File:Winter auf dem Himmeldunkberg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2021 at 17:31:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Winter on the Himmeldunkberg near the Witch-beech in the Rhön Biosphere Reserve. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive and atmospheric, a great depiction of the beauty of winter. --Aristeas (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and XXL resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but maybe noise in the sky can be reduced just a little. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bloemen van een Chaenomeles x superba 'nicolina' (chinese kwee). 20-04-2021 (actm.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2021 at 04:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info Flowers of a Chaenomeles x superba 'nicolina' (Chinese kwee). Focus stack of 15 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful, with a delicate soft background in nice colours. --Aristeas (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The focus stack is OK apart from halo around the stem, which can be fixed, but the stamen are not sharp. May be camera's limitations. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Long-crested eagle (Lophaetus occipitalis) 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2021 at 22:28:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Lophaetus
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very tough-looking bird. I don't think you want it on your bad side. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--GRDN711 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Lophaetus

File:John Atkinson Grimshaw - A Wet Moon, Putney Road (1886).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2021 at 02:21:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Streets
Info created by John Atkinson Grimshaw - uploaded by Slowking4 - nominated by sajbadina -- Sajbadina (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a very good reproduction, with the caveat that I'm not familiar with the man's work, and the painting and the Wikipedia article about him are interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. (The file should be renamed after the nomination is over, because of the irritating lone closing paren, to something like “File:John Atkinson Grimshaw - A Wet Moon, Putney Road.jpg“.) --Aristeas (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info I have renamed the file and hence also this nomination right now to avoid confusion, hope it helps. --Aristeas (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and according to Ariesteas + to RGB space --Mile (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 3,200 × 1,825 pixels, sorry, it is not great for a painting.--Claus 12:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Claus. -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Claus. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Claus Poco a poco (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Makeshift Gangway at Shipyard.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2021 at 16:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Other
Info created by GuavaTrain - uploaded by GuavaTrain - nominated by GuavaTrain -- GuavaTrain (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GuavaTrain (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question why makeshift? Looks OK to me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's temporary and put together with different pieces from the shipyard (two staircases, one long platform, chains). Its not the boat's own regular gangway. GuavaTrain (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it might be stronger cropped to be more of a square without the stuff on the periphery. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO this one deserves some love. Good colours: a very nice palette of rich reds and yellows with some green accents. For a smartphone, the quality is good, there are almost no oversharpening artefacts (which most smartphones create in abundance). Regarding the composition, Daniel’s crop suggestion is excellent, but I also like the ‘ordered chaos’ impression of the current state ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll crop it if you all think Daniel's suggested crop would make it FP-worthy. GuavaTrain (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Quality is fine and the idea is good, as well. I also agree that the square crop would be better. On the other side there are some disturbing elements in the composition, like the cranes, but what kills the nom to me is the line of the ship in the middle of the converging lines of the gangway Poco a poco (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ps.... If anyone would like to recommend me a camera/lense under $1K for a novice that could yield FP-quality resolution on my talk page I'd appreciate it! GuavaTrain (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:NaCl polyhedra.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2021 at 18:13:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Science

For its usage please look at this page, Special:GlobalUsage/NaCl_polyhedra.svg

Info created by Goran_tek-en - uploaded by Goran_tek-en - nominated by Goran tek-en -- --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This representation is different to all the others I've Googled. Does it have Academic authentication? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support But could you add to the description about which colours are which elements. Some wikilinks would be useful too. -- Colin (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'm a graphic worker and have no knowledge of the subject for this illustration so questions if it's correct or not and what each shape represents has to be answered by the requster and another user who provided information, 大诺史 (might have changed user name to Minorax, Pbrks. Can any of you please apply the needed information about those two things, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's used on many pages so please look at this page, Special:GlobalUsage/NaCl_polyhedra.svg --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending resolution of Charles's question. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info If you search for Crystal structure of NaCl with coordination polyhedra you will get a lot of different looking images for this. I do not have any deep knowledge but I guess it depends on a lot of different things that they can look so differently, condition, form and other things and also how someone chooses to depict something. On this slide at 2.05 this image is used. As this image is used on so many different places Special:GlobalUsage/NaCl_polyhedra.svg it can't be wrong as someone should have reacted. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many uses on Wikipedia (and similar) sites is not any sort of academic authentication. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Charlesjsharp, Daniel Case,Colin I can't see anywhere that FP must have "Academic authentication", does that go for all images of plants, animals etc? To me this starts to fell like it's out of focus for what is FP or not. There is no why I can provide that info as I'm a graphic worker without knowledge of all most everything I do here. How shall I solve that? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that images on Commons must have Educational Value and FP certainly so. So an image that is wrong doesn't pass no matter how pretty. I'm no chemist. You can get a similar image at NaCl – Rocksalt, Halite, Sodium chloride: Interactive 3D Structure. Click on "Coordination" and rotate the cube. You'll see similar octahedral coordination geometry. According to Wikipedia, both sodium and chloride ions have octahedral coordination geometry. I don't think it matters which set of atoms one draws the octahedron around, as it is just illustrative of them all. -- Colin (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the images should have Educational Value but this is the first time I had to prove this in some way and has never heard about it. My believe was that this was a "self regulation" place just as wikipedia, if something is wrong someone will tell you.

I have posted questions in different places to get some answers here and I hope someone will attend to the questions. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Charlesjsharp, Daniel Case, Colin Now I got the answers you all asked for, please read here, it's to much to copy here.

But DePiep also say "We do not have "authentication" at wiki ;-)" regarding "Academic authentication" which is what I tried to say before. I hope his extensive information gives you all the information you need. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) re "academic authentication" (read as en:wp:RS etc.).

(1) As for the regular, alternating, cubic stacking: correct for NaCl, and is a statement that is unlikely to be challenged (see en:Wikipedia:Verifiability). IOW, it is commonly accepted to be true & correct for NaCl, and so does not need specific RS-sourcing.

(2) as for the two "cubic-like" items: this is a visualisation, not physically present. It illustrates the surrounding (positioning) of a grey atom by six Na-atoms, on a en:triangular bipyramid (six corners = atoms); en:octahedron. It is described here: "It is obvious from the diagram that each chloride ion is surrounded by six sodium ions which are disposed towards the corners of a regular octahedron". BTW, the source supports the (1) cubic stacking claim.

re "which atomes are what": The smaller, gray ones are Na en:sodium, the larger green ones are Cl en:chlorine. The difference in size is according to their physical atomic (ionic) size.

However, I have advised the autohor to use more standard atom coloring. Generally, PyMol colors are encountered as conventional (elements colors en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Elements coloring scheme). So in here:

Na ~~rgb(161,086,229) #A156E5 a purple; (now grey)~~ see right values below 13:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Cl ~~rgb(029,191,029) #1DBF1D a green; (now green)~~

The ball-shading-effect best be kept, to support the 3D effect.

As for "educational value": IMO, the stacking, in combination with the colors, shows the crystal structure full stop. Then, the octahedrons very nicely add the crystal effect of a Cl atom being positioned beteen six Na atoms: nice illustration of this crystal property. (I might add, rare to see crystal properties illustratied & clarified this well).

-DePiep (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct PyMOL colors, from source PyMOL:

Na #aa5cf2 ([0-1] scale: 0.670588235, 0.360784314, 0.949019608), sodium Na

Cl #1ef01e ([0-1] scale: 0.121568627, 0.941176471, 0.121568627), chlorine Cl

Goran tek-en -DePiep (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ I remember this kind of illustration from the geology lectures I attended ages ago. Many of them were either butt-ugly or difficult to wrap your head around. This one is neither, it manages to illustrate this aspect of the 3D structure of NaCl exceptionally well by clever use of shading and transparency. This is a textbook level illustration that is useful far beyond just NaCl, as several other salts have this same crystalline structure (de.wikipedia even has an article about that: Natriumchlorid-Struktur). BUT: even though it is not reqired by the license of File:NaCl polyhedra.png, it feels very wrong to me that User:Solid State was credited as the original author in the appropriate field of the file description page. Give credit where credit is due. I've fixed that for you, please keep it in mind for the future. --El Grafo (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info I have added more info regarding author of the source (PNG) but it was already stated as a derivative work of that PNG. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Authors go in the authors= field. All of them. Sorry, can't support a file for FP that does not give proper credit. --El Grafo (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info El Grafo I'm following the traditions here at commons and I even put more info than required. He is the author of the source not this SVG image, two completely different things. You can't set up your own rules for what is right or wrong, you have to follow what is agreed to here at commons. To me your behavior is "selfish". --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Goran tek-en The problem with this representation is that it is misleading in an important way. The sodium en:cation and the chloride en:anion appear here not to be in contact with one another: the lines of the grid look as if they are meant to represent en:chemical bonds. In reality, the structure is held together by en:electrostatic interactions (the positively charged sodium attracts the negatively charged chlorine). In standard chemical representations, this should be shown with the spheres representing the ions touching at their en:Van der Waals radius, specifically in this case the en:ionic radius (that's the article that explains the issue best). If you compare the illustration in the Chembox of the en:sodium chloride article, you'll see why I think the current image is misleading, if not wholly wrong since it does show the atomic centres correctly. Hence I don't think it should be a featured image. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info It's very hard for me as a graphic worker when people say "this is wrong/this is correct" as I have zero knowledge of the subject. It would be great if you chemistry people discussed this and if it's possible to reach an agreement do so. If you in consensus think this image should look differently please just ping me and assist me to create an illustration that is correct. If there are different opinions I'm more than willing to create different versions. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted earlier, I'm no chemist, but I'm a bit sceptical about Michael D. Turnbull's comments. As mentioned above, the model is similar in many ways to that at Chemtube3d (especialy after clicking on "Coordination"). It is also similar to File:NaCl-Ionengitter.svg and others at Category:Crystal structure of sodium chloride. What we have here is a Ball-and-stick model whereas Michael appears to want a Space-filling model. It isn't for Commons to decide which model is best or should appear on Wikipedia, as long as the model here is valid and similar to those in reliable sources. I suggest if this remains unclear, that a request is made to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals for more opinions. -- Colin (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed by the User:Michael D. Turnbull reply (whose wiki contribitions I know to be thoroughly well seasoned, chemically speaking). Nice to note: their reply does not concern the crystallography, but the chemical bonding representation. Some honour is saved ;-) That is: size of balls, and the drawing of sticks between them (here in colors green-white) is the problem. So, given (=accepting from MDT) that the bonding is different, image File:Sodium-chloride-3D-ionic.png says something different.

This scientific detailing must lead to the conclusion that the image is not correct enough for FP.

Now how to turn this image into a correct one, per MDT? Obviously, remove the between-atomic-balls sticks (no such bonding). Also, change ball size (keeping anion/cation relative sizes) to make them touching & give stable ball stacking. However, then both illustrative en:octahedrons would become invisible? These are the main assests of currewnt image! A puzzle for the graphist to solve.

-DePiep (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep To my understanding this illustration is a Ball-and-stick model representation and not a Space-filling model which you suggest it should be turned into. The Ball-and-stick model does not depict how something is actually looking rather a way to visualize what is happening in a more easy way to view it. The Space-filling model is on the other hand more of a representation of how it really looks. This is two completely different things and should not be mixed, line drawing vis-a-vis oil panting.

If you are interested of a Space-filling model I would be more than will to work with you on it, just pung me. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re: I was re-describing what Michael D. Turnbull wrote. For example, MDT: "the lines of the grid look as if they are meant to represent en:chemical bonds [but ...]". Also, the en:Ball-and-stick model you linked to says: "... to display both the three-dimensional position of the atoms and the bonds between them" (while, as MDT writes, there are no bonds ~~but~~ there are just electrostatic interactions) -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting --Co mmon ists 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DePiep for backing up my comments. I think I can express the issue in another way that may help. There are two general bond types in chemistry, ionic and covalent. When we think of a compound "AB" we can write A⁺B^- as a good way of expressing the ionic option. Or we could write A–B to show the covalent option. Some compounds have both type of bond (e.g. A–B–C⁺D^-). What is the key difference in behaviour? Well, for one thing, ionic compounds completely lose their integrity on dissolving them in water or melting them. That means that if we recrystallise them or re-freeze them, the individual ions don't revert to the positions they previously held: they randomize. Whereas, when a covalent compound like acetic acid = CH₃COOH dissolves in water the methyl group never becomes detached from the carbonyl group: when re-isolated they are still covalently bonded, although other molecules of the acid do freeze independently. And sodium acetate displays both behaviours: the methyl group stays attached to the carbonyl group BUT the sodium atom is promiscuous: it moves around in solution independently. Hence the "best" simple drawing is CH₃COO^–Na⁺. Incidentally, the atoms in covalently-bonded compounds frequently end up closer together than the sum of their ionic radii. They share molecular orbitals in a way that ionic compounds (of which sodium chloride is a classic example) can't. So the challenge for Goran tek-en in trying to create a really superior image is to use some cunning transparency in the lattice made up of filled atoms to add the polyhedron whose role is to illustrate the closest neighbours of a given single atom (a chloride in the current drawing on the right and a sodium on the left). I have no objections to using lines within these polyhedra, to represent their edges, not bonds. The result will some sort of combination of the polyhedra with a drawing like File:NaCl.png. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Michael D. Turnbull, DePiep Thanks both of you for a lot of info although I not really get it all. To be able to go further and to be able to create an even better image I will start a thread on my talk page and I invite you both to help me in creating that image. I will have questions and sometimes you will have to explain in a more layman way for me, I will ping you and ask you to join. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penari Beksan Jebeng.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2021 at 04:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Danangfirmanto - uploaded by Danangfirmanto - nominated by Labdajiwa -- Labdajiwa (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Labdajiwa (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bagus-lah! The rest of the Indonesian description should be translated to English. If no-one else will, I'll work on that, but my Indonesian is much weaker than my Malay, and is it is, my Malay was fluent at only a 6th-grade level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this compares well to others in the linked FP group, which have better lighting and isolation of the dancers. -- Colin (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't look at the other ones, but Colin's critique fits with what I was noticing. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting photo but per Colin and Daniel. I think it is also a bit tilted clockwise. Dinkum (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinopterus dongi NMNS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2021 at 04:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones and fossils#Family : † Tapejaridae
Info Fossil specimen of Sinopterus dongi. All by Tiouraren -- Tiouraren (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiouraren (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link refined, in order to avoid that our bot puts the image in the wrong subsection of the Reptilia section ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't stand out from other pictures of fossils for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlo Bossoli Paris Bourse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2021 at 10:27:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Monuments
Info created by Carlo Bossoli - uploaded by FA2010 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice enough painting but not seeing why this should be FP vs numerous others (e.g., this, this, this). -- Colin (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree those might be better paintings, but for this purpose we are not passing judgement on the underlying art, just the quality of the digitization. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The examples cited by Colin are all excellent (and should be nominated – just not all at once, please ;–), but IMHO they do not deny that this painting is very interesting, too, and that the reproduction is excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historically important, too. I wish the dating were more precise, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Posographe de Robert Kaufmann - 1922.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2021 at 11:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
Info created and uploaded by Pmau - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support and luckily I understand the content -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo of an interesting tool. Oh we lucky ones who are used to automatic exposure or (for the demanding ones) RGB histograms ... ;–). – I have taken the liberty to propose another gallery page. The “Historical” gallery is mostly for old photographs or artworks which document historical events and conditions; here we have a new photo of a historical tool, therefore I propose the “Objects#Tools” gallery instead which already contains similar pictures. --Aristeas (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. --XRay 💬 07:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different with acceptable quality Poco a poco (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--GRDN711 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Suricata suricatta - Zoo Karlsruhe 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2021 at 08:28:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Herpestidae (Mongooses)
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Meercats are an easy shot in zoos. The EV of showing babies and mother is a plus, but the light is boring, the babies heads/eyes are hidden, and the photo is not sharp (shutter too slow?). -- Colin (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "...the light is boring": Meercats are not as stupid as humans. You don't relax in the blazing sun but prefer shadow ;-) --Llez (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, meerkats are happy in the sun. They like to be in the open so they can spot predators. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so sharp and the zoo background is not their natural habitat. A mother with young would be near the burrow for safety. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I feel like her head should be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The expression on her face by itself might make an FP, but cropped down to that the image would probably be too small. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]