Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2016
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 13:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Herbert A.- edited and nominated by Christian Ferrer
- A 1924 photo. Edited from File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924.jpg -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - What a cool picture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 18:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Genre scene
- Info created by Anna Palm de Rosa - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 18:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 18:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 19:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Commuting by bicycle.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2016 at 18:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white
- Info Commuting by bicycle. Made in underpass, low light, increased ISO. Her face was moved outwards a bit, which i need (no Personal rights etc). Color is no option. My shot. --Mile (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support OK, good; she's not flipping you off. I think it could be improved a bit more by cropping most of the left out. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: I tried central, but i moved left from ceneter of circle. I needed some more centimeters to see cycler, so went into thirds option - hence i even put some more material on left side. --Mile (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Well-captured moment. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. I like the crop – the asymetry creates additional tension.
- Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice. ~ Moheen (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Special. --Famberhorst (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Innovative. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 02:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 00:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by The Brady National Photographic Art Gallery - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 01:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support historic photo. Restoration looks good. --Pine✉ 07:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support KKnoefler247 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)*
- Support -- Jiel (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Clean restoration, no doubt, but easy enough (not a very damaged picture). Not your fault, but the face (actually: the whole picture) is unsharp...--Jebulon (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Duomo di Città di Castello - Intern.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 20:35:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice light, color and atmosphere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 01:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Well-composed shot, but then there's those blown and posterized highlights above the sconces. I know, I know, it was a long exposure, but I still wonder if something more could be done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
lovely pastel colors, but I think this needs more contrast. Can you try to compensate for this, LivioAndronico? --Pine✉ 07:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)- Done Pine better?--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support now. Thanks @Livioandronico2013: . --Pine✉ 16:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 12:03:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Of course. --Code (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The image should be viewed with the panorama viewer - it's hard to appreciate as a flat image. Diliff (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support wow --The Photographer (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 16:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Terrific. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Uauuuuuuuu! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Excellent, as usual. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support sure --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support, K'n-yan (msg) 13:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support KKnoefler247 (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)*
- Support Diliff. --Ralf Roleček 23:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Hong Kong Railway Route Map ring.pdf, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 09:20:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps
- Info created by Sameboat - uploaded by Sameboat - nominated by Sameboat -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Hong Kong MTR (metro system) diagram in distorted concentric ring pattern. PDF version is created to better represents author's intention of the source SVG due to technical limitations of rendering SVG on Wikimedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I myself have created much more complex images that this and have had no problems with mediawiki rendering. If the SVG is validated, I see no inconvenience and I think you should try to import this in Inkscape and get a clean SVG. --The Photographer (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your nomination. I'm guessing you want us to judge the shapes of the map as art? If so, I'm sorry, but I don't find it compelling enough to feature. Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I can’t see anything special in that either. Most route maps of public transport are simplified and schematised in a similar way. – (I once came across a map of hiking routes in the Lake District designed like the London Underground map. Nice idea!) --Kreuzschnabel 10:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Hight EV, however, try make it SVG. PDF is for documents --The Photographer (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Per the Photographer. I will not consider on the merits unless it is nominated in a more customary image format. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Verde78 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. I'm not seeing anything visually striking about this. INeverCry 03:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Flamencos andinos (Phoenicoparrus andinus), Laguna Hedionda, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 61.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 13:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info Andean flamingos (Phoenicoparrus andinus) in the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia. All by me, Poco2 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Although, why if the main subjects are the animals, is there too background? Ezarateesteban 14:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ezarate: Because I wasn't looking for a closeup of the flamingos but rather wanted to put them in context and couldn't avoid including that nice snowed mountain in the background in the composition. Poco2 16:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support @Ezarate: not a background: a very successfull composition.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose A composition with so many horizontal lines is not well served by a vertical orientation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mild/moderate Support - At full size, large parts of the background are more unsharp than necessary for compositional reasons, but it's really not bad: Everything is visible, and the photo looks good at full-page size. Full-page size is pretty small, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I should say, I don't disagree with Daniel's remark, despite my mild/moderate support vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral excellent quality and featurable scene - I can't really come to terms with the rather tight, vertically oriented composition though. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Daniel Case. Natural scene in almost 1:2 size doesnt work (in this case), upper half is defocused, so i would cut to bottom half into pano mode, with that grass on right corner away. But i have feeling you did some shots of flamingos also. --Mile (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Guys, I have uploaded tons of panoramas of this area, you seem to like them, but are portrait versions that bad? I find this composition balanced and pleasant to my eyes with enough elements to guide my eyes around. The other day I also got the feedback from Colin that for a picture with lots of horizontal lines a portrait version the best of all is. Poco2 12:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think the reason I liked the portrait File:Mina de Chuquicamata, Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 121.JPG was that portrait emphasised the depth/height and the the crop at the sides left it feeling endless rather than the nomination image which fully encapsulated the whole quarry. It was more abstract, which also appeals to me. But that image might also have worked in square or landscape format provided the lines ran to the edge of the frame and appeared endless -- you just didn't have an identical image that was in those formats. I haven't looked at this one in detail yet, but I see the grass on the bottom right as distracting, and the asymmetrical crop of the mountain is unusual but possibly interesting. If I crop the grass out, it's much more pleasing. I'll have a look again tonight. -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment New version uploaded with an improved crop (got rid of the bush in the right bottom corner) Poco2 18:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Its a strange picture. Not perfect (e.g. the distant flamingos are cropped arbitrarily on the right) but I like that it has some artistic arrangement, rather than a straightforward landscape or animal photo. -- Colin (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Wowable atmosphere. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 03:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support The composition is fantastic. I like the idea of capturing variety of themes in one image using horizontal gradation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 20:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support This is a picture of Saskia Maurer, goalie of the Women's U18 Switzerland ice hockey team, taken during the first match of the swiss, against Sweden. The Swiss team has finished 3rd overall in the competition.-- Pleclown (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose good QI but lacking wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Martin ~ Moheen (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Alt version
- Info I like this photo, so I took the liberty of making some changes to what I think could be improved noise, colors and some small imperfections. --The Photographer (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This is an improvement, but I still am not wowed. Definitely a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above ~ Moheen (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Sea Monster.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 15:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Info created and uploaded by Aleksandr Abrosimov - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Wow --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Question 200 ISO and f/11, why this quality? I know that a Nikon D300S have a better image quality with that shoot characteristic. What happend? --The Photographer (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, first I though it might be the lens, but the "Bigma" used here is actually quite well-regarded not only for its sharpness. There are some halos along some of the sharper borders (e.g. tongue, chin), which suggests comparably strong processing. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think that seems like a good example of destructive processing --The Photographer (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, I find all that mucilaginous scum or whatever to be really unattractive, and also, very little of this photo is in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose regretfully per other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Blending, central composition doesnt work here. But shot is rare and in good mood...we might try to bring it out.--Mile (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral I really want to support this, as for some reason I absolutely love all that … Slime? … as well as the "pose". But it looks over-sharpened in full size, and that's still noticeable at smaller sizes. I also somewhat agree with Mile concerning the composition, but that alone wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose At first, this photo made me smile a bit, so I couldn't resist to examine it. In fact, the quality at full resolution is poor, but above all I see serious issues regarding the postprocess. Look: the end resolution is 5269x3500 px = 18.44 mpix. According to EXIF, the picture was taken with a Nikon D300S. The sensor of this camera has a maximum resolution of 4288x2848 px = 12.3 mpix... I cannot imagine this kind of photo to be any kind of stitched. Digital zooming / upscaled? Sorry, it is absolutely a no-go for me, even far from QI. Not to rescue. Strong oppose. Sorry! --A.Savin 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support nice -- Jiel (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Rule is, there is no rule - i learnt here. I saw POTY 2015 final, last year portrait of a Oktoberfest woman, first vetoed, second try with Lauro Sirgado help got 7 votes. I think it ended somewhere in 15-20 best. Not to feel bad, so lets have a try. --Mile (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 06:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Nymphaeaceae
- Info created by Bilby - uploaded by Bilby - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 06:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 06:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose More contrast! ... few minutes with GIMP brought me File:Victoria amazonica ks01.jpg. However, the framing is too tight for me, I’d love to see more of the surrounding. The idea with the reflection is nice of course but the cutout too small. --Kreuzschnabel 10:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - But I would vote for Kreuzschnabel's alternative. The increased contrast makes a huge difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination given the support/oppose ratio and only one day remaining on the clock. --Pine✉ 06:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Alt 1
[edit]
Original photo by Bilby, edited by Kreuzschnabel
- Support Also pinging Ikan Kekek. --Pine✉ 14:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'm always amazed when I see one of these. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose I like the flower, but the green thing/shape in the corner does nothing for the composition. INeverCry 01:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- That’s a leaf of the same plant. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose for composition as above. Certainly nice but not that special to be featured IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination given the support/oppose ratio and only one day remaining on the clock. --Pine✉ 06:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Owl Rozarka Strix nebulosa, Prague.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 11:50:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info On picture is great grey owl (Strix nebulosa) "Rozárka" in Prague. -- OJJ (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- OJJ (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice photo. However, it's way too small and lacking in detail to meet the extremely high current standard of FP bird pictures. I would question whether what's currently our only FP Strix nebulosa picture meets that standard, either. This looks like a better candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
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, at only 750K pixels | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
File:CheHigh.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 22:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Alberto Korda - uploaded by Shizhao - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not high enough quality. Very high educational and historic value, of course, but it needs restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 01:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose It may be the largest (in terms of pixel count) version of this iconic photograph we have at Commons, but it is a low-quality reproduction lacking a lot of detail especially in the highlight areas. Compare with File:Che Guevara, Guerrillero Heroico.jpg, for example, which is smaller but has much better detail. --El Grafo (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Kreuzschnabel 08:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Destructive derivate work from File:Heroico1.jpg --The Photographer (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per The Photographer. This photograph is featurable, but not this version. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 18-20 HDR.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 20:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info 17th century pipe organ in the church of the Monastery of Santa María de Huerta. The monastery is located in the village of Santa María de Huerta, province of Soria, Castille and León, Spain. The first stone of the monastery was laid by the king Alfonso VII of Castile in 1179 and the building was expanded in the 16th century thanks to the help of the kings Charles I and Philip II. The church was founded by Alfonso VIII of Castile in the 12th century but undergoed some changes in the 18th century. All by me, Poco2 20:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 20:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Support ~ Moheen (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)- Support Technically, it’s very good. As for composition, I’d be still happier with a slightly angular view from the right, because of the non-symmetric surrounding making this composition too heavy on the left-hand side. --Kreuzschnabel 03:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, this is an organ of more than five centuries, clearly is in the process of deterioration and IMHO what you call asymmetry is a visual effect created by the railing on the left side. --The Photographer (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per the asymmetry noted by Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree - composition is out. --Mile (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Difficult shot but asymmetric. KKnoefler247 (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)*
- Oppose Agree with Kreuz. ~ Moheen (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment can sonebody explain me what is rhe opposing reason? Is it the elements on the left that are no existing on the rifht? I cannot help there then Poco2 20:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support As Poco a Poco says, we can't put anything on the right side Ezarateesteban 00:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- CommentThat’s why I suggested to take a pic from a more angular view. While we cannot build another railing to symmetrize the scenery, we still can choose our point of view for a balanced composition. --Kreuzschnabel 07:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - The composition looks OK to me. You folks so often object to centered compositions that are symmetrical. I really don't understand what your objection to this composition is. And angled composition sounds to me like the photo by A.Savin that got so much opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure if I am included in "you folks" but I’ll still try to answer that. As for me, there is no general bias for or against symmetrical compositions. It depends on what’s in the pic. A heavy, immobile structure as this is well served by a symmetric composition, while a fast moving object or creature isn’t. Imagine the camera moved 1 or 2 metres to the right here. Would make the composition perfect in my eyes, but might ruin it entirely in yours. Matter of taste, and personal reception of images. – Which Savin shot do you refer to? The "Palace of Winds"? I opposed that for busy foreground, not for angled view. Generally, please trust in anyone here to consider their votings as carefully as you do yours. Sometimes, we just cannot explain why the one image works while the other doesn’t. So, "does not wow me" is a plausible reason in here to oppose while it’s hard to put in words why. --Kreuzschnabel 07:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm reacting to the specific words used. "No wow" is not subject to question, no. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure if I am included in "you folks" but I’ll still try to answer that. As for me, there is no general bias for or against symmetrical compositions. It depends on what’s in the pic. A heavy, immobile structure as this is well served by a symmetric composition, while a fast moving object or creature isn’t. Imagine the camera moved 1 or 2 metres to the right here. Would make the composition perfect in my eyes, but might ruin it entirely in yours. Matter of taste, and personal reception of images. – Which Savin shot do you refer to? The "Palace of Winds"? I opposed that for busy foreground, not for angled view. Generally, please trust in anyone here to consider their votings as carefully as you do yours. Sometimes, we just cannot explain why the one image works while the other doesn’t. So, "does not wow me" is a plausible reason in here to oppose while it’s hard to put in words why. --Kreuzschnabel 07:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Spurzem (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Poco2 19:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Stefano Tofanelli Family.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 07:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral - I don't find this painting very interesting artistically, if this is a good reproduction, so I think I'll abstain from voting on whether a feature is justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Unless LivioAndronico can explain how this image passes the guidelines for Artworks. The painter, Stefano Tofanelli, does not qualify as a "major artist" (he gets two short paragraphs on Wikipedia). Clearly we aren't going to feature all paintings on Commons, otherwise there seems no point in having FP for paintings. This is a small (9MP) photo that is a bit noisy too. The biggest problem is that compared to Getty Images this image has had the saturation maxed out. Livio, this image has zero educational value if the colours are not faithful. -- 10:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Colin comment who forget sign --The Photographer (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, FP size requeriment is 2 MP, about color saturation and WB is another problem --The Photographer (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that, and if you can find a 2MP painting that has passed PF in the last several years, I'd be amazed. That it is 9MP isn't a fail, but it isn't anything in it's merit either. -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Currently there are established requirements, I agree that the picture is taken at the highest possible resolution of the camera, however, you can not demand a higher size for a camera that can not do that, because you're forced to buy new cameras and that's money. Size is important, however, is not everything. I can show you a big quantity 6 MB painting already FP and yes you could use another personal requeriment, however, IMHO epithets arguments should not exceed the FP requeriments pre-established. I respect your opinion, however, it is your opinion and when you use "we" in your arguments is a clear lack of consideration for those who not think the same way. --The Photographer (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- You have misunderstood my point about the size. As I said in my reply above, the 9MP comment isn't a reason for my oppose, but isn't something to get excited about either -- it isn't going to be the thing that helps an otherwise average image become stellar. You know that judging is a balance of good and bad aspects, and the resolution here is "meh". You are well aware that we have many many very high resolution images of paintings, taken professionally, with hopefully professional standards of colour/brightness accuracy. Our amateur efforts have to compete with that, because that's what "finest" means. The only "we" in my comment is about this forum not featuring all paintings on Commons, so "we" isn't absolutely correct and "I" would be inappropriate. Of course it is only my opinion, and I would appreciate you striking out the nasty comment about "clear lack of consideration for those who not think the same way". The 2MP is not a "requirement" in the sense that once passed then no complaints can be made about resolution, and I'm surprised that someone here for as long as you choose to argue about that because you know full well it doesn't and never has worked that way. It's a lower limit to give nominators a clear idea of what is likely to generate an FPX. That's all. I don't "demand a higher size". Please don't put words in my mouth. If this image had accurate colours, was noise-free, was sharp and the artwork passed our criteria for FP (which this doesn't) then I wouldn't have opposed. Anyway, the camera used is 6000x4000 and this image is 3400x2665 so this is only 60% size and not even sharp. -- Colin (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- What is your minimum image size recomendation/requeriment. ? --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no rule "If an image is X MP then that is acceptable for FP" and nor should there be. So I don't have a minimum. And please, I have now for the third time had to state that the 9MP is not a reason for my oppose. Can we take this somewhere else, as it is irrelevant to this image. -- Colin (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, FP size requeriment is 2 MP, about color saturation and WB is another problem --The Photographer (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Question Compared to the rendering on Getty Images, this reproduction shows overdone colours and a completely different tone. The other version strikes me much more realistic, but since I don’t have access to the original painting, maybe the nominator could say something about colours? --Kreuzschnabel 14:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Only if the nominator show his RAW file we could imagine the "original colors". --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- A raw file is not calibrated neutral either. It contains no information about the colour temperature of the lighting -- this must either be guessed by the software/camera or set by the user using their own judgement. It also contains no information about the correct brightness and contrast, so the image may be under-exposed for example. The only way to be sure is to use ColorChecker and ideally to have control over the lighting, which is what professionals do. Failing that, we can use other copies of the image as a reference. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I generally use a rudimentary ColorChecker Passport created by myself, however, it will be a photographer interpretation or camera representation based on internal algorithm of revelation, printer settings, camera LCD configuration, PC monitor setting and quality....A person who lived his entire life in the Caribbean may have less sensitivity to light than another person from certain Scandinavian countries. Some populations of completely separate cultures, and unrelated, living in high relief, such as Nepal and Bolivia, using live similar colors in their daily attire. --The Photographer (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Only if the nominator show his RAW file we could imagine the "original colors". --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Colors seem off to me ... honestly, I never thought I'd be faulting a painting for CA (look at the main subject's nose) and while I was going to wait to see if this was the way it was, I couldn't find too many other versions online to compare. I was going to go with a neutral, but per the concerns of Colin and Kreuzschnabel above I don't think I need to defer. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination it's only a pic....--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 10:38:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created and uploaded by N 3 14 15 92 65 - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - N 3 14 15 92 65 has been posting some very interesting landscape pictures in Quality Image Candidates. I think this is probably the best I've seen from this photographer so far. It's a composition that presents a variety of colors, textures and forms with a good dramatic sky - perhaps just a bit blown out where clouds are in front of the sun, but I really think that's not bad and the photo is worthy of a feature. I don't know whether some of you might find the rocks in the foreground unattractive, but to me, they're interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a very beautiful place but the image doesn't fit for an FP to me. The rocks at the bottom cover more than a third of the image and also marginilise the lake, which seems to appear as a minor detail in the whole composition. There are also technical issues: the colours seem pretty washed off; the sky is blown and the part where the clouds are in front of the sun is overexposed, while the cliffs to the immediate right are underexposed because of the lack of lighting, thus making a striking transition; some areas of the image are unsharp. I'd prefer an image with more vivid colours taken from a better angle.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Fair enough. I appreciate your detailed evaluation. We'll see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Considering this is a shot against the sun the tones are simply amazing, colors reflect what high(er) alpine scenery can look like (not everything is an oversaturated chocolate ad with purple cows). Maybe the composition could be improved a bit but I'm not sold on the idea. KennyOMG (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I suggest to change the format at least in 16:9 even a bit more in order to crop the too dominant appearing pieces of rock below. --Hockei (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Support -- Nice scenery! Should slightly more panoramic though, and per the user above, you should crop the image in order to remove the chunks of gigantic rocks. Target360YT (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Jaipur 03-2016 27 Hawa Mahal - Palace of the Winds.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 22:48:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info created and uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support This is another photo from Alexander's trip to Jaipur. It presents an interesting oblique view of the gorgeous Hawa Mahal, along with a bit of a slice of life below. I'm shocked to discover that we don't have any FP of the Hawa Mahal yet. Our one other Quality Image so far is not as good a photo as this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 01:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- OpposeThe category contains numerous images of a more interesting viewing angle and lighting, albeit not in that quality. This nomination offers high quality but the composition, viewpoint and lighting don’t look very special to me. Without wanting to personally insult the author I’d call this a high-quality tourist shot. Fine image, definitely QI and maybe VI, but not special enough to feature IMHO. Maybe the foreground is just too dominant. --Kreuzschnabel 08:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Jebulon (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm surprised by the level of opposition to this photo. Alexander, I hope I haven't unintentionally embarrassed you by nominating this photo. No offense to anyone for saying this, I hope, nor any disrespect for your views, but at the time I nominated this photo, it seemed obviously excellent to me; otherwise, I wouldn't have nominated it without checking with Alexander first for his thoughts on it. I don't see any reason to change my opinion, either, except inasmuch as I can't consider its excellence a consensus opinion. But let me say this: Canaletto did excellent tourist paintings of Venice. He was merely one of the greatest of many painters who painted typical picturesque scenes for tourists who wanted a picture to reminisce on their trip. Do you think that makes Canaletto's work not excellent? I wouldn't argue that this is on the level of Canaletto, but it's a digital photo, not an oil on canvas, so the medium is not subject to a one-to-one comparison. But to the extent the analogy holds, I think that an excellent tourist shot, if that's what this is, deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, @Ikan Kekek: Thanks, no offence taken of course. I like the photo, but I also know that with a busy foreground like this, it will be difficult in FPC. --A.Savin 14:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment After all, that’s the educational value of FPC for nominators in my eyes. As it is, I consider all of my nominations featurable, however my latest ones have been severely opposed. While some see this as a personal insult, I rather see it as a chance to learn which images do wow others and which don’t. That’s why I vote about others’ images how I honestly feel about them (assuming others are willing to learn the same way as myself). Sometimes I have been quite surprised by the outcoming too. --Kreuzschnabel 13:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I totally agree. The whole FPC process has a very strong educational component with value added for all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with this, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I totally agree. The whole FPC process has a very strong educational component with value added for all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 20:25:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
- Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by Huntster - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose bad crop for a FP-image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Alchemist. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Alchemist. --Kreuzschnabel 05:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC) | 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:Four Falcon 9 first stages under construction.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 20:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
- Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by MsaynevirtaIMG - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose to many overexposed parts. A HDR/tonemapping image will be the better alternative. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Large blown areas. --Cayambe (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Cayambe, but I also feel the composition is too busy in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexpose, tilt, noise. Certainly a technically interesting picture but nothing featurable for me. --Kreuzschnabel 05:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC) | 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:Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza (Rome) , Dome.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 19:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - A picture of a place with so little color would have to be more nearly perfect for me to want to feature it. I don't like the blown-out hazy whitish light coming from the window. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad crops on the lower windows. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral for the time being. The whitish light doesn't really bother me - in fact I do like the serene, almost colorless mood, but the chosen crop is a bit difficult... any chance you can give us more space on both the left and the right side? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Side crops. This is a square symmetry, so it should a square picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Camera view of a beam of lazer light.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 12:08:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info All by Target360YT (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Target360YT (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think that to photograph a laser beam well, you'd need to use a super-short exposure. I see this one was 1/40 sec. How about 1/1000 sec or less? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Every superfast phenomenon (Shoots etc) are made with long time exposures in dark rooms. Not the exposure time of the camera is important, the flash time does it. 1/40 seems in fact very short for a camera exposure - in fact one second and longer would be normal. --Hubertl 10:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - My reaction was that the light is blown and posterized, and that with a much shorter exposure, there might be more of a fighting chance to guard against that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Every superfast phenomenon (Shoots etc) are made with long time exposures in dark rooms. Not the exposure time of the camera is important, the flash time does it. 1/40 seems in fact very short for a camera exposure - in fact one second and longer would be normal. --Hubertl 10:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. Seems more like a "this would look cool if we did it" proof-of-concept thing. If it were used as album cover art, I would think the band uninventive (if it were one I'd never heard of) and would need some persuading to buy it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Nothing of excellence IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 11:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Hubertl 17:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) | 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:Tucano de bico verde (Ramphastos dicolorus).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 15:04:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Small but good and nice --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Not convinced. While the composition as such is really nice, the upper edge of beak has a blueish fringe, the overall level of detail is rather limited. Browsing the category, I think File:Ramphastos dicolorus -São Paulo-SP, Brasil-8.jpg offers better and File:Tucano-de-bico-verde - Ramphastos dicolorus 01.jpg (if not the entire bird is required) even much better quality --Kreuzschnabel 19:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Question - I'm not sure how I feel about this photo, but a question: Is the wood on the branch the toucan is roosting on in fact that color? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral I think it could benefit from a tighter crop on the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe but that would drop the result below the 2 mpix limit. This is not bad but below FP threshold for birds (which is pretty high). --Kreuzschnabel 11:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Parts of the bird, like its back, get a bit lost in such a dark background. INeverCry 00:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Common clownfish.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 13:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
- Info created by Janderk - uploaded by Janderk - nominated by Target360YT -- Target360YT (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Good quality, fine image. Not too colorful, nor too bright. Sharp resolution, too. Awesome depiction of the submarine nature. Five star. Target360YT (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry too much small (less of 2mpx) and more the composition isn't good and quality too --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but this image is not FP quality. It's blown out, lacks detail, out of focus, colors are washed. Atsme 📞 18:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the reasons already given --Kreuzschnabel 19:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC) | 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. |
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2016 at 00:21:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
- Info created by Ggia - uploaded by Ggia - nominated by Target360YT -- ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ 00:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ 00:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - This is already a Featured Picture. Are you proposing to de-list it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Already Feautered Target360YT. --Mile (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Already Feautered | 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:Водосховище на Тетереві біля с. Тригір'я.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2016 at 21:02:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Sonya Partsevska - uploaded by Sonya Partsevska - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Sonya Partsevska}}|]] -- Sonya Partsevska (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Sonya Partsevska (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Photos with signatures or watermarks are ineligible for consideration for Featured Picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as noted, images with signatures or watermarks are ineligible for FPC | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 14:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
- Info St. Bartholomä in south-eastern Bavaria is an iconic church on the western shore of Lake Königssee within Berchtesgaden National Park and can only be reached by boat. It is an extremely popular tourist attraction as it offers a fine example of rural southern German Baroque architecture picturesquely situated close to the foot of Mount Watzmann's massive East Face. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- strong support Could be a little sharper maybe, but ... WOOOOOOoooooooowwwwww. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support WOOOOOOHOOOOOOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral a bit overexposed for my tatse. Can you try to rework it? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the image is really overexposed - I guess that's an effect caused by the polarizer I used. There's always drawbacks with polarizers, but in this case I was glad to have it attached as lighting started to become difficult. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please take a look to the white of the towers = blown-out lights for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done Alchemist-hp, I've uploaded a new, very moderately reworked version that hopes to successfully address a couple of minor issues - I've also tried to reduce highlights a bit. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please take a look to the white of the towers = blown-out lights for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the image is really overexposed - I guess that's an effect caused by the polarizer I used. There's always drawbacks with polarizers, but in this case I was glad to have it attached as lighting started to become difficult. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - To me, this is excellent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good description also. -- -donald- (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Classic! --Milseburg (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Moderate Support -- Nice scenery once again, but you should focus the picture more onto the topic (The Church), instead of it's surroundings. Target360YT (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Taricha torosa, Napa County, CA.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 12:22:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
- Info created by Connor Long - uploaded by Animalparty - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support OJJ (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral - The head is very sharp, but I wish more of the newt were in focus, or at least closer to being in focus. In terms of more of the subject being in focus, this photo of a Common Newt does better. Educational value for sure, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. The unsharp areas, as well as the harsh shadow below, are both distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support I like the colors, and the bokeh gives me an impression that the creature is alive and crawling towards me. --Pine✉ 07:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Focusing problem. ~ Moheen (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Vineyards - Yaiza - 03.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 12:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose - Interesting image per se and useful, and definitely a good idea, but with the exception of the segmentation, I don't find the experience of looking at it very rewarding beyond the first glance. I wonder if I would have found a photo that looked straight down the furrows more compelling as a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. Potentially interesting subject not photographed in an interesting way. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Too grey overall; I think it would have a better impact as a B&W image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment But then the small grapevine (a small splash of colour, which interrrupts the grey) would be nearly invisible. --Llez (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like it should be larger and more vibrant if it is to make an impact on the composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment But then the small grapevine (a small splash of colour, which interrrupts the grey) would be nearly invisible. --Llez (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I’d love to give support for originality here. It just seems overprocessed (maybe can be helped by re-processing). The sky shows some reddish speckles to the right, and the yellow flower has some strange fully-saturated channel-blown-like green spots on it. --Kreuzschnabel 11:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done You're right, it was overprocessed to some degree. I made a completely new version from the raw file and I think, the result is much better (also the small gravevine is more detailed). --Llez (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks, much better on the grapevine itself. Being such a small detail, the slight CA on the surrounding stones is somewhat irritating. Is there a way to get them a bit sharper and fix the red seams? I know it’s hard on this image but since the eyecatcher is such a small bit of it, every unsharpness or colour fringing would distract even stronger than usual. --Kreuzschnabel 04:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done --Llez (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support now. Thanks for your co-operation! --Kreuzschnabel 09:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done --Llez (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks, much better on the grapevine itself. Being such a small detail, the slight CA on the surrounding stones is somewhat irritating. Is there a way to get them a bit sharper and fix the red seams? I know it’s hard on this image but since the eyecatcher is such a small bit of it, every unsharpness or colour fringing would distract even stronger than usual. --Kreuzschnabel 04:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done You're right, it was overprocessed to some degree. I made a completely new version from the raw file and I think, the result is much better (also the small gravevine is more detailed). --Llez (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 21:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
File:ONERA MEUDON soufflerie S1b.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 15:40:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Industry
- Info created by ibex73 - uploaded by ibex73 - nominated by User:ibex73 -- Ibex73 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ibex73 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Strange image. If possible, it would really up the educational value if a short explanation of what we're looking at were provided. This is a structure that is used as a wind tunnel, I gather? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Info (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),The need to understand the aerodynamic phenomena, in as close as possible to reality, driven to achieve a large wind tunnel at atmospheric pressure, in Meudon. The S1 wind tunnel for testing of aircraft in real size was built from 1932 to 1934. Through the large dimensions of the test section, S1 can experiment had real 12 m wingspan, with the engine running and the driver on board. Until the 1970s, it is mainly aircraft (the Caravelle and the Concorde) but also cars (the 4 CV and the Beetle), trains, architectural elements, who have gone through the experimental chamber to be developed or improved (maximum speed 180 km / h). This 1933 building absorbs 7,000 m3 of reinforced concrete, 700 tons of iron, 1000 m3 of wood, and requires the establishment of 566 implementation plans (see old pictures on http://www.anciensonera.fr/?q=node/17). Ibex73 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Thank you. Please add that to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Albertus teolog (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Unusual, and definitely a QI, but not enough wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose for poor lighting. If only all of the object was sunlit. --Kreuzschnabel 09:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support I like the atmospheric effect of the fog and colors, although I think it would be preferable to retake this same shot with a camera that can produce better resolution and fine detail. --Pine✉ 07:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Info It is now 6 years I expect extreme weather conditions to improve this picture ... Indeed, not only must it snows a lot in Paris, which is quite exceptional, but it is necessary that the sky is perfectly clear the next morning for a light fog and blue snow ... I must also be there at the right time! Ibex73 (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Err … yes. Surprised? Photography is all about light, and light is (outside the studio) all about choosing the perfect moment, time-of-day, time-of-year … and outdoor photography is much about being lucky with the weather, too. --Kreuzschnabel 08:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Agrell, Johan.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 10:37:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Valentin Daniel Preisler - uploaded and nominated by Rettinghaus -- Rettinghaus (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Rettinghaus (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Support- Looks good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Support Daniel CaseChanging to Oppose per Ikan 16:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)- Oppose Just don't think greyscaling it is the right choice; why take a historic document and make it less resemble its original form with no other benefit? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Question - Wait. Is the original in color? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Not full colour, but there is colour to it: See File:Agrell by Preisler.jpg - the ink and paper look a lot more natural in that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I now Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 00:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People - I honestly don't know where to categorize this. Suggestions?
- Info created by Toni Frissell - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 01:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good question, which one. I've been thinking about it before. Black and white for sure, its good we have that category, also that is given as type of photo, while other shots refer to what is inside of photo. So i suggest puting all black and white shots also into "about category", my cycle would be transport-objects or People, this one would be People probably also... an issue to be solved. --Mile (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - A great moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment As usual, I suggest a crop to avoid the centered composition. As for the image as such, it surely is a great moment well captured but also very, very unsharp and noisy. I’m not sure the historical value makes up for that. So, a regretful Oppose from my side. --Kreuzschnabel 11:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Kreuzschnabel: With things like en:Template:CSS image crop, I think it's generally better to have the more-or-less uncropped be the one promoted, unless there's major issues, e.g. the Billy Strayhorn pic a while back where the closeness of the camera made the knees look very large and odd if uncropped. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Code (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. ~ Moheen (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Analogic photogram don't work with the common standard "noise" (electronic noise) definition. --The Photographer (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn’t make "analog" noise more tolerable than "digital" noise. We usually don’t excuse for drawbacks just because they’re impossible to handle in postprocessing. And there have been low-noise analog photographs too --Kreuzschnabel 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, basically, I find a free-licensed photograph of a highly notable musical, and it's going to get voted down over film grain? The kids are running , so it's high-speed film. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Oh, please. Oppose in FPC doesn’t mean the picture is bad, or unusable, lacks value or anything in that direction. It just means that I don’t think it’s one of the finest images there are on Commons. And I clearly stated why. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, basically, I find a free-licensed photograph of a highly notable musical, and it's going to get voted down over film grain? The kids are running , so it's high-speed film. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn’t make "analog" noise more tolerable than "digital" noise. We usually don’t excuse for drawbacks just because they’re impossible to handle in postprocessing. And there have been low-noise analog photographs too --Kreuzschnabel 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support excellent quality in this year. --Ralf Roleček 23:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there were methods of obtaining finer grain back in the days – we can see that in the portraits that are nominated here quite regularly. But those are studio shots where you could choose slow films and large formats. For stuff like this, you need a fast shutter speed, so I'd guess something like Tri-X was used (400 ASA was considered fast at that time). A mobile camera probably doesn't hurt either, so probably 135 film (the aspect ratio seems to support this). Now keep in mind that the default print size for 135 film was 4×6 (10×15 cm or A6), which is smaller than the default preview size of our file description pages. This one still looks quite good at, say, 1280px on the long side. Based on my (admittedly very limited) personal experience with B&W 35mm film photography, I'm leaning towards supporting this as one of our finest 1950s/1960s action shots. --El Grafo (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent analisis, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Warszawa - synagoga z Gwoźdźca 2.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 21:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Really pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 23:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Kikos (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support Great color and sharpness. Wish we could have gotten the whole ceiling but I can see that tradeoffs had to be made. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 02:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Maire (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
File:2013 Cogden Bridge.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 11:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom.E2.80.8E
- Info all by -- Kreuzschnabel 11:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Info One of my 2013 images of the Yorkshire Dales. A small lane crossing the valley of Cogden Beck in a sharp U-curve over the old bridge. The sunlit red bracken in late october forms an eye-catching contrast to the blue sky. This bridge is quite frequently shown in the "All Creatures Great and Small" TV series :-)
- Support -- Kreuzschnabel 11:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support cool compo and nice colors, for info a bit of CAs at far right. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks, I know. Unfortunately, the M.Zuiko 2.0/12 produces considerable CAs towards the edges. I tried to remove as much as I could. --Kreuzschnabel 03:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful scenery. ~ Moheen (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great colors (rusty plants play off blue sky in a way this combination should but usually doesn't) Love the curvy road and the landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very nice composition and colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support These colours! --Code (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose beautiful colors and composition, but when viewed at 100% this is is too grainy. --Pine✉ 07:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral - I think I'm seeing what Pine sees, and that's why I don't totally love this, but it's still pretty good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support It seems a little bit oversharpened, but still ok. -- -donald- (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice picture but what is unnatural and worked me over.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition. A simple landscape; yet a bit twisted. --Pugilist (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 21:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Cappadocia Chimneys - DWiW.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2016 at 06:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Turkey
- Info created by Benh, modified by Der Wolf im Wald - uploaded by Der Wolf im Wald - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 06:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 06:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support WOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think there is a technical problem at the left corner in the sky. If the shade of color is not a problem I will support. ~ Moheen (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose An impressive job creating this, but the
blownposterized sky noted above ruins it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)- Daniel where is the sky blown? It is pale in the corner, but sky does that. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I amend that. It is pale, yes, but it is also posterized to the point that whether it is blown or not is a distinction without a difference AFAIC. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Daniel where is the sky blown? It is pale in the corner, but sky does that. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very nice -- Jiel (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I find this impressive, in spite of the issues with the sky noted above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hockei (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I'd favor my own version, which is a fix which came after that one. - Benh (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree, Ben's version is better (lighter shadows, larger) and this one has a posterised sky. -- Colin (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I have great trouble choosing between them, but that photo could perhaps be added as a possible alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think, with only a day to go for this nomination, adding an alternative is unlikely to gain enough support, or be a fair review. While the contrast/dark shadows of this image vs the lighter shadows of Benh's version are a matter of taste, there's no getting away from that posterised sky, which isn't really acceptable at FP, and that this one is downsized compared to the other. -- Colin (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Hexenbuche mit Kreuzberg.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2016 at 20:10:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Milseburg (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support "Stone cold, stone cold". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Nice, but please check the WB. --A.Savin 02:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Considering the low sun angle, I think the colour of the snow is correct that way as long as the sky is not off. (Looks like morning but has to be evening, for as far as I know this place, we are looking southwards.) --Kreuzschnabel 05:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Kreuzschnabel is right. It´s taken 35 minutes before sunset. In my opinion the colors match the time of day. --Milseburg (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Considering the low sun angle, I think the colour of the snow is correct that way as long as the sky is not off. (Looks like morning but has to be evening, for as far as I know this place, we are looking southwards.) --Kreuzschnabel 05:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Grand mood, and perfectly composed. Congrats. --Kreuzschnabel 05:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I wasn't sure about this picture earlier today when I was in a bad mood, so I waited before passing judgment. And now I like the composition, and I also particularly like how you are able to capture the flaky texture of the snow in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Definitely a great image, with very good composition, excellent texture of the snow and nice lighting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 00:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 20:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 18:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info Wiki Cup 2015 for the german speaking Wikipedia, all by -- Hubertl 18:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Hubertl 18:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Cool stuff. --Mile (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Really nicely photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - well done! Atsme 📞 22:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 00:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Of course! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 11:56:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
- Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The dark areas ruins the picture IMHO Ezarateesteban 13:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Uneven light (part of the head is in shadow) and disturbing background. --Cayambe (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with the others, and the sharpness also seems a bit soft to me, but I'd like to emphasize that I certainly do consider this a good photo, just not one of the most outstanding photos deserving of a feature. Please nominate more photos in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan, a good photo and QI for sure. However, the composition does not reach FP level for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Hello everybody thank you for the pieces of advice you gave to me, I will improve my photos quality next time to be featured photos --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Continue, tu n'es pas loin ! --Jebulon (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 19:21:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info Crypt of the Cádiz Cathedral, Cádiz, Andalusia, Spain. The Roman Catholic church was built between 1722 and 1838 and has Baroque, Rococo and neoclassical elements. In the crypt are buried the composer Manuel de Falla and the poet and playwright José María Pemán, two of the most important personalities born in Cádiz. All by me, Poco2 19:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 19:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Very good photo, and I love the depth of field of the view into the chapel. But is there a way to reduce the glare from the lights without messing up the rest of the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - the Wow! factor is there! Atsme 📞 22:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Interesting combination of forms with great perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 00:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think there's not enough floor visible but too much ceiling. In other words: Unbalanced composition. However, I'm not going to spoil the party with an oppose vote if everybody else think it's FP-worthy. --Code (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 19:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info Panoramic view of the Miscanti lake, altiplano of the Antofagasta Region, northern Chile. The brackish water lake, located in Los Flamencos National Reserve, is separated from Miñiques Lake by a lava flow from an eruption of Miñiques volcano. All by me, Poco2 19:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 19:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful panorama, great colours and very nice composition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose180* ? You might try some crop. --Mile (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mile: I really like it the way it is. To me it looks balanced the way it is, still, if other reviewers request it, I can offer an alternative where the road is cropped in both sides Poco2 20:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Poc actually its not so bad, since lake is wide. But you need to fix stiching errors. Its heavy to see it - image. --Mile (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mile, would you be so kind and enter notes for the stitching errors? I just looked for any and couldn't find anything. Also nobody else of those who reviewed the image seem to have found any. Thank you. Poco2 09:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Poc i put two notes. Left is more problematic, but right one could be solved. Problem with left - when doing panoramas, especially wider, never put Auto WB, set temperature manually. Or later correct it in RAW into one temperature. --Mile (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for those notes, Mile. I've uploaded a new version. The issue on the left was rather a cloning problem than a WB problem. I checked the WB of all frames and they were very similar, just the last one on the right was a bit colder. Please, let me know what do you think about the last version Poco2 14:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Something better. Removed o. At least you improved mistakes. Some dont. --Mile (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Gorgeous. I wouldn't propose a crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I like this panorama for several reasons. There's an infinity to it - an allure that makes the eyes scan its depths; a magic that compels one to capture the image. I may well be biased to South America and the magic of the Chilean landscapes, and this photo takes me there. Atsme 📞 22:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I also wouldn´t propose a crop. Considering the high resolution the image is of high quality. Of course, the subject is also very grateful.--Milseburg (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 23:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
File:The Great Buddha of Kamakura.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 17:45:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created/uploaded/nominated by Alexandar Vujadinovic -- Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not sure I feel able to support this for a feature. The statue is clearly photographed, but the crop is extremely close on the Buddha's right side (at the viewer's left). The glary white light is also not the best background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically, it’s certainly QI and VI as a close-up. However, I fail to see anything special here to be featured as for composition, lighting, or perspective. --Kreuzschnabel 11:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan and Kreuzschnabel. The pure white background not only doesn't serve it well, it seems unnatural ... other photos of this statue suggest there's sky behind it, and I think that would have made a better background if the light was at the right angle. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 23:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Нижня польська брама.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 10:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info A Ukrainian castle. Uploaded as part of WLM 2015.
- Info created by Q-lieb-in - uploaded by Q-lieb-in - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - That's a very compelling composition, but at full size, it becomes clear that parts of the picture are unsharp and, I think most disturbingly, the left side of the tower is blown and posterized. Can anything be done to ameliorate these problems, or at least those with the tower? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think anything can be done about it, unfortunately (it's not my image). Composition and light far outweighs it for me. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support It could have helped to stop down a bit (f/4.5 ...) - but given the difficult composition and the inevitable weaknesses of uwa-lenses, I'll give my support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great color, texture and detail. Love the way it fools you into thinking a fisheye lens was used. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 16:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support A fine idea well executed. --Kreuzschnabel 06:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Сергей Трофимович Алексеев.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2016 at 15:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
- Info created by Зяблицева Станислава Владимировна - uploaded by Krassotkin - nominated by Krassotkin --sasha (krassotkin) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --sasha (krassotkin) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture is over saturated in my eyes KKnoefler247 (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose ~ Moheen (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment Besides the fact that the depicted person is not particularly notable, I fail to see reason why this photo should be obviously ineligible for FP. Therefore it would be helpful from KKnoefler247 and Moheen Reeyad to explain their oppose. It is good tone on COM:FPC to write why oppose, except for really obvious cases. --A.Savin 20:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Done, both have commented. --A.Savin 16:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)- Comment I could not find anything valuable or special. ~ Moheen (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose A nice job with the man, but the shadow at left is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like this picture. The shadows make it look mysteriously and I like the face expression of the person. A different kind of potrait. You can look at it for minutes thinking about who this guy is, what he thinks and how the photographer came to take this picture. However, a short description in English would be appreciated. --Code (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! I added short English description and more accurate categories. But he is a man with a more interesting and controversial life... Yes, you are right, the same as this photo;). --sasha (krassotkin) 08:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty strong support per Code. I think this is an excellent example of how light quality can influence the message of an image. Take this grumpy face and body language and put it in a darker setting with softer, colder light and you get a character from "Game of Thrones" who has just learned that he lost an army or something like that. Put him in this warm natural light from a low evening sun (which looks perfectly fine and not over-saturated at all to me) and you get a dramatically different story. Is he really grumpy? Maybe he's just tired, maybe he's actually enjoying the last rays of sunlight after a long day of herding his sheep. Then realize that he's actually a writer and wonder what's going on in his head … --El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I would be willing to support if a good explanation was provided for the strange, coloured vignetting, or even better, if it were removed. The subject isn't centered enough for any kind of vignetting to work, imo -- Thennicke (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I, for one, think it works. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Over-saturated. Yann (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Bemoste, geteisterde boomstronken aan voetpad naar vogelkijkhut De Schollevaar. Locatie, Oostvaardersplassen 07.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 16:12:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Damaged trees.
- Info Mossy, ravaged stumps on footpath to the bird hide Schollevaar. Location, Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose QI for sure, but I don't see enough out of the ordinary for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose nice QI, but to low wow for FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I think this composition is beautiful, I love the shapes of wood in the middle, and in my opinion, this would be a good photo to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alchemist-hp. Wow too limited. Grass in background looks tilted. --Kreuzschnabel 05:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 14:26:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#India
- Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 14:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support especially considering the very difficult circumstances --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support with all the reflection should be better,but ok for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support nice colors and composition. --Ralf Roleček 23:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems a bit noisy to me at full size, especially in the sky and water. Of course, it's beautiful, so I do want to feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great shot! In my opinion, it's useful to make a crop leaving the image without the cropped birds at the bottom.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Not so happy with colors nor settings. --Mile (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Peilstein 20160507 01.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2016 at 08:15:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
- Info Cliffs of Peilstein mountain, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Striking and with a very interesting deep field of vision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Certainly nice but lacks wow for me. Maybe it’s the flat noon lighting. Might be more fascinating at a lower sun angle. --Kreuzschnabel 03:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like the use of the cleft as a frame (an effect I've tried for in similar circumstances). Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support not for acrophobia people ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 6+ unten rechts, ich erinnere mich. --Hubertl 20:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- --Isasza (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Benzol (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Image:MastinLeones.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2016 at 06:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info created by Pablox - uploaded by Pablox - nominated by Pablox -- Pablox (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pablox (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral I was going to vote oppose in this photo (because DoF problem), however, dog's face gave me a pity feeling. --The Photographer (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral per The Photographer, but as an exemplar of a breed, this is a problematic picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Nice picture, but the focus is not on the eyes. Yann (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Yann. DoF might be a matter of taste – too shallow for me – but the eyes have to be in focus at least. Busy bokeh, and I’d suggest to crop a bit off the empty space on the right. --Kreuzschnabel 03:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per The Photographer and Yann. They are already find some problems. ~ Moheen (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Eyes not in focus, and given the amount of sad-eyed dog portraits on the Internet this would have to be a lot more special than this compositionally to make FP. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Ariramba-de-cauda-ruiva (cropped).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2016 at 21:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Pretty bird, unobjectionable bokeh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Really awesome picture. ∞😃 Target360YT 😃∞ (Talk) 23:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 23:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice, noise is gone --The Photographer (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Bird's in focus, great colors, background and branch do not get in the way. Great. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Nice colours and bokeh. —Bruce1eetalk 05:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 17:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- --Isasza (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 12:00:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
- Info created and uploaded by Rftblr - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment I just wanted to examine the picture, as I like it in preview. But I wondered why it had no categories at all. After I learned that the photographer himself deliberately removed the categories for unknown reasons, I'm not anymore willing to review this or any other picture by this "author"... --A.Savin 12:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Sorry, this I didn't know. Why was there no info on Commons talk:Deceased contributors? --A.Savin 13:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I did not noticed he removed the categories since I had put the image in my favorites, and I'm sorry too to learn the sad news Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I just happened to stumble on this info on User:Rftblr's page. User:Uoaei1 seems to know more. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Very strange. Anyway, I'll say that I like the bear but don't like the bokeh, so I probably wouldn't be a "Support" vote, but I'd like for Rftblr to explain why he removed the categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- well, sadly User:Rftblr deceased in April 2016. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh my God, I'm so sorry! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- We could remove the image description page template "Please do not upload an updated image here without consultation with the author" ??. Anyway he will be inmortal with his photographs here --The Photographer (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support the bokeh could be better but the main subject is featureable imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 18:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Bear is good. Back not so.--Mile (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose While it’s technically good and certainly QI, I don’t see anything really special in this. The busy bokeh doesn’t help. --Kreuzschnabel 21:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Excellent -- Jiel (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 23:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great capture of a wild animal in its environment. I love the way we can see the insects bothering it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - knowing from personal experiences how difficult it is to get close enough to capture this species in the wild, the photograph certainly meets FP criteria. I am truly saddened to learn of the photographer's unexpected demise. Atsme 📞 22:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 20:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Benzol (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 06:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info all by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC) P.S: I nominate this image, because of this point
- Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - My point: This isn't a super-zoomed photo of a single bird, so it can't compete in that respect with pictures in which we can see every feather, but it shows the birds in their habitat, and I like the shapes of the tree branches as well as those of the vultures and consider this a very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Great idea, but the cropped branches bother me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- If I had don't cropped the branches, so you only see only more uninteresting blu empty sky ... ?!? The valture are the main object. OK, this is only my opinion. Thanks for your voting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Certainly QI but the composition looks rather random to me, the leftmost bird being so close to the frame while there’s plenty of room to the right. Maybe a crop would emphasize the birds sufficiently to make up for the cut branches (for not fitting into the frame there’s just too much of them visible). Pity most of the birds’ heads are in shadow. --Kreuzschnabel 05:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wnn Du in der Sonne bist, so würdest auch Du Deinen Kopf im Schatten halten, wenn möglich. Das tun die Geier auch. Ferner ist dieser Anblick eh nur früh in den Morgenstunden zu sehen. Späten Vormittag, Mittags und frühen Nachmittag sind die Geier irgendwo komplett im Schatten zu finden. Aber auch hier Danke für Dein Voting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Du brauchst deine Arbeit nicht zu verteidigen ;-) Wenn ich zu einem Bild sage, was mir daran nicht gefällt, dann ist das als ehrliche Rückmeldung zum Bild selbst gemeint und nicht als Vorwurf an den Fotografen im Sinne von „das hättest du besser machen können“. Manchmal erlaubt das Motiv selbst halt kein perfektes Bild, damit müssen wir leben. --Kreuzschnabel 06:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- +1 daher dankte ich Dir auch für Deine Meinung. All is OK. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wnn Du in der Sonne bist, so würdest auch Du Deinen Kopf im Schatten halten, wenn möglich. Das tun die Geier auch. Ferner ist dieser Anblick eh nur früh in den Morgenstunden zu sehen. Späten Vormittag, Mittags und frühen Nachmittag sind die Geier irgendwo komplett im Schatten zu finden. Aber auch hier Danke für Dein Voting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose good QI, no FP --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --ST ○ 16:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the cropped branches, and the lighting is terrible, with dark birds against a bright sky. Well done otherwise but the lighting makes this unfeaturable for me -- Thennicke (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Benzol (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2016 at 19:37:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany]
- Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice but not exceptional, sorry – looks like a straightforward tourist shot to me, not too detailed, hazy view, flat lighting. I’d try a different time of day and pick a day of clearer air. --Kreuzschnabel 22:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 23:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with the others, though I would compliment this as a very good Quality Image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Grandma's room.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2016 at 00:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Fun and well-composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Doesn't seem to have enough wow in thumb, but when you look in full-res it gets interesting. Nice documentary still-life. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support A typical Wilfredo's photo style. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support something different! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but, despite the image's quality, there's nothing else that makes it of particularly high value. The shot seems to have been randomly made and the description is too vague to indicate on anything specifically important. The remote controls left on the bed spoil the composition, the figures at the top left are dark, and the cropped objects at the vertical sides are unfortunate. I'm also not sure about the distance and the vertical framing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I like it, but remote control isnt suitable for here (you mix some old stuff with brand new hi-tech), upper wall border not good neither. Otherwise nice. --Mile (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can not remove the remote control, it is very common in Brazilian favelas (in 99% of cases) have a system of cable television, is an identifying symbol of the favelas have an antenna outside and this control is part of it. Nothing in this photo is old. btw, it was taken by a 50mm (FF) I literally had to take this photo from another room --The Photographer (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Old - grandmas stuff (furniture, cutrains, statues, etc), so its not yesterdays IKEA bedroom. Dont know what did you get as old. --Mile (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 20:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Does nobody of the supporters see that this is tilted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uoaei1 (talk • contribs) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Favelas do not use conventional engineering styles, I used the vertical present on different objects in the room and the window to correct the tilt. Please, let me know if it's ok for you, thank you very much. --The Photographer (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Wilparting Church 01.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2016 at 13:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
- Info A classic Bavarian scenery, St. Marinus and Anian Church in Wilparting (Irschenberg) with the Mangfall Mountains forming the background. All by me--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice church, depth of field and natural framing, but please eliminate the dust spots just to the right of the upper part of the tree on the left side and the smudged diagonal line (unless that's a little dark cloud) between the mountains and the clouds, closer to the clouds, above the trees and village to the right of the church. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ein schönes Fönwetter... Gut komponiert --Hubertl 20:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 23:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Superb. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per above though maybe just a little bit too satured Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I am not sure about the crop (maybe a bit too much of the green in the foreground), but nevertheless impressive --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 17:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
File:17-Callicore sorana.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2016 at 11:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info created by Francisco Boratto - uploaded by Francisco Boratto - nominated by DarwIn -- Darwin Ahoy! 11:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Darwin Ahoy! 11:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, and doesn't stand out enough from background for me. I'd suggest a crop, but small size means it would be ineligible. Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - The butterfly is beautiful, but the rest of the picture is very distracting. Overprocessed, perhaps. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel. ~ Moheen (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 06:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your reviews - I withdraw my nomination Darwin Ahoy! 09:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Prambanan Temple Yogyakarta Indonesia.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2016 at 05:23:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info Prambanan Temple, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
- Info created by Cmichel67 - uploaded by Cmichel67 - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I'm a bit surprised that we have yet to feature any picture of Prambanan. This is not the most attractive representation of the temples (left to my own devices, I might have nominated this and this first), but it does represent an archeological site well and it's a good picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurred foreground and people with a red tshirt are distracting --The Photographer (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per The Photographer, the unsharp foreground is distracting. Without it this had a good chance. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 23:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Lorenzo di Magnifico visits king Ferdinand of Aragon in Naples (Palazzo Vecchio, Florence).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2016 at 17:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Interior
- Info Fresco Lorenzo di Magnifico visits king Ferdinand of Aragon in Naples. Palazzio Vecchio, Florence. Done by Vasari and de Faenza. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Excesive noise reduction.--The Photographer (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- True, true...i put back on normal sharpness. --Mile (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- You could try use neat noise reduction --The Photographer (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I don't remember what this looks like in real life, so I'm giving you the benefit of any doubt that the colors look like that. My feeling is that those in the lunette are a bit faded in most of the picture frame, but the oval-shaped portrait below looks true, so I think all that means is that at least part of the lunette is unrestored (not a bad thing, in my opinion). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Per The Photpgrapher's oppose and Ikan's support. Could someone link to another picture of this (I can't seem to find one here on Commons) so we can better judge how accurately this has been rendered? Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Daniel Case good spot, which to compare with like Ikan Kekek said, and if there is no one. Interesting its exatcly none in our Commons. Try with official page. Photographer opposition is for previous photo, now its in normal mode. --Mile (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 20:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 23:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2016 at 16:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support From the ferry to Aegina, the greek coastline of Piraeus in background. Saronic gulf, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 19:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Question Nice picture but ... let's be honest, this is more a picture of the almost abstract symmetry of the rear of the ferry's upper deck that just happens to use Piraeus as a background, rather than a view of Piraeus. Right? Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with Daniel but wouldn't oppose a photo just because it's arguably mislabeled. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Oh, I'm not opposing—I like the photo, and if I wanted to oppose I would have opposed. I would just like the nominator to acknowledge what it's really a picture of. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support mislabeled or not - a fine, original picture anyway --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks all of you for comments and supports. No, the picture is not mislabeled: It is really the Piraeus harbor in background. But... What you see is what you see. I cannot disagree with this: "this is more a picture of the almost abstract symmetry of the rear of the ferry's upper deck that just happens to use Piraeus as a background, rather than a view of Piraeus." Feel free to open your mind ! The three important words in the title are "Ferry", "Aegina", and "Piraeus", useful as keywords for a research.--Jebulon (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment "Mislabeled" was by no means supposed to be offensive Jebulon! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I did not feel any offense in any way, dear Martin (and Daniel) !--Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment "Mislabeled" was by no means supposed to be offensive Jebulon! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks all of you for comments and supports. No, the picture is not mislabeled: It is really the Piraeus harbor in background. But... What you see is what you see. I cannot disagree with this: "this is more a picture of the almost abstract symmetry of the rear of the ferry's upper deck that just happens to use Piraeus as a background, rather than a view of Piraeus." Feel free to open your mind ! The three important words in the title are "Ferry", "Aegina", and "Piraeus", useful as keywords for a research.--Jebulon (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very nice symmetric composition. --Cayambe (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Greek beauty. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Now that all that's been cleared up. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Chien-Shiung Wu (1912-1997) in 1963 - Restoration.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 08:12:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Science Service / Smithsonian Institution - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - If this were a new photo, I might criticize some things about the composition including the cut-off man toward the right margin, but it's not and it's of a historically important person. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose It may well be of a historically significant person, but it's not a really effective portrait as she is a rather small part of the picture overall. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: But she's surrounded by her work, which is hardly irrelevant. =) We have photos that focus on her alone; this is more for showing her in action, as it were. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden: I just don't think it's a good photograph ... too much environment and not enough portrait. Now, if there were something historically imnportant about the photograph itself, I might see things differently. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: It's good for showing her laboratory. It gives some idea of her work, and is actually, in various crops, one of the most-used images of her. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden: I just don't think it's a good photograph ... too much environment and not enough portrait. Now, if there were something historically imnportant about the photograph itself, I might see things differently. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: But she's surrounded by her work, which is hardly irrelevant. =) We have photos that focus on her alone; this is more for showing her in action, as it were. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per DC. She gets lost amongst the machinery in this shot. INeverCry 23:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Sant'Andrea delle Fratte - Dome HDR.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 06:28:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Support - I wish the colors in the dome were more vibrant, but I figure this is the best you could do. But I wonder whether upping the contrast and/or color saturation could help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment any chance you can get rid of the CAs in the windows? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- well, there's still some CA left, but better anyway, so: Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 00:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 20:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose same color issues issues as usual. - Benh (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- same excuses meaningless, at least some originality ... is becoming more boring than usual --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Same mistakes same reviews. Not even mentioning underexposure. One doesn't even need to open it full size to see these. - Benh (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure,sure...only you do the rights things! Only you know where people wrong...sure. But please...--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 04:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Taraxacum officinale side makro.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2016 at 09:26:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Asteraceae
- Info Taraxacum officinale side makro. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - There might be examples of even sharper flower closeups, but I find this really beautiful, so I'm supporting it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support A little more light on the stem might have been nice, but the detail is so crisp. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- --Isasza (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 13:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2016 at 17:58:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Russia
- Info created + uploaded by N 3 14 15 92 65 - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 17:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 17:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful. I really like this photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Very strong support The sort of image I'm always hoping to come across here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- --Isasza (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice. ~ Moheen (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2016 at 21:01:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info Pobiti Kamani, Varna province, Bulgaria. Pobiti Kamani is considered the only desert in Bulgaria and one of few found in Europe and is a natural landmark in Bulgaria since the 1930s. The desert consists of sand dunes and several groups of natural rock formations on a total area of 13 square kilometres (5.0 sq mi). The formations are mainly stone columns between 5–7 metres (16–23 ft) high and from 0.3–3 metres (0.98–9.84 ft) thick. There are a number of theories regarding the phenomenon's origin. The pioneering hypothesis can be divided roughly into two groups: suggesting an organic (coral activity) or abiotic (prismatic weathering and desertification of the rocks, formation of sand and limestone concretions, or lower Eocene bubbling reefs) origin. All by me, Poco2 21:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 21:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support More Bulgaria. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 22:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - That's quite a dramatic picture, but could you please denoise the sky and crop out the unsharp rocks that are closest to the viewer? If the sky is sharp enough and the unsharp rocks are cropped out in such a way that the remaining composition looks good, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Another good Bulgarian pic. Although I think it would help to implement the changes Ikan suggests. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral per Ikan, and I’d suggest to clone out the electricity pylons in the background (left of center) which do not look so very desert-like. Then, use the "Retouched picture" template to inform about this alteration. --Kreuzschnabel 06:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you all for your feedback. I'll upload tonight (CET) a new version Poco2 06:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support very dramatic --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Well done -- Thennicke (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have uploaded a new version with a different bottom crop and a denoising of the sky. Ikan, what do you think? Poco2 18:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Arguably you could have cropped a bit more, but this is good enough for me. Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great atmosphere. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 13:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Buntspecht ♀ Dendrocopos major beim Füttern.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2016 at 22:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - After looking at this at full-page size, I was going to request for you to closely crop the woodpecker to the right, but at full size, nothing is sharp, so in my opinion, this is definitely not a featurable picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 01:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Insufficient DoF and very grainy. Try to have a brighter background behind the bird’s head. --Kreuzschnabel 14:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral While fully accepting that Kreuzschnabel and Ikan are dead on in their criticisms, I'd like to suggest downsampling and cropping as a possible improvement if anyone wants to try. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I could offer File:Buntspecht ♀ Dendrocopos major beim Füttern ks01.jpg but still wouldn’t support it. --Kreuzschnabel 06:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - It's better, but I wouldn't support it, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I could offer File:Buntspecht ♀ Dendrocopos major beim Füttern ks01.jpg but still wouldn’t support it. --Kreuzschnabel 06:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/
File:Canário-rasteiro.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2016 at 00:22:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
- Info created by Nortondefeis - uploaded by Nortondefeis - nominated by DarwIn -- Darwin Ahoy! 00:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Darwin Ahoy! 00:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Question Nice picture, however, Why this size if a Canon EOS 6D is a 20.2-megapixel full-frame? --The Photographer (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- weak support Small....but good,i can see good details--LivioAndronico (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral tending to oppose. Looks overexposed and oversharpened to me. --Kreuzschnabel 10:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Bird gets a little lost. However, cropping most of the rock out might fix that (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]- Info Cropped version. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per my comment above. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 05:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support small file but very appealing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good crop. The plant is a bit of a bother, but at least we got to keep some of the nice orange lichen. INeverCry 06:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this version as well, thank you for the crop ArionEstar.-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- weak support for above....however and 7 --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- --Isasza (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice but looks oversharpened to me, apart from its pixel-size being rather low now. --Kreuzschnabel 06:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't find the background contrasty enough for me to consider this a really great picture. The bright bokeh is not really easy on my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The bot
is(was) wrong. There was a clear vote to feature the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Caracas building.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2016 at 17:01:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Kind of awful sameness, in a way, but a good "abstract" photograph. (At first glance as a thumbnail, it looked like the resolution in an early video game to me, though that's beside the point.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support simply but amazing. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good one, would be interesting to see it all as "derivate". --Mile (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support awesome! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe QI and interesting for some reasons. But I don't feel any wow. --Hockei (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 20:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support In most cases I have serious problems to find the excellence in these abstract shots, but this one is different. The uniformity is striking. Out of two cases even every variation (open window, air conditioner, inner room ...) is repeated. Question @ The Photographer: Have you got further information regarding the function of the building. It would be interesting to know more about the reason for that uniformity. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment and question Tuxyso. It was "Instituto Universitario de Caracas" today a indoctrination University of Venezuela dictatorship UNEFA, and these offices are occupied by military personnel, possibly obsessed with order. --The Photographer (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- --Isasza (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great shot but really an horrible building! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Delisted in January 20, 2024 with 17 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Caracas building.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
File:Dome of Duomo di Città di Castello.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2016 at 21:36:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Some glare but good image. --Mile (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Mile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support One of your best, Livio. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Benzol (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Fra Københavns Børs.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2016 at 16:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
- Info painted by P.S. Krøyer - photographed and uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Benzol (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 13:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Shuvo Mazumder (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I know how such pictures are difficult to take... Excellent result. Capitalists of all countries, unite !!--Jebulon (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes (and thanks) - it toke nearly two hours, we have to blend light out of the room, there was severel windows to blend and room was nearly in darkness. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2016 at 00:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
- Info created by Peder Severin Krøyer - uploaded by UFA66 with noise reduction by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 00:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 00:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Fine, Pine! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Cheers! Great painting, notable, artistically excellent, and a high quality capture. Diliff (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- My only complaint about the painting itself is the man, second from the left, who has a big white dollop of paint on his forehead, not in keeping with the more realistic skin tones of the others. A little too impressionist for me! (or is it a 19th century form of sun cream? ;-) ) Diliff (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ----Isasza (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 01:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Passeio de Buggy nas dunas de Genipabu 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2016 at 23:34:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Brazil
- Info created by Jjunoo - uploaded by Jjunoo - nominated by DarwIn -- Darwin Ahoy! 23:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Darwin Ahoy! 23:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is a beautiful view, but I don't find the composition as good as in the other dune buggy picture below. In the other picture, the ground is more nearly level and its color contrasts beautifully at right angles with the blue sky and with the ocean in the background. Here, we have a great view, but the single dune buggy and the large amount of nearly featureless sand seems incongruous with a middleground of pastel-colored buildings, a very active sky and a background of an arcing elevated highway, city skyline and green coastal hills. I would actually like this photo better if there were no dune buggy, no people, and much less sand. Also, whatever the parallel lined structure to the left of the dune buggy is, I find it distracting. So, to sum up: Interesting, good picture with great middleground and background but problematic foreground, and therefore, to me, questionable for a feature.
I haven't decided whether to oppose yet, however.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC) - Neutral It’s certainly nice yet I tend to oppose mostly per Ikan. Colour balance is off IMHO, the sky is too blueish. Colours of car and village look more like a painting, a bit washed-out and channel-blown (the red top of the lady in the car). Many white areas look blown. All in all this is rather a work of art than an educational image of informative character for encyclopedial use. I wonder if it’s stronger when all the featureless parts are cropped out (see annotation), the framing strikes me a bit "too tall". --Kreuzschnabel 05:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan and Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 19:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
File:"Broke, baby sick, and car trouble!" - Dorothea Lange's photo of a Missouri family of five in the vicinity of Tracy, California.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2016 at 14:52:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
- Info created by Dorothea Lange - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Info This is said in the image description, but.... The LoC has two scans of this, each mirror images of each other (ignoring the poor quality of one of the scans). I checked the image for evidence of which was correct, and realised that a sign is just visible in front of the jalopy. Enough of the letters are visible to confirm this chirality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support interesting --Mile (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support A classic. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Escagnès (hameau), Roquebrun 01.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2016 at 15:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 16:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose An interesting landscape in great detail. However, while I understand that the point of having the vineyard in the foreground is to give the whole thing perspective, its diagonals clash too much with the lines elsewhere in the image (For me). Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support The colours are subtle in this; it really creates an atmosphere -- Thennicke (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ----Isasza (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like it indeed --A.Savin 23:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2016 at 09:51:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
- Info created by Jjunoo - uploaded by Jjunoo - nominated by DarwIn -- Darwin Ahoy! 09:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Darwin Ahoy! 09:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 17:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Starkness and monochromaticity actually work in favor of this one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - That's quite beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Amazing tones. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
* Neutral The horizon needs to be corrected --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Martin Falbisoner: Tilted horizon corrected. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! clearly Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Martin Falbisoner: Tilted horizon corrected. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Could be worthy a consideration, but the quality is rather on the poor side. Sorry --A.Savin 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per A.Savin. Idea and composition are FP-worthy but I expect an FPC of just 5 mpix to be crisp sharp. --Kreuzschnabel 05:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Nice tilt correction but with up-scaling. --Laitche (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Sergelgatan May 2016 02.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2016 at 06:55:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created and uploaded by Arild Vågen - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I find this a wonderful cityscape of a cavernous space in a photo that has a long horizontal view and also quite strong verticals. All the elements create a very pleasant rhythm for the eyes. I hope no-one dismisses this as "too busy" before looking all around the picture frame and seeing whether in this case, busy works. To me it does in a pretty big way, especially at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support No, it's not too busy. Or at least not so much that its busyness overwhelms the aesthetic pleasures of this image that you have already noted so adequately as to not require any repetition on my part. I will add only that it deepens my appreciation of IKEA. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I laughed at your remark on IKEA. Glad you like the photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. My first thought looking at this is that it's a shame that it's not more symmetrical. The view is looking slightly diagonally across the scene, and this has the effect of tilting the horizontal lines. The most obvious effect is the street lights hanging at the bottom of the frame, which have been tilted by the perspective. It could be corrected in post, but would have been better if the photographer aligned it better to begin with IMO. Diliff (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I hadn't really thought about that. Arild, any comment? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for nomination and comments! The street is not straight, perhaps you can say that it is a symmetrical photo of a nonsymmetrical scene. I think the camera is pointing in the same direction as the left and right buildings in the foreground, and it also gives a balance between left and right side. As you can see from the map, there are only one footbridge above the street that it is possible to shoot from. I also like this urban "canyon", so I don't wont to move the camera more to the left. Furthermore, I don't think the street lights is parallel to the street in the first place. To summarize; although they are somewhat unfortunate I don't think the street lights is a big problem and I think there are stronger reasons to choose this composition. Regards--ArildV (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - ArildV, thank you for your photo and comments. Feel free to vote on this nomination if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - No-one else feels like voting on this? I think this is a masterful photo of a cavernous urban space. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Vaca rubia galega, Cervo, Lugo 01.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2016 at 20:04:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info created by Elisardojm - uploaded by Elisardojm - nominated by Elisardojm -- Elisardojm (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Elisardojm (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Thanks for participating. However, I don't find this picture especially outstanding in any way, such that it should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. Good QI, but not FP material. INeverCry 22:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - --Isasza (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Picked the wrong file during nomination accidentally? Apart from the rather commonplace motif and straightforward composition, the only outstanding issue on this nomination is its low technical quality (detail loss due to noise reduction). Even my phonecam takes better pictures. Would Isasza kindly explain why this ought to be featured? --Kreuzschnabel 18:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others above. --Cayambe (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I thought at first that this might have been nominated because it looks at first glance like a two-headed cow, but I can see from the comments above that that appears not to be the case, and if so no further discussion is necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for your comments! :) --Elisardojm (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Lieber --Freund Kreuzschnabel Erlauben Sie mir Bitte meine Eigener Hinsicht zu äussern über dieser sehr gute Aufnahme. I mean ; this picture is maybe not outstandig composed, (two headed cow) but certainly sharp enought and with the natural colors. The subject is fairly standard but representative and strong evocative one of the country life. --Isasza (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining, and sorry for my (maybe too) harsh words. Unfortunately, Featured Pictures is not about showing correct colours or being fairly sharp. Try Quality Images instead. It’s not about funny pictures either (by the way, I don’t see a two-headed cow here, it’s clearly two cows standing in a line, no deception). --Kreuzschnabel 19:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Viagem inaugural do VLT carioca 02.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2016 at 17:55:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
- Info created by Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 17:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 17:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice photo though not perfect (lower right is unsharp). What kind of vehicle is this? A tram? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: It's a VLT ("Veículo leve sobre trilhos" – light rail vehicle), inaugurated in Rio de Janeiro as part of the Olympic works. For more information, see pt:VLT do Rio de Janeiro. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Different and striking. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Original --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 22:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Though agree with Kekek, and have some perspective problem but I like it. ~ Moheen (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose To be honest, I don't understand why it should be featured on Commons. --A.Savin 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The answer would be that it's an interesting composition that's pretty and sufficiently well executed for a feature, but obviously you don't see it that way; no wow for you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I recognize that it's quite a creative composition, but for featurability on Commons (albeit, no idea how handled in local FPC's on wikipedia), minimal educational value should be there, which I fail to see here. --A.Savin 14:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Any good photo has educational value per se. This is a photography site, not just an adjunct to an encyclopedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I recognize that it's quite a creative composition, but for featurability on Commons (albeit, no idea how handled in local FPC's on wikipedia), minimal educational value should be there, which I fail to see here. --A.Savin 14:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, but I can't do anything with it. Too narrow, strong distortion, not a very creative composition. It's a funny idea either but the very dark reflecting surface doesn't expand the image impression. The vanishing point is not set optimal too. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Catedral de la Dormición de la Madre de Dios, Varna, Bulgaria, 2016-05-27, DD 112-114 HDR.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2016 at 21:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Varna, Bulgaria. The temple is the largest and most famous Bulgarian Orthodox cathedral in the Bulgarian Black Sea port city of Varna, and the second largest in Bulgaria (after cathedral Alexander Nevski in Sofia). Officially opened in 1886, it's the residence of the bishopric of Varna and Preslav and one of the symbols of Varna. All by me, Poco2 21:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 21:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral A pity the crop at the bottom. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Support - It's a little unsharp at the top of the picture frame, but for compositional reasons, I don't think I'd suggest cropping that part out. The frescoes in the dome are quite beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. I generally look with favor on images from my son's birth country, which is underrepresented among our FPs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Very washed colors (HDR?), crop bellow and on top are bad, also sticks-lamp everywhere dont help at this shot. QI perhaps. --Mile (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Mile. INeverCry 18:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I just uploaded a new version with an increase of contrast and an improvement of symmetry. About the crop, well, somewhere you have to crop. My intention with this shot was to show both domes keeping that nice column in the middle everything else was secondary and you have to crop somewhere. Poco2 18:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: For me, the sticking point is that crooked black chandelier at bottom. Not your fault, but I probably would've ended up supporting if that wasn't present. Besides, I thought you were more of a landscape guy? INeverCry 21:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- INeverCry: I'm rather a photograph guy and enjoy landscape, but also architecture, macro or interiors photography ;) Among my uploads you'll find everything. Poco2 04:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: For me, the sticking point is that crooked black chandelier at bottom. Not your fault, but I probably would've ended up supporting if that wasn't present. Besides, I thought you were more of a landscape guy? INeverCry 21:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Benzol (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination A pity, I anyhow really like it Poco2 07:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Orthetrum cancellatum svk.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2016 at 19:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
- Info created by Bojars - uploaded by Bojars - nominated by Bojars -- Bojars (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Bojars (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral Not sure this reaches FP threshold for dragonflies. Crop on left too tight, and it’s very small (by pixels) already. --Kreuzschnabel 06:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel, & lighting isn't that flattering or pleasing overall. INeverCry 18:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Per INC; seems like a different white balance setting could have been chosen, for starters. Also, composition doesn't work as background is too distracting despite the shallow DoF. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Astropecten lorioli.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2016 at 03:24:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
- Info created and uploaded by Didier Descouens - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Nice picture. Could you sharpen it a bit more? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Yes it's possible; a new version was introduced. Thank you to Thennicke for its nommination. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I Support a feature now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Carlos Natário (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 01:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2016 at 07:14:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info View of the Salar de Uyuni, the surrounding mountains and giant cactuses (Echinopsis atacamensis) in Incahuasi island, Daniel Campos Province, Potosí Department, southwest Bolivia, not far from the crest of the Andes. This salt flat is, with a surface of 10,582 square kilometers (4,086 sq mi), the world's largest. All by me, Poco2 07:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 07:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral for the time being... harsh contrasts and a bit problematic lighting. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @Diego: Won't you give it another shot? The image could still make it. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Martin: I understand and agree with your comment but I've started my trip ending up in Esino Lario and don't have access until then to my RAW files and I'd like to try a new version using the RAW. I was just awaiting some more feedback from other reviewers. Poco2 08:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd also encourage you to edit this photo. I preferred to wait for you to edit the photo than to pass judgment on it in this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, Ikan, Martin, will do it like this, I take it back for now and after rework will re-nominate it Poco2 09:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd also encourage you to edit this photo. I preferred to wait for you to edit the photo than to pass judgment on it in this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Martin: I understand and agree with your comment but I've started my trip ending up in Esino Lario and don't have access until then to my RAW files and I'd like to try a new version using the RAW. I was just awaiting some more feedback from other reviewers. Poco2 08:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @Diego: Won't you give it another shot? The image could still make it. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Martin. INeverCry 03:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Poco2 09:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Jaipur 03-2016 02 Amber Fort.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2016 at 22:34:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#India
- Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 22:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 22:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Could possibly be denoised a little more, for the benefit of the sky and water, if that doesn't harm anything. But certainly deserves a feature, in my opinion. One thing I really like is the rhyming diagonals of the river and sky that sandwich the fortifications. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 23:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful -- Jiel (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2016 at 07:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info View of a path and the Miscanti lake, altiplano of the Antofagasta Region, northern Chile. The brackish water lake, located in Los Flamencos National Reserve, is separated from Miñiques Lake by a lava flow from an eruption of Miñiques volcano. All by me, Poco2 07:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 07:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very nice! --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Chilean beauty. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Beautifully stark. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great depth and composition. No visible problems. --Laveol (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice photo Jiel (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2016 at 04:45:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info Walkway to bird observation tower Zeearend. Location, Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good picture as usual but not FP to me because it's too gray, to the extent that the sky doesn't even seem like it has any volume, to my eyes. Do you know what I mean? It kind of sits there, with no kind of variation anywhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 13:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Normally I would probably agree with Ikan Kekek, but in this case I think the sky suits the general mood of the scene very well. --El Grafo (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I'm not that worried about the sky. That's the way the sky looks sometimes; and like El Grafo I think it suits the picture. A bit more sharpness perhaps, and the person in the picture is slightly distracting, but still FP in my opinion. --Pugilist (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like the mood. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support The person in the photo is a slight distraction, but I like this overall. INeverCry 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Ikan. A QI for sure but I'm just not wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Nice but lacks wow. --Kreuzschnabel 08:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice picture, composition very authentic -- Jiel (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support After consideration. I do wish the sky wasn't so grey, but the composition is very nice, as are the textures on the grass. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Nikitski monastery in Pereslavl-Zalessky.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2016 at 17:01:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info created by JukoFF - uploaded by JukoFF - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- JukoFF (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose overprocessed, oversaturated. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Have some perspective problem also. ~ Moheen (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 17:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per others, and also bad crops on the left and right. But please try taking more photographs of this great motif, keeping these critiques in mind. A really good photo of this motif would surely be featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Almost psychedelically Oversaturated, as noted by others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- JukoFF Ребята сказала - скучаю фото храмов, только надо нормальное, качественое фото. --Mile (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Vueling the World Full Reverse (26900824443).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2016 at 18:47:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Airliners
- Info created by Javier Rodríguez - uploaded & nominated by Dura-Ace -- Dura-Ace (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Dura-Ace (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not a very interesting composition to me. What's the argument for a feature? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. Composition doesn't work well, especially with the line of yellow vehicles directly above the plane, and the overall tilt. INeverCry 20:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. Compositionally, looks like a vacation snapshot from someone's Instagram feed; technically, has posterization on engines plus horrific unsharpness on background vehicles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Tight crop, noisy, tilted, unsharp. Far from QI level. Nothing of special interest in composition or contents. What’s supposed to be featurable here? --Kreuzschnabel 10:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
File:2016 Invictus Games, US Wheelchair Basketball Team plays UK for gold 160512-D-BB251-004.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2016 at 15:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People Events (Arts, concerts, shows...)
- Info created by Roger Wollenberg - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Action photography, so I believe a slight graininess at full resolution is unavoidable. -- Fæ (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Wow… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Question - Can the subjects be made clearer? At full size, nothing seems really sharp. I realize you addressed this above, Fæ, but even so, could the sharpness be increased without messing up anything else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't know whether the photograph was subject to post processing, perhaps someone familiar with the Nikon D750 is more aware of whether the settings shown in the EXIF, such as high gain, will give this effect. I'll send an email to the photographer to see if this is the unprocessed original, but there's no guarantee they'll get back to me. ( email sent) --Fæ (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't know whether the photograph was subject to post processing, perhaps someone familiar with the Nikon D750 is more aware of whether the settings shown in the EXIF, such as high gain, will give this effect. I'll send an email to the photographer to see if this is the unprocessed original, but there's no guarantee they'll get back to me. ( email sent) --Fæ (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Roger Wollenberg came back to me by email last night, and has seen the discussion here (so be kindly with technical comments please! ). His original image is 3,500 x 2,549, the same as this file and with the same EXIF data. He explains that the photograph is in focus but could not be made sharper due to the speed of the game and necessary shutter speed. As the event was indoors, there needed to be a high ISO and as this was a real sports event rather than a composition, options such as using high powered lights were impossible. As the photograph has not been post-processed there is no alternative original. --Fæ (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. Thanks for asking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Roger Wollenberg came back to me by email last night, and has seen the discussion here (so be kindly with technical comments please! ). His original image is 3,500 x 2,549, the same as this file and with the same EXIF data. He explains that the photograph is in focus but could not be made sharper due to the speed of the game and necessary shutter speed. As the event was indoors, there needed to be a high ISO and as this was a real sports event rather than a composition, options such as using high powered lights were impossible. As the photograph has not been post-processed there is no alternative original. --Fæ (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great action shot, and given the constraints of creation I think we can forgive the noise, waxiness and subdued colors. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Noise might be acceptable if it would be in full size, now seems to be downsized on half. --Mile (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a bad shot but still lacks wow for me. Might support if it wasn’t for the drawbacks: hands in shadow, faces turned away (hiding most features), softness and graininess despite downscaling. Altogether a straightforward, well-done sports shot but nothing outstanding for me. I strongly suggest to crop out the bottom part to get rid of the distracting white line. --Kreuzschnabel 07:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have cropped out the white line on the sports floor. If anyone think this is not an improvement, I'll happily revert to the original. --Fæ (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. The white line didn't bother me, but as for the rest, even if I look at the photo at full-page size, in which the subjects are clear enough, the fact that they're in shadow makes this less than one of the most outstanding pictures on the site, in my opinion, even though it's still a good picture. Also, for my taste, the crowd is too blurred, but that didn't even have to figure in my decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2016 at 15:16:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
- Info created by Jamal Sutter - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Unsure if Non-photographic media is the best category, there not being one for photographs of contemporary artworks or murals. The work is two canvases, one war and one peace. -- Fæ (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Unusual FPC of art. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I prefer the one on the right, hands-down. INeverCry 18:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I'd say the "Peace" panel could be more peaceful (with less disorder in the details), but that's quibbling. It's a fine photo, the mural is not bad, and it's certainly interesting enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Well-done digitization. And interesting that this was created by an active-duty servicemember ... the U.S. military is not exactly (by design, of course) a hotbed of artistic creativity. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 00:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Gorgeous. ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 01:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2016 at 17:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
- Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I think I'll look at this picture again tomorrow before voting, but I'd just like to point out for your note that the English word for <<seconde>> is "second". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Insufficient DoF, most of the main subject is unsharp (even its head!). Distracting background/surrounding. Nice shot but not outstanding to feature IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 07:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - My first impulse was to oppose this picture, but I thought I'd look again on another day before making my mind up. I don't have anything against "busy" backgrounds if the composition works, but in this case, the background distracts this viewer from the mantis and part of the prey is cut off by an unsharp vine in the foreground. Per Kreuzschnabel's point, perhaps if the background and foreground weren't both bokeh, the composition might add up to me. As it is, this is certainly a good enough capture of the mantis (look at its facial expression!) to be a Quality Image and a Valued Image, but while I respect that, I don't think the composition is good enough for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support good for me,the sobject is clear --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support The shapes in the background complement the mantis, for once, rather than distracting from it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support even, when the surrounding is a little anxiously. --Hubertl 20:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice camouflage! --Laitche (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Canion Fortaleza, Cambará do Sul - Brasil 03.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2016 at 22:49:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created and uploaded by Jjunoo - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I find myself thinking "Hey, don't fall off!" But I don't think the person detracts from the picture; I think the picture is about the person facing a vast and impressive natural phenomenon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support very good composition --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 19:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I am not convinced. As for composition, I’d prefer a wider angle here, showing where the canyon to the left leads to. As for quality, well, of course I wasn’t present when the frame was taken but contrast looks overdone to me, so does sharpness, and the brown grass on the left apparently suffered from noise reduction. Taking into account the relatively small pixel size for a static motif, I think this does not reach FP threshold, though it’s really nice. --Kreuzschnabel 06:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Milseburg (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kreuz. ~ Moheen (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kreuz. A pano from 2-4 images will be a better alternative for this kind of objects. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2016 at 19:33:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info created and uploaded by Nortondefeis - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Uninteresting composition. Compare this picture, which is a FP in Category:Ozotoceros bezoarticus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. The FP he links is clearly superior. INeverCry 21:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Bacurauzinho.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2016 at 08:54:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info created and uploaded by Nortondefeis - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - This is properly a Valued Image, and also a Quality Image. If I had my druthers, I wouldn't feature this kind of photo, in which part of a bird is inordinately blurred, not for sound compositional reasons, but for technical reasons having to do with the tradeoffs one currently still may have to make when taking a closeup picture. Nor do I really like this kind of close-in bokeh, though it certainly could be worse. Most of the bird is quite sharp and beautiful, but that's not enough for me to support a feature. The only reason I'm not opposing is that if everyone else unanimously agrees the photo should be featured, I have no interest in slowing down its progress. Also, while I've said my piece here, I certainly don't oppose this photo as much as previous nominees in which a much larger percentage of the subject was inordinately blurred or the bokeh was vertiginous. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. The unsharpness is distracting, and the bird's coloration works well to protect it from predators but, alas, also makes it stand out less in its environment, and thus this photograph. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 19:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Панорама на Лазарополе (3).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2016 at 10:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose - Until I looked at this picture at full-page size, I was thinking I wouldn't find the composition good enough to support, but at full-page size, I like the circular movement and the church moderately, so maybe it's good enough on that basis. However, at full size, the focus seems a bit soft. I also find that the dull light doesn't help enough. So while I respect what's good about this photo, I tend to think it isn't outstanding enough for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan Kekek, as mention here. ~ Moheen (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Worthy of QI probably, but doesn't quite have the wow of an FP. INeverCry 22:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others – too soft, trying to save the dull lighting by overdone contrast. Doesn’t work for me. --Kreuzschnabel 05:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose too soft --Mile (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. Great composition and color, but f/1.8 was just wrong for this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Marsh-Belgrad-Forest2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2016 at 15:07:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Mohsen Fayazi - uploaded by mfaiiazi - nominated by Mfaiiazi -- Mfaiiazi (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Mfaiiazi (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: watermark in center, bright parts overexposed, colour bleeding, unsharp --Kreuzschnabel 16:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC) | 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:Calanque Sormiou Wikimedia Commons.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2016 at 14:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
- Info Calanque of Sormiou, France.
- Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Would be even better if there was a bit less shadow on the right but very good anyroad. --Kreuzschnabel 14:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Great photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The large portion in shadow ruins it for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Because of the large portion in shadow, sorry, per King of Hearts. --Cayambe (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think the shadow is very well-handled and helps create a left-right balance. But each to their own! -- Thennicke (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose shadow --Mile (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, unfortunately ;) I really went wrong with processing as well. - Benh (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - You have the right to withdraw the nomination as photographer, if you like. As I posted above, I like this photo, but I certainly wouldn't stand in your way (nor would I really have the right to do so) if you wanted to withdraw this nomination and nominate a photo you like better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the nomination but as per the opposers. Benh (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Promena na godisni vreminja vo Jasen.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2016 at 09:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by MartinDimitrievski - uploaded by MartinDimitrievski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Very colorful, of course. I wasn't sure whether I was convinced by the composition, but I didn't even have to decide about that in order to oppose this, because there are several very unsharp areas at full size, and the size is certainly adequate but not so huge that ignoring this degree of unsharpness should be considered on that basis. So I'm sorry to say that I think this photo fails on quality alone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality issues, per Ikan. The 70-200 f/4 isn't the sharpest lens at 200mm, but this photo seems to show some sort of lens misalignment as well. Which is unfortunate, because it's a good abstract and the colours are nice. -- Thennicke (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Idea and composition are featurable IMHO but there has to be adequate quality --Kreuzschnabel 14:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 22:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Hommik metsas.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 13:05:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created and uploaded by Külli Kolina - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Nice image depicting the brilliance of nature! Target360YT (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Surreal atmosphere. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
NeutralVery nice idea and nice pic, which I’d love to support, but … considerable noise all over the image, colours oversaturated IMHO, and some chromatic aberration. --Kreuzschnabel 16:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC) – Changing to Oppose having had a second look at it, in the first place for severe noise (caused by brightening I suppose, which is not necessary, the image could be darker altogether), and the bracken looks oversaturated. Composition would be finer for me if the path was better visible, offering a diagonal line. So, try again, since the idea is really nice. --Kreuzschnabel 05:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)- Oppose - This is certainly a good photo, but it doesn't wow me much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support One of those "pictures I am always trying, usually without success, to take" Very well done. I love that sunburst despite the wider aperture than usual. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 00:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. Seems like the whole point of this image was to try to make a sunstar, without any thought for composition -- Thennicke (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Rabameeleolu.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2016 at 11:19:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created and uploaded by Külli Kolina - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Really beautiful. Not too colorful, although kinda bright! Target360YT (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The landscape is nice but there are multiple quality issues that matter. The overall colours of the image are washed off; the water as well as some of the plants seem quite overexposed; the plants at the bottom are unsharp; there are also many noisy areas.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski's points. This looks a bit like a fantasy landscape, but with those colors and degree of focus, not quite a real one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Considering the time of the year and hour of the day (early October morning, where the frost is covering the land), then it would be unreasonable to say that the colors are washed out. And I don't see any overexposure problem. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Ivo. The colours are not the main reason for opposition. There are also many noisy and unsharp areas, especially at the bottom of the image, while the tree on the left side has some chromatic aberration. Some of these issues may be fixed. The landscape is, however, very nice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Kruusmagi's comment above. The frost gives the scene a surreal appearance ... it sort of looks like an old hand-tinted image. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The focus looks strange to me. The tree in the foreground ist sharp, the plants behind this are unsharp and the trees in the background are again sharp. It looks to me like a failed focus stacking. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 00:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as Berthold said it well, there is focus issue IMO impossible with a single shot. It look for me a photo montage of 2 photo, one with a very small DoF in foreground (first tree in focus and just behind totally out of focus), then a connection in the water with a second photo with a bigger DoF and a new focus point. In any case of what it is, photo montage or focus stacking, I find it a bit too disturbing, that jumped at my eyes the first time I opened it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Weird focus with no explanation -- Thennicke (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose due to focus issues. They probably stacked two images but neglected the middle, which makes it look very unnatural. A pity because this is a great image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Mountains-1412683.svg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2016 at 02:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
- Info created by m5tef - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 02:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Quite impressive, considering it's an SVG file. -- ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 02:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - If this were a photograph, we'd say it's severely posterized, and even with it not being judged as a photograph, I would still point out that there's a large area of darkness on the bottom that just sits there. What criteria do you feel we should use to judge this image? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Other criteria aside, content and file format don't match: This is not at true SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics). It is just a raster graphics file embedded in a SVG file as binary data → tagged it {{BadSVG}}. Looks like it might have been created in a vector graphics application though, so I suspect that something might have gone wrong when saving the file (or maybe Pixbay messed up?). In that case, it should be re-uploaded as a true vector graphic in SVG. Otherwise, a raster graphics format like PNG would be more appropriate. --El Grafo (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per El Grafo. ~ Moheen (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose nice fine art, but not featured for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 20:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the technical issues noted above | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
File:2016 Brama Wodna w Bystrzycy Kłodzkiej 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2016 at 08:40:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Something happend in post-processing – there’s a bright seam along the masonry edge (against sky and background forest) --Kreuzschnabel 16:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose In addition to the seam noted by Kreuz, the colors are kind of washed out and the interplay of the forms just does not work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 01:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Rabindranath Tagore.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 22:14:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by South Asia Journal - restored - uploaded by Amitabho - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~ Moheen (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- ~ Moheen (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Support I can't say no to a writer photograph. Some spots need removing, but good overall. His The Hungry Stones and Other Stories is excellent. INeverCry 01:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- The tightness of the left crop is a bit bothersome too; perhaps there's a version somewhere with more space at left. INeverCry 01:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good photo, but to be featured, it would need digital restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, but as a restorer, I disagree. Restoration is never a mandatory...--Jebulon (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree. It's not needed when the photo is in sufficiently good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, but as a restorer, I disagree. Restoration is never a mandatory...--Jebulon (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Copyright information is incomplete, needs a tag for copyright status in the US. {{PD-India-URAA}} seems not totally unlikely to apply, but essential information for that is missing. --El Grafo (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination It's OK. I understand. ~ Moheen (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Koenigssee - Hirschau Peninsula 01.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2016 at 09:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
- Info Traditional house and alpine landscape on Hirschau peninsula, Königssee, Bavaria. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Support- Pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
* Support I was wondering if landscape would work better. Good anyway. --Mile (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
* Support INeverCry 19:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice scenery but the leftmost third is entirely unsharp. Snow fields blown, green on fellside lacks detail. The house is crisp sharp but that does not make the shot outstanding in my eyes, that would require crisp sharp mountains too. Rather focus on the background, the house is still within DoF at f/8 or f/11. Is this 12 mpix frame cropped or downscaled? I’d prefer a landscape framing as well, in case of crop perhaps thats possible. --Kreuzschnabel 06:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment A couple of good questions: 1) I chose to take this shot in portrait orientation. This may have been a mistake but I hoped to avoid perspective correction in post processing. Holding my camera perpendicular and still catching a good portion of the sky at the same time was impossible with landscape framing. 2) Why isn't everything crisp? Honestly, I don't know. At f/8, 20mm pretty much everything should be sharp in theory, no matter where the focus actually is (I did focus on the house here). Maybe it was the polarizer? I can't offer any explanation. Still, background sharpness isn't an overly crucial factor here, imo. I still like the picture the way it is. 3). So yes, the picture is a crop, based on a raw file taken in portrait mode. I never ever downscale my pics. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]- Info landscape framing - as far as possible (cf. above), pinging Ikan Kekek, Mile, ArionEstar, INeverCry, Kreuzschnabel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Agree for the f/11 ...but nice composition --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Moving vote here. --Mile (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Fine! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I still like the cropped version, but this is even better. INeverCry 18:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with the others that this is a better composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 19:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support The other image is rather good, but this is the better one. --Milseburg (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 00:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Very weak party-poop oppose Crop is an improvement and I so want to like this image. But I have two issues I can't make myself get past: First, the unsharpness on the ridgeline. I believe Martin when he says that he can't explain that. And yes, it's not the important part of the image. But we've had similar FPs where there was less unsharpness on distant features, and I don't think "I can't explain this" is an adequate enough answer for me to forgive that.
Second, the WB is a little too cool. I know it's an image with predominantly cool colors, but surely that adjustment could have been made so it doesn't feel so much like it was lit by a giant fluorescent lamp. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support the composition is far better. --Hubertl 20:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2016 at 16:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Iris.
- Info Flower Iris sibirica 'Alba'. Location, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Support. Nice composition, the flower is mostly clear with nice texture, and the bokeh is acceptable to me, though it would be nice if that twig in the lower right were somehow less visible, as that particular blurring feels just a bit aggressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Faded twig.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support Composition is pretty standard, but the execution is near flawless. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2016 at 03:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
- Info Vertical panorama of Australia's National Carillon
(sorry for the spelling mistake in the filename). - Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice vertical picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support File, you can easily change.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 01:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support A nice abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Please change the spelling of the filename. I'd do it if I were sure editing the name by itself wouldn't mess up the link. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done I've placed a rename template on the image; it should be fixed soon enough. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I am not a fan of 100% rectilinear projections. In this case like many others, the impression arises that the top of the tower is wider than the base, which most probably isn't the case. In my opinion, pictures in Wikipedia should accurately represent the actual geometry of a building.--Hendric Stattmann (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comment. In reality the top is exactly the same width as the base, and the picture shows the same, so there's no vertical distortion. Think of the rectilinear projection as a fancy way of saying "perspective correction", as used in countless featured architecture pictures here on Commons. See [1] to get an idea of the structure. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2016 at 15:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
- Info created by Carlos Natário - uploaded by Carlos Natário - nominated by Cnatario -- Carlos Natário (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Carlos Natário (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Carlos Natário: Please fill up the category above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - High educational value but rather grainy at full resolution. I'm currently undecided on whether to feature but slightly leaning toward opposing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Ikan Kekek The image has 10.000 pix and a grainy aspect at 100%, which is monstrous in a regular screen. I could downsize to a 5000-7000 pix (still a big image for any standard) and have a better look at full resolution after appropriate digital darkroom work for the new resolution.BUT… if anyone wants to print a poster of a generous format from this image (like I already do with some works) the resulting printing has much worse results after the necessary upscaling.
Note : … And YES! I'm aware that printing is not a criteria defined by present regulations, but nevertheless my option is to create the best work for this fantastic community --Carlos Natário (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 01:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 03:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 10:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Good arguments (and please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes [~] in a row). I will Support a feature on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Volksgarten 6652-Pano groß 80.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2016 at 19:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
- Info Rose garden in the Volksgarten, Vienna, all by -- Hubertl 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Hubertl 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 20:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Wonderful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great panorama! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support leiwand! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I would reduce highlights - building. --Mile (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)- Comment I did it already, it was extremely bright - plus heavy shadows and contrasts in the tree-areas, and the Burgtheater itself was recently fresh painted. White. --Hubertl 06:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I tried a bit more. Mile --Hubertl 07:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I did it already, it was extremely bright - plus heavy shadows and contrasts in the tree-areas, and the Burgtheater itself was recently fresh painted. White. --Hubertl 06:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Building is now much better visible, my pupille doesnt close like on sunshine. --Mile (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --ElBute (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Yesss, reminds me my first trip to Vienna. The project: "Südtirols Jugend lernt Wien kennen". Seven days of :-D (AD 1965) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral I will not oppose because I think it's indeed in our finest, however the photo(s) have been clearly overexposed (building, peoples at left, flowers) to my eyes, therefore I can not support. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2016 at 17:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support One can see this ancient athenian wall in the "Street of the Tombs" of the Kerameikos. This is the beginning of the Sacred Way (Ἱερὰ Ὁδός), from Athens to Eleusis, used for processions and ceremonies.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Thanks for noticing this as a good motif for photography, taking the photograph and posting it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Amazing how precise the cuts of the stones are considering the age of the wall. INeverCry 20:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Appears a bit underexposed (Sujet fascinant au passage, il se trouve que je lis ce livre et que je viens de passer le chapitre sur la culture grecque) - Benh (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Benh, you are right. I have enhanced the light, contrast and colors. It is more real and less greyish like this (see the plant). I hope previous (and further !) reviewers will agree. Bonne idée de se cultiver. La culture gréco-latine est fascinante, et je m'y laisse facilement prendre si tu regardes mon parcours photographique ces temps-ci (malgré une incursion danoise chez Slaunger)... La Grèce est un pays merveilleux qu'on ne doit pas laisser tomber.--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Gros hors sujet (d'avance, je vais rester neutre à cause de la nature du sujet, mais le contraste est peut être poussé, regarde les parties claires). J'avais bien remarqué ton penchant pour la Grèce ;) Oui, je suis fasciné pour la beauté de l'art grecque, et par le génie civil romain. Et oui, je réalise qu'on doit beaucoup aux grecs (et aux romains). Mais bizarrement, j'ai commencé à lire ce livre après avoir vu un très bon documentaire sur la fin de l'empire Ottoman sur Arte (Partie 1 et partie 2, je te recommande), qui m'a fait comprendre que les anglais et français sont un peu pour quelque chose dans la situation chaotique au moyen orient et sur les attentats et que tous nos discours me paraissent un peu hypocrites. Bref fin du hors sujet. - Benh (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tu parles des Accords Sykes-Picot, alors que les Anglais avaient promis monts et merveilles aux Arabes s'ils se soulevaient contre les Turcs, via Lawrence d'Arabie, qui du coup en a mangé son keffieh. Et pendant ce temps-là, ils promettaient aussi un pays aux Juifs en Palestine Déclaration Balfour de 1917. Duplicité so british, mais on n'a pas été très "clean" non plus... Résultat: le boxon. Et De Gaulle en rajoute en 44 ("Je volais vers l'Orient compliqué avec des idées simples"), surtout que le Levant français était pro-Vichy, et que des soldats français se sont tirés dessus mutuellement en Syrie... Rien de nouveau sous le soleil.--Jebulon (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Gros hors sujet (d'avance, je vais rester neutre à cause de la nature du sujet, mais le contraste est peut être poussé, regarde les parties claires). J'avais bien remarqué ton penchant pour la Grèce ;) Oui, je suis fasciné pour la beauté de l'art grecque, et par le génie civil romain. Et oui, je réalise qu'on doit beaucoup aux grecs (et aux romains). Mais bizarrement, j'ai commencé à lire ce livre après avoir vu un très bon documentaire sur la fin de l'empire Ottoman sur Arte (Partie 1 et partie 2, je te recommande), qui m'a fait comprendre que les anglais et français sont un peu pour quelque chose dans la situation chaotique au moyen orient et sur les attentats et que tous nos discours me paraissent un peu hypocrites. Bref fin du hors sujet. - Benh (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Benh, you are right. I have enhanced the light, contrast and colors. It is more real and less greyish like this (see the plant). I hope previous (and further !) reviewers will agree. Bonne idée de se cultiver. La culture gréco-latine est fascinante, et je m'y laisse facilement prendre si tu regardes mon parcours photographique ces temps-ci (malgré une incursion danoise chez Slaunger)... La Grèce est un pays merveilleux qu'on ne doit pas laisser tomber.--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done According to Benh's very relevant request, I've corrected the exposure and the contrast. Hope it is good now.--Jebulon (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Very weak support Some of the areas in the center are now looking overexposed, but after reviewing the previous versions I daresay that this is a better tradeoff than the darker original. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 19:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 01:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Bruno Ganz 2011.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2016 at 04:33:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Loui der Colli - uploaded by Loui der Colli - nominated by Till.niermann -- Till (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Till (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Better known as playing Hitler in Untergang. --Mile (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- And for The American Friend, Circle of Deceit, Wings of Desire and so many other memorable films. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not so sure and may decide to oppose, because I find it distracting that his forehead is unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Works for me. Maybe technically not quite up to current standards, but it was taken in 2011 with a 10mpix camera, and it is still by far the most valuable picture here on Commons of this very relevant actor. --A.Savin 19:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Isn't "most valuable" for Valued Images? I think we need something more for FP, and 2011 is hardly old enough for us to consider this by the standards of historical pictures from the analog era. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- COM:VI is dead. Yes there are quality issues, but not so dramatic. IMO. The valuability is essential here --A.Savin 11:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Dead? Huh? I don't understand. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- COM:VI is alive and working. --Mile (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. Sure it’s an impressing portrait yet it’s far from being perfect, considering the unsharp rendering of the forehead. 2011 is not the Stone Age of photography to excuse for this. --Kreuzschnabel 05:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've decided to Oppose. No wow for me. VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great portrait! --Yann (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support after some consideration... great portrait! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the others above -- Thennicke (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2016 at 10:37:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support maybe a bit overprocessed, but still... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Roma infinita --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but again, this looks nothing like any other shot of the cuppola. The interior part of the cuppola appears to be too cold and dark and as in other images, blue and yellow tones are very dominant, which is very much unlike any of the comparison images. Imho it is a strange pattern that keeps repeating itself in some of your images and that several people have noted before, without receiving any good explanation or having the chance to see a flat or raw image before your post-processing that could confirm that your edit is more realistic than the other images. --DXR (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- good or valid explanation? because is this? What i can answer if you tell (for example) that the sky is green? Cupola is this,this are the colours...don't like? Ok. But don't ask me because a Cupola have this colors. Danke p.s. and let's finish with these low-quality photos of google, those are not realistic --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I understand your argument in principle and after our previous discussions, I guess we are not getting anywhere here... --DXR (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose – impressive level of detail but contrast overdone IMHO, apart from the colour temperature question. The glare on the golden decorations is just too bright for me. Is a remake possible? --Kreuzschnabel 11:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Broken colors. Looks like those colorized WB pictures. And I don't buy that this is more realistic than the images shown by the Google query. File:Santa_Maria_Maggiore,_cappella_Paolina_cupola.JPG has issues, but I bet the colors are closer to reality. Compression settings can certainly be better (20Mo is too big). - Benh (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support weak support. --Hubertl 20:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above -- Jiel (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Metabolic Metro Map.svg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2016 at 09:14:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chakazul, clickable version at Template:Metabolic metro -- Chakazul (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Chakazul (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - It's pretty and interesting enough for a feature, in my opinion, but it certainly requires more explanation for the reader who lacks a background in biochemistry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I can appreciate the effort gone into this, but it's too noisy and too technical to be featured, I think. ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 01:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support First, I can't see any visible noise here. This is a diagram with a very high encyclopedic value, the more so as a clickable version is available (see en:Metabolic network). For discussion among scientists, see en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology#New map of Metabolic Pathways. --Cayambe (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. This to me is more the sort of art-type thing that is really out of Commons' scope, unless the idea is to show what SVGs can do, and I think we have plenty examples of that already. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a very nice map of high encyclopedic value for sure but it simply lacks beauty to qualify for an FP. I cannot recognise any outstandingly interesting forms in the representation of objects or anything else artistically special that is usually desired when considering similar works.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Хераклеја Линкестис 4.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 09:26:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by Daniela Stefanoska - uploaded by Daniela Stefanoska - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski. Heraclea Lyncestis was an ancient city founded by Philip II of Macedon in the 4th century BC. Today, there are several mosaics preserved as well as ruins of the city walls, theatre, thermae, portico and other monuments. The image depicts remains of arches on the walls. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The composition is featurable, but the unsharpness of the entire photo at full size would in my opinion restrict this to being a Valued Image. I will Oppose a feature, pending the possible sharpening of the photo, but it also uses a bokeh approach to the background, which I think is not a good idea, so I don't hold out much hope for this photo to be sufficiently sharpened for my taste. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. Good idea but bad quality, in short. Nothing is sharp. I don’t think it can be saved. --Kreuzschnabel 06:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharpness and CA, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Giraffe Mikumi National Park.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 08:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
- Info 50px|link=User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2/Nomination of featured images on Arabic Wikipedia Project Featured picture on 3 Encyclopedias.created by Muhammad Mahdi Karim - uploaded by Muhammad Mahdi Karim - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Too tight crop. --Laveol (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Contrast between the giraffe and background isn't great, focus is a bit soft compared to some of the other photos in Category:Giraffa camelopardalis, and I don't prefer a bokeh background to boot, but that didn't even have to figure in my decision. Have a look at this photo, this one (admittedly in a zoo, unlike the previous one), this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 16:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the composition and subdued colors, but its small size doesn't help the many unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, sorry. Crop too tight, pixel size barely crossing the lower limit, blueish colours, background too busy, distracting from main object. Certainly nice but in no way outstanding. --Kreuzschnabel 11:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Barn swallow at Tennōji Park in Osaka, June 2016 II.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2016 at 15:29:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
- Info c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice composition and colours but too unsharp. FP level for birds is extremely high. --Kreuzschnabel 16:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava), Laskowiec-Zajki meadows, Polska (4664765120).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2016 at 23:17:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
- Info created by Frank Vassen - uploaded by Josve05a - nominated by Josve05a -- Josve05a (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Support-- Josve05a (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)- I withdraw my nomination I was using my other computer with different resolution than my normal computer. I thought I looked at the image at 100%, but I was mistaken. Josve05a (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm disappointed that the head is unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan + chromatic aberration (that is fixable). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The entire frame is unsharp. The wood suggests that the focus setting is still a few inches in front of it. --Kreuzschnabel 16:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose above --Mile (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2016 at 21:14:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info Inferior view of the rock-hewn Churches of Ivanovo, located near the village of Ivanovo, 20 km south of Rousse, Bulgaria. This UNESCO World Heritage Site consists of a group of monolithic churches, chapels and monasteries hewn out of solid rock. The caves in the region had been inhabited by monks from the 13th (from when date the frescoes with Bulgarian medieval art) to the 17th century. All by me, Poco2 21:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 21:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Moderate Support - I don't love the light, and parts are unsharp, but they're toward the background and it looks to me like you avoided having blown sections in that challenging light. Having determined that to my satisfaction, I then looked at the composition and liked it very much. So overall, I support featuring this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid this picture doesn't work for me. In addition to the factors that Ikan has already stressed, I also find the chosen angle too extreme. But I'm pretty sure you have dozens of more pictures from this magical place... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, no Martin, not so many and I proposed this one because I believe that it was the best one of the whole thing. If you like another one let me know, but it looks like there will be no FP of this UNESCO site. Poco2 18:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The topmost 40 percent are unsharp while the bottom part is perfectly sharp. Insufficient DoF or bad lens? A bit overexposed too IMHO, washed-out colours. And I think landscape framing would suit it better. All in all, I oppose due to the unsharpness in the first place. --Kreuzschnabel 16:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 18:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Poco2 18:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Galite-Galiton.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 11:25:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice photo to be sure, but it doesn't wow me. Lots and lots of water and rather dark and misty land. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 01:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. A tight panoramic view of the island, perhaps larger than this, might have made me consider it for longer. But this looks too much like any other photo of any other mountainous island Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2016 at 15:18:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info Unknown photographer - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Info An apparently-rare example of Meiji-era photography; seems comparable in quality to the few other examples I've found. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Historically important and also a well-composed portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~★ nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 01:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Contrast too much increased, the original is currently better Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: From what I've seen of the era, Japanese military uniforms were quite dark in colour, so I think this is truer to life, and fixes some fading. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- The bright areas are also too bright, if it was modern I would have say " overexposed", but the exposition on the original is (more) fine, then that comes from your seetings. At low resolution your version is indeed better or at least more "more eye-catching" but at full, I think we lose something...at least for me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: From what I've seen of the era, Japanese military uniforms were quite dark in colour, so I think this is truer to life, and fixes some fading. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 14:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
- Info created by Haytem93 - uploaded by Haytem93 - nominated by Reda benkhadra -- Reda benkhadra (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Reda benkhadra (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I quite like the addax, and I think this photo is featurable, but I don't like the unsharp foreground and would suggest an attempt to crop it out (I don't really love the bokeh background, either). Others may find it fine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Support I like the animal and it's pose enough to overlook a few imperfections. INeverCry 01:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Impressive image, offering good DoF while aiming for background bokeh. Just clone out the small dark spot between the horns. --Kreuzschnabel 10:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great! -- Thennicke (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support More Morroco. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per others (and is this not the most potentially homoerotic image filename we've ever had here?) Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Still wondering what’s particularly homoerotic on a male showing his horn. Can’t he show that to a female as well? --Kreuzschnabel 22:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Regnitz-Baum-1012073.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 17:57:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Very nice misty picture, and I really like that tree and its reflection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 23:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 01:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I’d love to support but could a slightly less sharpened version be put on offer? This looks almost oversharpened, leading to grainy noise in the mist, which is a pity. --Kreuzschnabel 06:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 08:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support And 7. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Sharp detail balances the overall softness of the mood. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition :) --Laitche (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Ardeaalba-Floripa-ene2015.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 23:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- all by me Ezarateesteban 23:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good picture, but in my opinion, this is not up to the extremely high level of featured bird pictures in which we can almost count every separate feather. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. The bird is overexposed, large white areas are blown. --Kreuzschnabel 10:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 17:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Blown and posterized areas on bird per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Tramonto su San Marco Venezia.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2016 at 21:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose - I've been following the progress of your photography of Venice and have been looking for more images that I believe are featurable and likely to get enough votes. I strongly approve of and support this great project. However, while this is certainly a nice photo, I don't find the sky active or interesting enough to support featuring it. However, I think that if you crop the top of the photo by almost half, so that there is just a small amount of space above the campanile of San Marco, it will be a better and featurable photo. -- Ikan Kekek
- Thanks for your suggestion. I uploaded a new alternative version as suggestet from @Ikan Kekek: . I am not able to nominate it; maybe someone can help please. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk) 21:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think the alternative still has too much sky. My suggestion is to do a horizontal crop quite close to the top of the campanile, probably not as far above it as the distance from the beginning of the conical part to the top (I hope it's clear what I mean - the crop still should be above the top of the campanile!). I think if you do that, the composition will really work. But if you prefer, do see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done Thanks, are you able to post the alternative for me @Ikan Kekek: ? Thanks a lot--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]- Mild/moderate Support. I like this because it's a romantic scene, and in this version, there's more nearly balance between water and sky. The scene is beautiful. The striations in the sky are a bit unusual, but for the most part, I think they help the form because they give the viewer's eyes some scope for motion, and they're much more viewable at this size than in the other versions that have more sky in them. By the way, this is my first time posting an alternative, so if anyone would like to tweak the pixel dimensions that I copied from the alternative submission of File:Koenigssee - Hirschau Peninsula 03.jpg, please do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Support INeverCry 19:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support And 7... --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Nice orange but the sky seems posterized for me. --Laitche (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 18:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice atmosphere, i really like this picture, but sky is strongly over processed, sorry :( -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Santa Maria in Vallicella (Rome) - Intern.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2016 at 08:30:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not sure about this one, because the paintings on each side are completely washed out. I think in this case, maybe you should have tried a shorter exposure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Same as other nomination – overprocessed: contrast is overdone to my eyes, looking unrealistic (and the light-stars glary). --Kreuzschnabel 11:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've decided to mildly Oppose a feature for this picture, as I don't think it's among the very finest images on Commons, nor one of your best photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Weak oppose You tried so hard, but I agree with Kreuzschnabel about the apparent overprocessing and blown areas around the lights (I wonder ... maybe you should take a normal exposure and merge the lights from it into your long exposure?) Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support it strucks me with beauty and that's more than enough for FP --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
File:PAK FA Prandtl Glauert singularity.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2016 at 18:45:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
- Info created by Rulexip - uploaded by Rulexip - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think I can even consider supporting this until there's a much clearer explanation of what we're looking at, and by the way, when I checked w:Prandtl–Glauert singularity, I read the following claim: "The Prandtl–Glauert singularity is the prediction by the Prandtl–Glauert transformation that infinite pressures would be experienced by an aircraft as it approaches the speed of sound. Because it is invalid to apply the transformation at these speeds, the predicted singularity does not emerge. This is related to the early 20th century misconception of the impenetrability of the sound barrier." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Photographically excellent, lots of EV, but per Ikan, terrible description (and even worse EXIF). This support is on the condition that the description is clarified. -- Thennicke (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral, pending resolution of noted issues. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 01:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Early road to Lake Peipus.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2016 at 15:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
- Info created and uploaded by Taitss - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Tilt to the left (see reflections in the water) --Kreuzschnabel 16:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm unable to notice any tilt. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support great mood but please do correct the tilt, see annotation --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Done by author. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great image with pretty nice colours. The tilt is not a big issue and can be easily fixed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Colors and light. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral - It's a nice photo, but I'm not convinced it should be featured. It's not all in focus at full size. However, it is pretty at full-page size, so I don't oppose a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Left side should be cropped perhaps, but clockwise turn for sure. --Mile (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I love the mood and the lighting of the picture, but the composition is less-than-ideal. --Hendric Stattmann (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Hendric. INeverCry 20:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 01:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The colours of the picture looks irrealistic to me Jiel (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've seen similar colors so often that there isn't anything irrealistic to me. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose A QI for sure, but per Hendric its different elements overcomplicate it compositionally speaking. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Over compression? --Laitche (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Haloes. I think it is overprocessed in general. Matter of taste, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Kevadhommik Meenikunno rabas.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2016 at 15:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created and uploaded by Külli Kolina - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Perfectly good photo but nothing in the composition is so outstanding that I think it merits a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support The atmosphere is nice, the colours are beautiful, and the sun is a perfect detail.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 03:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I like the atmosphere. − Meiræ 01:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I like the mood too. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose visually too contrasted to be pleasant for me Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2016 at 05:47:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice otherworldly scene. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I like the series of photos you've taken of Lanzarote very much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support sharpness could be better - but still a great picture! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Info On the Ruta de los Volcanes it is not allowed - for reasons of environment protection - to travel alone. It is only possible to make a guided tour with a bus. Also for reasons of environment protection it is not allowed to leave the bus. All doors and windows stay closed on the whole tour, it is only possible to make photos of this region through the tinted windows of the bus. So you have to struggle (and later on to correct) both against the reflecions of the bus window and also against the wrong colours, caused by the tinted windows. For taking pictures it would be better to leave the bus, but it is not possible, so I tried to make the best of it. -- Llez (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I see - thanks for the explanation! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Info On the Ruta de los Volcanes it is not allowed - for reasons of environment protection - to travel alone. It is only possible to make a guided tour with a bus. Also for reasons of environment protection it is not allowed to leave the bus. All doors and windows stay closed on the whole tour, it is only possible to make photos of this region through the tinted windows of the bus. So you have to struggle (and later on to correct) both against the reflecions of the bus window and also against the wrong colours, caused by the tinted windows. For taking pictures it would be better to leave the bus, but it is not possible, so I tried to make the best of it. -- Llez (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 12:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great photo
despite croma noise? or posterization?--Laitche (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)- Comment Please see Info above --Llez (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry! --Laitche (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Please see Info above --Llez (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 19:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
- Info created by Hendrik van Schuylenburgh - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Moheen Reeyad -- ~ Moheen (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- ~ Moheen (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support How interesting and nice ! Many funny details, and high values.--Jebulon (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 01:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 08:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - The picture is a little small for FP, but it's a good picture and a very valuable image, so I'll Support, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Emmeline Pankhurst, seated (1913).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2016 at 18:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Matzene (Chicago) - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice restoration, but as it is, it is too dark and a bit yellow. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - It looks like a sepia photo to me. The one thing I wonder about is whether it's a good thing to remove the photographer's signature from the image. I know that normally, photos with a signature can't be featured, but this is a historical photo, so I think we could regard it like a painting with a signature, rather than a new photo with a signature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Her head is too close to border for good portrait. --Mile (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Not a very difficult restoration, but excellent result. With respect, I strongly disagree with Yann, and don't understand Mile's opposition. Ikan Kekek's comment is very relevant, I tend to agree with him in such cases.--Jebulon (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek and Jebulon: While I normally wouldn't remove it, it was hand-scratched-on in this case, and thus more untidy than most, so I was convinced to over on en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Jebulon: Also, this is one of my "break images" from a fiendish picture of Ethel Smyth I've been working on. So much damage.... Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 16:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- temporary oppose There is quite some purple-green-ish color noise in the shadow areas – a digitization artifact that shouldn't be there in an analog monochrome image. Otherwise a fine portrait, well-restored → would support if color issues are fixed. --El Grafo (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Footbridge at Gill Force in Eskdale, Cumbria.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 10:55:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
- Info created by Peter Trimming - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 10:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 10:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Should be a QI. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Moheen. I think the composition is quite good and featurable, but parts of the photo are too unsharp (e.g., the purple flowers, a good part of the footbridge, quite a bit of foliage), and there's no obvious compositional justification for that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 01:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Technical details aside, there's just too much going on here. I can see why the photographer was drawn to this, but it didn't work after the shutter fell. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition and the light, I don't care blurred background. --Laitche (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Certainly nice but not outstanding, no wow. --Kreuzschnabel 19:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Tarnica, Bieszczady (by Pudelek).JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 10:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 16:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice photo but no wow for me, sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'm partial to this kind of image to begin with, and in this case not only is it well done, I like the way the many diagonals play off each other. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful curves. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral. For me it should have started the path in the far right corner. Then the diagonals are better balanced.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Simple and nice -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Torreparedones - 15.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2016 at 16:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
- Info Ruins of the castle in Castro el Viejo. Torreparedones Archaeological Park. Created by ElBute - uploaded by ElBute - nominated by ElBute -- ElBute (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- ElBute (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I don’t see anything special here, no wow. Quality is mediocre: grainy sky, main object appears overexposed. Composition looks like a straightforward tourist shot. --Kreuzschnabel 20:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 20:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't have a problem with the composition, but otherwise, I have to agree with Kreuzschnabel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Not every picture is supposed to be sunny and cheerful... Composition is fine for me, and I love the sky. − Meiræ 01:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment So far, nobody has turned down this picture for not being sunny and cheerful … but an FPC has to show something special. In opposing, I do not mean to say this shot is bad, I just don’t think it’s one of the very finest images on Commons. That’s what FPC is about. Being just good does not earn much support here, we look for the outstanding. I can’t help thinking this shot would raise much more whow if the camera had been 1-2 metres higher. --Kreuzschnabel 07:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support To me it has a special atmosphere - Jiel (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2016 at 09:44:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
- Info View of the Dragon Dune in the foreground and the city of Iquique in the background, Tarapacá Region, northern Chile. The dune is about 20 000 years old and was originated by coastal winds when the sea level was 100 metres (110 yd) further inside. The dune looks menacing, especially from the bottom, but is stable. It became a Natural Sanctuary in 2005 but before that it was partially removed in the West wing to allow the growth of the city of Iquique. The dune is 6.4 kilometres (4.0 mi) long, between 150–550 metres (160–600 yd) wide and 320 metres (350 yd) high. Iquique has aprox. 185 000 inhabitants and is a prosperous and fast-growing city thanks to the free trade activities. Poco2 09:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 09:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 11:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great image!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 16:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 16:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Amazing view! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support And 10. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Now we're up to eleven. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose some EV and maybe + yellow. --Mile (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support excellent composition --Milseburg (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great vista. --Laitche (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2016 at 13:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
- Info c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support More natural action. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Info New version with fixing CAs uploaded. --Laitche (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good spot, would be even better if back would be lighted.--Mile (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 21:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Amazing capture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support POTY finalist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support top! --A.Savin 13:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 19:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Wow. --Pugilist (talk)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support could use a bit of brightening inho, but how could I say no to this? --El Grafo (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support-- Ali Zifan 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Blockmeer Schafstein Nord.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2016 at 11:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by Jörg Braukman - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice detail. But we can get rid of that stray twig in the upper left. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Possible. I thought about removing the branches in the upper right. On the other hand, I remove reluctant natural image content. Other opinions? --Milseburg (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - For whatever it's worth, I think it's fine. There is vegetation in both the upper right and upper left corners, so that gives the picture a hint of symmetry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Possible. I thought about removing the branches in the upper right. On the other hand, I remove reluctant natural image content. Other opinions? --Milseburg (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Bravo! Really good work! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support And 7. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Evening columns Zeus temple Athens.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2016 at 19:12:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Sunset over the remains of the Temple of Zeus in Athens, Greece. -- Jebulon (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 20:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Very nice --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Different take on something like this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry guys, I am missing the floor at the bottom. I do not know how high these pillars are. -- -donald- (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- For me there is still missing the ground with other buildings, people or trees to imagine the height. From this original picture I do not know if I see the top quarter of the pillars or 7/8 of it or whatever. -- -donald- (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 20:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Support And 7.Neutral --Laitche (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Sorry Jebulon! --Laitche (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)- Comment In fact, it´s #16, Laitche --Hubertl 18:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Hubertl, I thought that is an alternative, I'm neutral for this nom so downed to #15... --Laitche (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Laitche: : 1)No offense ! 2)As I'm STRONGLY against the "alternative" fashion here, you'll NEVER find here an "alternative" candidate from me in these pages ! --Jebulon (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I see :) --Laitche (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment In fact, it´s #16, Laitche --Hubertl 18:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Hemerocallis fulva 2016 G1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2016 at 19:06:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 19:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 01:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 02:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Spurzem (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Opernpassage Panorama.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2016 at 22:16:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info created and uploaded by Thomas Ledl - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Looks like it could use a slight crop at right to even things out; otherwise very nice. INeverCry 23:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support So very cool ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose At the edges, unfortunately, the quality is poor - strong posterization. I don't understand how this should be necessary, as this is a panorama and so it is normally no problem to get each of the frames crisp? --A.Savin 15:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true for rectillinear projection. Very wide FOVs have far less quality at the edges because more stretching takes place there. That's why I always downsize to 50MP even though center quality could also do 100 or so. --DXR (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
{{s}} --Hubertl 18:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)- Comment I made a closer look, indeed, there are some severe problems. Not just posterizations, also noise and overexposed areas. But in fact, its really a great composition, worth, to do it again (with all possible problems, it´s extremely crowded there) --Hubertl 18:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Question Why such oversizing ? Cant open it anyway. --Mile (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Use the non-flash viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 13:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2016 at 18:48:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info View of the San Pedro de Inacaliri River with the Paniri volcano in the background, El Loa Province, Antofagasta Region, northern Chile, close to the Bolivian border. Parini is a 5,960 metres (19,550 ft) high stratovolcano with a prominence of 1,653 metres (5,423 ft) whereas San Pedro River is a 76 kilometres (47 mi) long river in this extremely dry region ending in the Loa River. All by me, Poco2 18:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco2 18:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Another amazing sight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support simply great. Did you use a polarizer to get this creamy a sky, Diego? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, Martin I didn't use any filters (I never do, just ND in exceptional cases). I haven't applied during processing any special for the sky, either. What mostly amazed me from this scene was the boost of colors thank to the river as I had only seen dryness for hours. Poco2 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. Next time Could be nice a shoot from the river exactly in the center. I added a note because there is some strange animal --The Photographer (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- The Photographer: I cannot walk over the water :) The only way to have done it like that would have been with a bridge. There was one but the view from there was not so nice and I also wanted to take the shot close to the level of the water. The strange animal is not so mysterious IMHO :(, it's just a plastic bottle... Poco2 13:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pensaba que el agua era bajita. Nunca imaginaría que hubiese sido un pote plastico debido a la zona --The Photographer (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 03:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Zcebeci (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2016 at 16:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
- Info c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Very nice bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 19:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support great quality and the most pleasant bokeh I've seen in quite a while --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support +1 --El Grafo (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Zcebeci (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Spurzem (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Wloclawek - kosciol Witalisa.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2016 at 11:30:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow (for me). Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Oppose - I like this photo, but I think it's merely a good to very good Quality Image, not a really fantastic picture that should be featured. However, I like the church and think that it might be possible to take a featured picture of the church from another angle. Please keep trying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2016 at 11:24:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - uploaded by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- JukoFF (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support CA could be removed, and some mistakes, but seems interesting.--Mile (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Valid blank background. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Quite interesting and pretty, but it would probably be good to decrease the brightness a bit, given the amount of white in the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Support--El Grafo (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose I think Kruusamägi below is right: looks very pixelated at full resolution. I'd guess it was upscaled for processing and then accidentally not downscaled again afterwards. Currently, it can't hold up with similar pictures quality-wise, so it fails the "one of our finest" criterion. --El Grafo (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Qualified support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This image here is an excellent example of a good image, but the one nominated here on the other hand has posterization, some weird sharp lines and purple fringing. Considering the image size some downsizing might be necessary (how exactly did this image ended up with 62 MP size? upscaling?). This image from the same author is more suitable as a FP in my opinion. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ------Isasza (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 12:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
File:2016 Invictus Games, US Wheelchair Basketball Team plays UK for gold 160512-D-BB251-005 (cropped).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2016 at 11:04:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People Events (Arts, concerts, shows...)
- Info created by Roger Wollenberg - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Email correspondence this month with Roger Wollenberg clarified that the photograph is in focus, but could not be made sharper due to the speed of the game and necessary shutter speed. As the event was indoors, there needed to be a high ISO and as this was a real sports event rather than a composition, options such as using high powered lights were impossible. This version has a slight crop, removing a top shadowy border in the background, some of the yellow foreground, and helps to focus on the central portrait. At the current time I can find no existing FPs for wheelchair sports. -- Fæ (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support This is a great action shot, and the noise doesn't bother me considering the circumstances -- Thennicke (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Apart from softness and noise it’s just too busy for me. If it wasn’t for the men in the background, but as it is, the main subjects do not stand out clearly enough to make the picture special. The circumstances do not excuse for drawbacks here IMHO. We look for the very finest images, not for the best possible ones. Sometimes you simply cannot take a featurable shot. --Kreuzschnabel 16:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Option we had before was much better, but noise. Now this one is out. --Mile (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I find this a more exciting and better-lit scene than the other one, but is it really impossible to sharpen the photo a bit more? I don't really want to oppose a feature for this photo. I think it's good enough at full-page size, but the degree of graininess at full size bothers me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Chicoreus axicornis 01.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2016 at 17:54:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - My feeling is that this is good enough and certainly pretty enough to feature, but I wonder whether it would be worth sharpening the photo a bit more at full size. If not, I support, anyway, recognizing the challenge in photographing such white shells and seeing how the picture looks at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Info Thanks. I improved sharpness and I completely reworked the outer edges --Llez (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Thank you. That's a good improvement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Info Thanks. I improved sharpness and I completely reworked the outer edges --Llez (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Awesome white! --Laitche (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 05:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 12:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2016 at 00:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info created by Anita.Palceska - uploaded by Anita.Palceska - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - This is a really unusual sight and it's sharp enough, so I, too, think we should feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
{{o}} it´s clearly tilted to the left, even when the niche on the right seems straight. I would reconsider to neutral, if it would be changed. I am not really convinced about the sharpness. --Hubertl 06:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)- @Hubertl: Can you please be more specific about the tilt? I don't see any tilt to the left, not just because of the niche on the right, but also because of the lines of the door that are parallel to the frame. I don't want to make any fixes before I know the magnitude of the tilt you're talking about.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment There is nothing parallel at all except the base line of the small building in the niche. --Hubertl 11:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Hubertl: Can you please be more specific about the tilt? I don't see any tilt to the left, not just because of the niche on the right, but also because of the lines of the door that are parallel to the frame. I don't want to make any fixes before I know the magnitude of the tilt you're talking about.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose As Hubertl said. --Mile (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've fixed the tilt and uploaded the new version.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I reworked it again, because with your tool you lost too much from the right side and the bottom. --Hubertl 18:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I reworked it again, because with your tool you lost too much from the right side and the bottom. --Hubertl 18:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support looks ok now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support it´s ok now. --Hubertl 06:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice place, nice shot.--Jebulon (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2016 at 19:21:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg - uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 19:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 19:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 05:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 12:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Ali Zifan 22:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Kasir (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Atsme 📞 01:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Ontluikende bloemknop van schijnpapaver (Meconopsis cambrica). Vaste plant. Zaait zichzelf uit. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2016 at 17:49:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Papaveraceae.
- Info Budding flower bud Meconopsis cambrica. Perennial. Sows itself off. Location: Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice idea but insufficient DoF, sorry. Nearest part of the bud is very unsharp. --Kreuzschnabel 18:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think I agree with Kreuzschnabel on this. I also know that you can do better because you have done better in other pictures of buds. It's quite pretty, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note Is this picture better?:
- Somewhat, but smaller. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Roof tiles packed in crate 1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2016 at 12:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created by W.carter - uploaded by W.carter - nominated by W.carter -- w.carter-Talk 12:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This is how I happened to notice the tiles. ;) w.carter-Talk 19:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- w.carter-Talk 12:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Nice "abstract" picture. It doesn't matter to me much that not all of it is super-sharp; I don't think that's really the point in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 20:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support When I first saw the image I thought it was an abstract of a dune! Well composed -- Thennicke (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support The kind of strange and mysterious pictures I like very much. Technical achievement not excellent regarding the sharpness, but It is a FP nevertheless (to me).--Jebulon (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - What is this? Was my first thought. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice idea and angle the colors as well. --Laitche (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 12:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2016 at 13:28:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
- Info created + uploaded by Florstein - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 13:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ----Isasza (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. JukoFF (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support ~ Moheen (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Good QI with no doubt, but nothing special for this static object.--Jebulon (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Support, butplease denoise the background. The sphinx itself is sharp enough, but I'm just a bit bothered by the noise everywhere else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The noise is better done at RAW stadium, so pinging @Florstein: . (For me, however, the sky is OK.) --A.Savin 23:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's the most slightest noice I ever dealt with. And I see no reason to reduce it even more. Especially after "perjebulonists" invasion. :) --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Excuse me, Alex, it's not so slight to me. And now I found a spot to the right of the sphinx's hat. Do you know what it is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's the most slightest noice I ever dealt with. And I see no reason to reduce it even more. Especially after "perjebulonists" invasion. :) --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The noise is better done at RAW stadium, so pinging @Florstein: . (For me, however, the sky is OK.) --A.Savin 23:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Picture is tilted. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Jacek Halicki: Tilt corrected. ;) --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Should I delete the pigeon? --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I would say no, I like the pigeon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jebulon. --El Grafo (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Also per Jebulon, sorry -- Thennicke (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Neutral- I really think you could probably do better with the noise. I'd actually love to nominate more of your photos, because you make great compositions, but I'm feeling bothered by noise. I'm considering changing to an opposing vote but I'm not willing to do that as of today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)- @Ikan Kekek: sorry, but you too obsessed by the noise. In resolution like this, on pure blue sky, noise does no matter. It can't be harmful, but blurring effects will affect the picture. However, if you want to back down because of that ridiculous reason - you're welcome! Oppose? Feel free! --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Hi, I've got the raw file of this photo, you may want to give me time till tomorrow evening (UTC) to try to fix the noise better. Thanks Ikan Kekek (sorry, I'm just sporadically online at the moment) --A.Savin 16:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks, I'll look forward to that. And User:Florstein, I've noticed that other photos that have been nominated here have been less noisy in the sky without blurring the rest of the picture. This is, after all, Featured Picture Candidates, where we're supposed to judge whether nominees are among the most outstanding pictures on the site. I think there's room for doubt with your picture the way it currently is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: @Florstein: Done I hope you like it. --A.Savin 03:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Much appreciated, but I regret to say that I'm not really noticing the difference. Did you definitely save the right file? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Quod erat demonstrandum. Alas, Ikan Kekek simply likes to get on nerves. Doesn't matter, is there noise or not - he sees it. @A.Savin: большое спасибо за работу, Саш, но теперь сфинкс и правда кренится немного влево. :) --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- You really shouldn't take this personally. Do you seriously think I have something against you? Why would I? Yet you took any opposition or even criticism personally right away, the better to dismiss it ad hominem. And you haven't succeeded in trying to goad me into opposing a feature for your picture, which I would certainly do if all I really cared about was the way you reacted to my request, and then my change from support to neutrality. Have a nice day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Now, I don't know about the tilt, but the noise is definitely lesser. Try to purge your cache. --A.Savin 11:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about a tilt. I also don't understand why it took a purge of my cache for me to be able to see a difference between the two files after opening both. All that said, I do see a difference now, thank you, and will now Support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Now, I don't know about the tilt, but the noise is definitely lesser. Try to purge your cache. --A.Savin 11:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Titanacris.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2016 at 11:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
- Info created and uploaded by Didier Descouens - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Three stacked photos is not difficult, but a month of work to naturalize the Titanacris "how to Beauchene." Thank you to Thennicke for this appointment.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Of course! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Just wonderful !--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Zcebeci (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Stunning --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ali Zifan 21:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Interesting idea and high quality. --Laitche (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2016 at 20:21:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
- Info created and uploaded by Zcebeci - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - This doesn't do it for me. The focus is a bit soft and this mostly white and clear butterfly probably needs a darker background to really pop out at the viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Zcebeci (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support & 7. INeverCry 01:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support--Hubertl 03:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Weak S Nice but a bit oversharpened. --Laitche (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Ali Zifan 22:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Quite lovely! Atsme 📞 01:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Meister der Manessischen Liederhandschrift 004.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2016 at 09:07:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
- Info created by an anonymous German painter from the first half of the 14th century - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Eloquence) - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Way too small for FP. Too bad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 17:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: its pixel size is way below minimum --Kreuzschnabel 17:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC) | 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:2016 Radmor 5102 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2016 at 16:13:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Look like CB station. Put wider crop, its thinny now. --Mile (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support More objects. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not completely sharp (I think photos of objects like this should be completely, or almost completely sharp), and the black background lacks contrast. For my taste, I would suggest for you to photograph this again with a contrasting background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 19:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. A studio shot like this must be entirely crisp sharp. The device could have been cleaned before, too. --Kreuzschnabel 11:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. A good shot, but not outstanding → missing wow factor. --El Grafo (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. And the white letters looks overexposed to me.--Jebulon (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2016 at 15:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Trees.
- Info Group of trees in overgrown habitat. Location, Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, unsharp, and numerous mosaicing errors (parts of grass blades being all green or purple). Certainly it’s a nice atmosphere but that alone does not make it featurable for me. --Kreuzschnabel 16:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I'm not seeing the mosaicing errors Kreuzschnabel sees (I actually don't know what "mosaicing" is), and none of the unsharpness bothers me, as what I'm seeing is in no way excessive and caused by haze and motion blur. But the overall composition is great, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 19:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think I need another year’s holiday of FPC. I start to see things others cannot see. Btw, mosaicing is one of the basic concepts of digital photography. Have fun. --Kreuzschnabel 21:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I Googled the term. Seems to be another (more formal?) name for stitching. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - By the way, it's totally fine for you to take a vacation from here if you like, but I hope it's not too long because I appreciate the views you express here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- CommentSee en:Demosaicing. I put an annotation on the nomination site, there’s a clearly visible green-and-purple pattern in the grass caused by interference of these details and the sensor matrix. Won’t look nice when printed. --Kreuzschnabel 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Kreuzschnabel: You're not seeing ghosts, it's there. But you have to look for it at 100% zoom, so that alone probably wouldn't be enough for an oppose for me. However, I'm not really wowed by it either, tending towards a
weak oppose--El Grafo (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I applied a color luminance correction. I think, it´s ok now. (you can make it either with the camera raw filter from Photoshop or with Lightroom, I did it with Photoshop. But I think it may be same procedure and algorithm. --Hubertl 06:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Jep, looks much better now. Struck my oppose above, moving to Neutral --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Kreuzschnabel: You're not seeing ghosts, it's there. But you have to look for it at 100% zoom, so that alone probably wouldn't be enough for an oppose for me. However, I'm not really wowed by it either, tending towards a
- @Hubertl and Hubertl: . Thank you for your correction.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Dolphin Anatomy.svg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2016 at 12:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
- Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- The Photographer (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Another great work from The Photographer. Ali Zifan 18:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately, you carried over several errors and imprecisions from File:Dolphin anatomy.png, some of them are even mentioned in that file's description. Why is the anus connected to the kidney? Why is the jaw labelled Esophagus? Color coding suggests that there is a direct connection between Esophagus and Kidney. Why is the liver also labelled "Stomach"? Why isn't the blow hole connected to anything? Label for "Flipper" shouldn't point at a bone. Afaik, "Fluke" should be singular. Based on the label, one could assume that Blubber was just another word for "tail". Stuff like this should really go through a review at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology or similar before being nominated here. Also, the SVG source code seems to be invalid. --El Grafo (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination The Photographer (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Scarlet skimmer at Keitakuen in Osaka, June 2016 IV.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2016 at 16:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Not the best direction of the light, the plant is too lighted near overexposition, in any case too highlighted for the viewer, while the bottom of the insect body is too dark Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Definitely a good picture, but compared to some incredible Featured Pictures of insects I've seen before, this doesn't wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the reviews :) --Laitche (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Schammelsdorf-war-memorial-6117014.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2016 at 13:09:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info created and uploaded by Reinhold Möller (Ermell) - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I find this photo moving, and in this case, I believe it actually helps the composition and makes it more poignant for the figures in the sculpture to be in shadow. Likewise, I don't think the lack of strong direct light is a drawback at all. I also find the overall composition harmonious and sufficiently sharp to satisfy me in this context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ali Zifan 17:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but there's too much going on and the light isn't really FP-worthy in my eyes. A good QI anyways. --Code (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - A disagreement about what good light for this subject consists of is a matter of taste, but if you would, please elaborate on what you mean by "too much going on". I enjoy moving my eyes around this composition. Do you feel that the hedges distract inordinately from the memorial? If so, that's just another disagreement as a matter of taste, as I consider the photo to be about the combination of vegetation and a memorial with village houses in the background, not just the memorial. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's mainly the wooden house on the right side of the background and the cut part of the roof at the left side. Together it makes the picture look unbalanced (the foreground is symmetrical while the background is not). The hedge itself is completely ok for me. I can imagine why you thought this could be FP but I'm sorry that I can't really agree. The light is too dull for my taste, maybe I'd give it a pro if the memorial was lit by the warm light of a rising sun or something like that. Of course, it's all a matter of taste. --Code (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly. I appreciate the explanation and understand what made the difference for you and why. Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Code. INeverCry 18:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Also per Code. ~ Moheen (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality but no good motive. Especially the lamps placed on the commemorative tablets and the watering-can disturb. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination - Obviously, the chances of getting 8 supporting votes for this photo are vanishingly small. I still like the photo, but I understand the basis for not considering it to merit a feature. Thanks for your votes and remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Meenikunnu Suur Suujärv 2009.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2016 at 08:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created and uploaded by Vaido Otsar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - To me, this is a fantastic photo. I'm really wowed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Kreuzschnabel 10:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Question I know that "rules can be broken", but what about the rule of thirds, and the horizon in the middle ? I feel it as a composition issue.--Jebulon (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - If the picture is awesome, who cares about such "rules", which are really more general guidelines than actual rules? This is the 21st century. We experienced over 100 years of avant gardism, and now all of a sudden, we're supposed to have inflexible rules of composition? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- The rule of third is one possible, but not the only one. With a symmetric or near symmetric composition, a centered horizon makes sense. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder how this would look with more sky? As it is though, it's a pretty striking blend of color and reflection. INeverCry 18:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great Estonia! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 11:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support and +1 to Yann's comment. --El Grafo (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 19:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Ali Zifan 22:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 02:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Purpuricène.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2016 at 10:49:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
- Info created and uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Underexposed --The Photographer (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @The Photographer: Image brightened -- Thennicke (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild/moderate Support - The beetle is pretty clear to me, and I like how its surface shines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Ali Zifan 22:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Scintillating (literally, per Ikan). Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Sugarloaf Sunrise 2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2016 at 16:28:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
- Info created and uploaded by Donatas Dabravolskas - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support A bit noisy but impressive. --Laitche (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 17:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Not a QI? ~ Moheen (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark in foreground.--Jebulon (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I find this beautiful and support it, with all its imperfections. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support Composition is great and it's certainly very beautiful, but I'm skeptical that these colours are real. -- Thennicke (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've also marked a lens flare on the image which should be cleaned up -- Thennicke (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Please have a look at File:Sugarloaf Sunrise 2 ks01.jpg. Dark bottom cropped out, leaning buildings fixed. Feel free to put it up as alternative. --Kreuzschnabel 21:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Kreuzschnabel: Done. Thanks! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Ali Zifan 22:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Both versions are great. -- Pofka (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]- Support I like this one too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I actually think I prefer the smaller sun and greater amount of dark ground in the other version. It feels more balanced between light and dark to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'll take either one. INeverCry 01:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Aegina sunset.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2016 at 21:15:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Evening light at Aegina harbour, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I think this is a deserving candidate. One thing that really helps the form is the change in the texture of the water in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 22:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose The cut-off boats make this composition feel far too busy and unbalanced for me. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is impossible to show a harbour without cutting off some boats, alas...--Jebulon (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you; unfortunately some scenes just won't make beautiful compositions -- Thennicke (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, let's disagree about what a "beautiful composition" is ! Please just notice that I took care not to crop the buoy at left !--Jebulon (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Ali Zifan 22:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Claus 10:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose A QI for sure but I do not feel wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Carlo Tessarini.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2016 at 09:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by William Pether - uploaded and nominated by Rettinghaus -- Rettinghaus (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Rettinghaus (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't understand the justification for brightening this image (compared to the original). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Mild Support I would've got rid of the uneven borders and probably quietly removed that wart or whatever it is on his forehead, but otherwise this is pleasant to look at. I'm not big on historical fidelity. I prefer things to look nice and clean. INeverCry 05:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Ali Zifan 02:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The crop is a pity. The portrait needs a serious restoration, and the engraving is not outstanding to me.--Jebulon (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Per Jebulon. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2016 at 17:26:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
- Info created by Frances Benjamin Johnston - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 18:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Kasir (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Atsme 📞 01:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support - I don't like the out-of-focus right hand, but I can see that was in the original, and it's otherwise quite a good composition, so in view of how old the photo is and its historical value, I give slight support to featuring it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2016 at 22:46:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
- Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Kasir (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 22:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Atsme 📞 01:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Another lovely church interior by David, and sufficiently different from the other featured interiors of that church to merit its own FP designation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Claus 10:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral cut on bottom --The Photographer (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support − Meiræ 00:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral cut on bottom --Jebulon (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- SupportMö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 07:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Always nice to see—and !vote on—a Diliff church interior again. Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2016 at 23:15:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 01:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose It surely looks good but the golden framing shows some glare, and the entire image lacks wow to me. Being technically good does not make an FP for me, it want to see a special idea in it. Of course Livio can place his tripod under hundreds of ceilings in Rome and take technically good pics of them but I really don’t think we have to feature them all. --Kreuzschnabel 14:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The gold parts look too denoised for me. Lack of relief, seems too "soft".--Jebulon (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Spurzem (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl 13:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)