Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
Featured picture candidates
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 23:58:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Japan
- Info Morning view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park. c/u/n by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 18:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Motorsports
- Info Riders during the 40th edition of Gotland Grand National 2023, the world's biggest, and one of the oldest, Enduro competition.
- Created, uploaded and nominated by --ArildV (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great action shot Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks somewhat apocalyptical. 'Ghost riders in the sky', you know. Great shot! -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 17:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
- Info created by LoMit - uploaded by LoMit - nominated by LoMit -- LoMit talk 17:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- LoMit talk 17:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Pretty neoclassical architecture, symmetrical, good quality Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 15:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Austria
- Info Göttweig Abbey, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support FP because of exceptional detail and good image quality Cmao20 (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
100 Ruble "History of Monetary Circulation of Russia" commemorative coin (2009)
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 12:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Obverse
-
Reverse
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Coins & Seals
- Info created by David Osipov - uploaded by David Osipov - nominated by David Osipov -- David Osipov (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- David Osipov (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info -- Images of the 100-Ruble commemorative coin "History of Monetary Circulation in Russia" (2009). The obverse features the Bank of Russia emblem; the reverse depicts various historical Russian coins and commemorates monetary reforms. The only high-res contemporary Russian gold coin on Wikimedia Commons -- David Osipov (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The photos are a bit small, but they are very sharp and I think they are really interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 11:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bangladesh
- Info Fishermen fishing with a big net in River Padma, district of Rajshahi, Bangladesh. According to the description, environmental damage has led to a gradual drying of the Padma River which impacts all residents and also presents big problems to the fishermen. Created and uploaded by Asker Ibne Firoz, nominated by – Aristeas (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support This photo works in many ways: as an almost abstract artwork with beautiful textures; as an educative document of the special shapes of the sediments in a river; as a photo of the fishermen at work, showing how small are they and their boat; and, according to the photo’s description, as a documentation of the dying river. Quality is very good for a drone photo (a tiny little bit of grain and some small overexposed areas, but overall very sharp, realistic colours and contrast). – The file certainly needs a better name, but in these weeks the international WLE jury is assessing the images and I guess renaming the file right now could break the jury process. Therefore I will rename this file later to a more descriptive name. – Aristeas (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great. As you say, name should be changed, but doesn't need to happen right now. Cmao20 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The picture is smt - quite a transcending one. Quality is great. David Osipov (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Exceptional capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great pattern. And 17 Mpx is not small. Yann (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 08:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Serbia
- Info Gardoš Tower, Belgrade, Serbia. Made in time of Austro-Hungaria 1896 as a most furthest-southern position, as a part of Hungary. -- Mile (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very striking and well composed. A good candidate despite some distortions. Cmao20 (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 05:46:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me --A. Öztas 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- A. Öztas 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very beautiful and well done. The problem is that your photo directly competes with this very similar FP which has been taken by Diliff in 2007. It’s not one of his very best photos, but still a very strong competitor with high sharpness of details. Of course there are misc. differences – your photo is more of a night view, while Diliff’s one is a blue-hour shot; Diliff’s version shows misc. persons while your one is free of them; etc. In the end I think the point of view is different enough and better in your shot – the central way leading to the entrance is a clear advantage. So we can keep Diliff’s FP as FP because of the beautiful blue hour atmosphere and the details sharpness, and feature your new photo because of the somewhat better perspective and the better lighting of the arches. – Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- In fact there were a few people around the Colosseum, when I was there to take some night shots. Unfortunately some of them were launching flying LED toys into the air, which caused unwanted light trails… To manage this and still capture the scene cleanly, I opted for a 15-minute long exposure. This helped me minimize the distracting elements while enhancing the lighting of the arches and overall atmosphere. Meanwhile, a police car drove past twice, but due to the long exposure time, it's not to be seen here. --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support For a place this famous we can have more than one FP, and this one is good. Cmao20 (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nobody goes to this place in the middle of the night for nothing. --Wilfredor (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Shortly after I arrived, another photographer from Canada was also packing up his things and we got chatting briefly. It was his last day in Rome and he wanted to take some nice night shots of the Colosseum. Unfortunately, his remaining battery barely lasted more than 10 minutes - I was sorry about that, but I couldn't help his Nikon. In the end, he was just annoyed with himself. To be honest, I thought there would be a lot more going on at a sight like this - especially with regard to photography - but maybe it was also due to the time of day (or night). --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's too bad about the battery! It's frustrating, He is a commons photographer? I'm also from Canada, maybe I know him Wilfredor (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't asked, if he is on Commons. He showed me some photographs of one of his friends, who uses Sony, but to my shame I haven't noticed his Instagram username. If it helps, he had a Nikon Z9, which he had bought a short time earlier. Perhaps we should attach small Commons badges to our camera straps or tripods so that we can recognize each other (satire - or not). --A. Öztas 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's too bad about the battery! It's frustrating, He is a commons photographer? I'm also from Canada, maybe I know him Wilfredor (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Shortly after I arrived, another photographer from Canada was also packing up his things and we got chatting briefly. It was his last day in Rome and he wanted to take some nice night shots of the Colosseum. Unfortunately, his remaining battery barely lasted more than 10 minutes - I was sorry about that, but I couldn't help his Nikon. In the end, he was just annoyed with himself. To be honest, I thought there would be a lot more going on at a sight like this - especially with regard to photography - but maybe it was also due to the time of day (or night). --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Close wing moisture sucking of Papilio clytia (Linnaeus, 1758) - Common Mime (Male) ( From Dissimilis) WLB.jpg
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 05:28:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: ' Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)
- Info created by Anitava Roy - uploaded by Anitava Roy - nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Atudu (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Could do with a spot of selective denoising in places but very good photo Cmao20 (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 17:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Chile#Los Lagos Region
- Info Sharp and well-lit photo of this Chilean natural monument, the only place in the world that's a breeding site for both Humboldt and Magellanic penguins. No FPs of this place, or from this province of Chile. I also love the little boat in the distance. created by Rjcastillo - uploaded by Rjcastillo - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support It has the shape of a giant turtle, and the distant ship also gives it a feeling of immense size. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good perspective and colours. I also like the turbulent waters with surf and foam, and many shades from green over turquoise and blue to violet. – Aristeas (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent in full screen, great find! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 08:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 16:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Saxony-Anhalt
- Info Portal of the Town Hall (1 Markt) of Quedlinburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful! Cmao20 (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Composition, subject🌹, light -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 08:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes. This is one of the rare subjects where the vertical light and the strong shadows actually work very well. – Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 12:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#North Caucasian Federal District
Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Others - Info Balancing rock in the Atsgara Valley with cliffs of Mount Zagedan in the background, Western Caucasus. All by -- Argenberg (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC).
- Support -- Argenberg (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting sight, good image quality Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Very interesting view and subject. It’s a pity that the light is a bit unfortunate – harsh shadows at the stone, flat light on the montains in the background. – Aristeas (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the point of the photo is the balancing rock and the rock are very dark. It appears almost black before opening the image in full size. Maybe it can be fixed if you go back to the raw file. But for me, the main subject of the picture (the balancing rock) is underexposed now and and therefore not FP imo.--ArildV (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Church of light.jpg (delist)
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 11:13:33
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info This picture is clearly a manipulation – it's 2 pictures merged together: daylight (or very long-exposure moonlight) shot of the church and night shot of the sky). See the different noise levels of the foreground VS the sky. And there are artifacts from the background removal (check the blue outlines around the church tower). The foreground also suffers a lot from chromatic aberration, but in the areas, where the new sky was attached, the aberation artifacts were erased. Also, the real church has a cross on the top of the tower, which is missing in this picture. There also used to be a lamp on the left, which was also retouched – you can still see the leftover of the lamp around the pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. I can't beleive that the Wiki community is OK with that and can't believe this could become a FP and a finalist in Picture of the Year. (Original nomination)
- Delist I have stated the reasons in the Info section. I would like to see the original RAWs or out-of-camera JPGs to prove whether (and how) this was manipulated.--RealPhotoManiac (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Why is this request coming from a 20-minute-old account? (in addition to what's been mentioned by Cart below) --SHB2000 (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I was asked about this file, so here goes: Of course that photo is a combination of two photos, but I think not in a sinister way. It's simply an HDR, something that astro-photographers do all the time to get the best possible images. (Example from the same photographer where he describes the process of such photos.) If we are to ban all photos that are not just one photo as in raw, we should get rid of all stacked, HDR and panoramas too. Selecting different settings for the same scene at the same time is not against the rules. --Cart (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- 1) All images created by combining 2 or more photos or should be properly categorised ho highlight this, right? There are rules for that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria) and this picture clearly violates them.
- 2) HDR should be just a series of pictures stacked together, but shot in the same time and place. I would be OK if this was the case. However, it looks like night sky was combined with a daylight foreground. I am not convinced that Moon or any other light source would create such hard shadows. Compared to other daylight shots (e.g https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeshlabotnik/53735747194/), the light looks very similar. Compared to ther night shots (https://www.shutterstock.com/cs/image-photo/northern-light-aurora-borealis-vik-church-546515572), the light is very different. In reality, there are spotlights around the church and nothing to cast light on the mountains around.
- 4) I believe that the encyclopedical value of FPs should come from the fact that they show the reality, which is not the case here. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I recommend confirming the date of the photo with the Northern Lights at that time. I think there should be no problem combining photos from the same place regardless of the time or day. Having this information in the image description would be much appreciated but many users do not know how to do this or do not find it necessary. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Having been twice to Vík í Mýrdal in Iceland and seen that church on a hill on top of the city I am not sure wether this is a single photo or the combination of multiple photos. With long exposure at night, any small light source gets exponentially increased and pictures can look like as if they were taken in day time even though they were taken at night. I can't exclude that the illumination of this picture takes it's source from city light + moon light + aurora light. For example on this picture that I took at 22:01 in Switzerland when it was completely dark to the human eye, the mountain on the photo has harsh light and shadows that only come from the moon and nothing else (but to the human eye the light and shadows were not that harsh, only to the camera because of long exposure)! And the effect is even bigger on white surfaces such as with the snow or the church painting. Conclusion : yes it is possible to have harsh light and shadows on photos taken in complete darkness with long exposure and I can't exclude that this picture is just 1 picture and not a combination of multiple pictures -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- But the chromatic aberrations on each side of the white part of the tower are a bit strange because they are not regular and may seem like there was some editing in that area. So it is not impossible either that it's a combination of pictures. But it might just be poor editing to try to remove the chromatic aberration so it's still possible that it's just one single picture -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- The chromatic aberration is usually most intense towards the corners. Least intense in the center. The objects affected by CA usually have a blue outline on one side and a red outline on the other. So, around the church tower, it is not aberration, but rather leftovers of the original (probably) blue sky that was there before the aurora sky was added. Otherwise, the aberration would be visible also in other parts of the church and not just the tower. And how would you explain different noise levels between the sky and the foreground? And check the transition between the sky and the foreground on the very right. There are clearly visible leftovers from using the selection tool and the eraser. And the little black rock is there twice - on the right side of the rock, behind the one added as part of image 1, you can see the one that was part of the image 2, because the images were not aligned 1:1 when merged together. Also, the real church has a cross on the very top of the tower, which is completely missing in the picture, probably because it would be too hard to paint out the original background in such a complex shape. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I had an occasion were I had chromatic aberrations on the middle-top of a picture so it can happen even with good equipment but you're right that normally one side is red and the other is blue and that in this case it's two blue sides on the church tower. The difference of noise level is also present when comparing the illuminated parts and the not illuminated parts of this picture that I did but you're right that in the case of the church picture the difference seems a bit too big. Also it's very strange that the cross of the church was removed. Finally in light of this I have no doubt anymore that the church picture is unfortunately not real. The position of the northern light also felt too perfect to be true (even if sometimes people can get very lucky) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately all these hypotheses can be classified with the presentation of the RAW, something that I proposed some time ago is that each FPC should have its respective RAW to support the editions. Wilfredor (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I fully support what you have written. It is common that all serious photo competitions require the participants to be able to provide the original RAW files. Wikipedia does not require this so I am sure there are many more secretly manipulated pictures around here. I would be OK with this picture, if it would be properly categorised as manipulated (as all the panoramas and other merged shots should be) and if the manipulation would be done properly (no visible transitions, no artifacts, no ghosts and no alternation of the objects in the scene – like e.g. the cross on the tower, which is missing). RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- The chromatic aberration is usually most intense towards the corners. Least intense in the center. The objects affected by CA usually have a blue outline on one side and a red outline on the other. So, around the church tower, it is not aberration, but rather leftovers of the original (probably) blue sky that was there before the aurora sky was added. Otherwise, the aberration would be visible also in other parts of the church and not just the tower. And how would you explain different noise levels between the sky and the foreground? And check the transition between the sky and the foreground on the very right. There are clearly visible leftovers from using the selection tool and the eraser. And the little black rock is there twice - on the right side of the rock, behind the one added as part of image 1, you can see the one that was part of the image 2, because the images were not aligned 1:1 when merged together. Also, the real church has a cross on the very top of the tower, which is completely missing in the picture, probably because it would be too hard to paint out the original background in such a complex shape. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- But the chromatic aberrations on each side of the white part of the tower are a bit strange because they are not regular and may seem like there was some editing in that area. So it is not impossible either that it's a combination of pictures. But it might just be poor editing to try to remove the chromatic aberration so it's still possible that it's just one single picture -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment As an original supporter of the nomination, I'm leaning towards a
NeutralDelist vote. On the one hand, the indications are in favor of delisting, but on the other hand, the arguments of Cart, Giles, and Wilfredor need to be considered. Because of the recent cases of undeclared manipulation that have come to light, I am more sensitive these days than I was 2 ½ years ago when I supported the image in good faith. If retouching goes beyond the norm, it must be disclosed on the file page. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- I have just found out that not only the cross on the top of the tower is missing, but also a lamp was painted out. Here is a Google Street View for comparison. Everyone can clearly see that the lamp used to be in the picture, but was retouched. You can still see the leftover around pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. With all due respect to the image author, I believe he is indeed a good photographer, but a very poor photo editor. If someone could please turn on image notes on this page, I can highlight all the issues directly in the picture. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Abstainfor now, but tending to {{Delist}} because the orientation of the shadows / light seems different on the church versus on the mountains behind. Church : light comes from the right, while mountains : light comes from the left. Or is it an illusion / perspective effect? However, I find SHB2000's question legitimate, and think it deserves an answer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- On hold Thanks for your 12th edit. Could you also make a thirteen contribution here? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- If I find any other object that was painted out from the picture, I will certainly make more contributions. I see no reason why somebody should be bothered with it. ;-) RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's an unusual start to participate to Commons by nominating an image for delisting. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- And it reminds us of some other users who were in fact reincarnations of banned users. This is why we are a bit cautious. Sorry if you are really a new user, please understand our caution. – Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- And if I was a reincarnation of a banned user, would it change something on the fact that heavily manipulated photos are widely accepted here on Wikipedia? RealPhotoManiac (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you were the reincarnation of a banned user, you could have fun making us doubt for hours, days, months or years... -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not here to make fun of you, believe me. If you have that feeling, I am very sorry for that. Please notice that I am not attacking anybody. I am here to raise awareness that cheating with photos is unfortunately a big topic here on Wikipedia and that the community here needs to focus on it a bit more. Pictures by this author are an easy example, but in the nearby future, AI generated / edited pictures will bring more difficult challenges, where it will be very hard to distinguish original vs fake images... RealPhotoManiac (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- New account, you want to teach us something on Commons, but you've also like completely lost your background / history / identity before entering here. Obviously you're an experienced user with knowledge on the process, the site, the image note gadget, etc. and for whatever reason do not want to reveal these elements of your profile. Pardon me, but that's rather odd, unless you're the real Zorro? :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you were the reincarnation of a banned user, you could have fun making us doubt for hours, days, months or years... -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- And it reminds us of some other users who were in fact reincarnations of banned users. This is why we are a bit cautious. Sorry if you are really a new user, please understand our caution. – Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- And here is my another contribution. I have checked other photos made by the same author, AstroAnthony. He received a honorary mention in Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2019/Winners/Ireland for this picture: File:The stars and man.jpg. The picture is again a fake. The background can be found in another upload here: File:Milky way nebula.jpg. The foreground is copy-pasted from another photo. Put the images one over another as layers and you will see it. What's the point of awarding a photomanipulation? All heavily manipulated images should be properly categorized and described. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- After seeing this comment I went to see for other uploads of the uploader and I found this picture were there is absolutely no doubt that it is fake with three layers. There is a big difference in detail and focus between the man and the rock on which he is standing. The light on the man is completely different and doesn't match the light of the rock. Also, the man seems badly placed. Finally, we can see that the rocks were cut from their original picture...
- So with all the hints on the other images as well it seems many night shots of this user are not true...
- The position of the aurora on the church also seemed a bit too perfect to be true (but I was hoping that the photographer was just lucky) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like the uploader of this photo also made a new account according to this comment and comparing with this other account name and pictures and multiple of his shots were awarded at WSC 2023 Ireland but I haven't checked yet if the shots awarded are real or not -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have checked some of his other photos. This and this are also suspicious – a man on the rock is inserted. See the different levels of sharpness and contrast. The second photo also won an award outside Wikipedia. Is there any place on Wiki where we could discuss this topic further? I guess this page should stay focused on the church picture... RealPhotoManiac (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like the uploader of this photo also made a new account according to this comment and comparing with this other account name and pictures and multiple of his shots were awarded at WSC 2023 Ireland but I haven't checked yet if the shots awarded are real or not -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist Thanks for the helpful comments -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- On hold Thanks for your 12th edit. Could you also make a thirteen contribution here? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist The arguments above have convinced me. This isn't just normal HDR, the transitions between land and sky are too abrupt for this to be the result of one frame. Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist I don’t see a problem if this photo is composed from two or more different exposures taken at the same date in the same place; this is a common approach in astrophotography – normally one or more frames of the sky are combined with a shot for the foreground which benefits from very different exposure times, ISO and/or aperture settings. Of course it would be much better if that was explained in the description page. It‘s also possible that the combined shots were taken at different dates or times of the day; this certainly would require to be documented; but that’s not sure. But what is sure (and what convinces me to vote for delisting) is that there are some obvious defects, like the missing cross and the coarse contours, which indicate that the montage has been done in a rather careless way. This is indeed a clear argument against the FP status, independent from the other questions. So many thanks to RealPhotoManiac for bringing this to our attention, and also many thanks to other participants, especially to Giles Laurent for the solid information. – Aristeas (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist For example the missing cross is too obvious problem. --Thi (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist Many thanks to all involved for the wide range of information that now provides a conclusive overview to make a reliable decision. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist It now became very clear to me, thanks RealPhotoManiac for the new arguments. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist as per all above explanation. Yann (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 07:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
- Info Theyyam is a ritual art form of Kerala.
All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Cool picture and I like the colours, composition and bokeh, but sorry, it is quite blurry and artefact-y at full size and the lack of sharpness is still visible on a downsample Cmao20 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cmao. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 21:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements#Morocco
- Info created by Mounir Neddi - uploaded by Mounir Neddi - nominated by Mounir Neddi -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure about this one. Featureless sky and tight crop at the left, in my opinion. Interesting people are very small in the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 21:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
- Info created by ReneeWrites - uploaded by ReneeWrites - nominated by User:ReneeWrites -- ReneeWrites (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ReneeWrites (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Well framed; huge resolution and detail. Cmao20 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per Cmao & more than nice --Terragio67 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 17:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
- Info Inside the Sforzesco Castle, in Milan, it is possible to visit the Dukes' Courtyard (Arch. Benedetto Ferrini, 1473), the heart of the life of the Sforza court, which with the swimming pool in the garden, the frescoed portico and the decorations, convey the sumptuous and elegant lifestyle of the Milan dukes. Here it is impossible not to be enchanted and expect to have a souvenir photo for yourself... Created - uploaded - nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I wish it was a bit sharper, but regardless, stunning composition and beautiful place. Cmao20 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. In this case even the two tourists (?) at the right fit well into the scene, like staffage people in a painting. – Aristeas (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Aristeas. The two women are the icing on the cake and make the composition special. Even without them it would be FP-worthy, but with them it's super-wowy in my opinion. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Sorry to dissent. I like the thumbnail, but not the picture at full size. I find the tourist photographer at the right distracting. The other woman wearing a black dress does not bother me. And I would support an alternative version with only this person sitting. I mean you can crop both sides a little, by slightly altering the ratio of the image. Image note added -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It’s good that you dissent, Basile, because you introduce a new point of view and arguments. Only by sharing different points of view we get an informative debate. Your suggested crop is a very interesting alternative. – Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Aristeas. I also think divergent opinions allow us to move forward, within the framework of a respectful exchange. Fortunately I am not the only one nor always a dissenter here :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I feel the photographer gives us the context that the sitting person is posing, and I find that to be important context. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why? There is perhaps someone brushing their teeth behind this photographer, and it doesn't seem inadequate to me to keep it invisible outside the frame. The photographer at the right might have a nice subject, while this view is like showing a "parasitic" element. I mean it really makes "tourist shot", whereas it could be a more careful, more elegant and more subtle composition. This woman posing could also be watching her children playing, or waiting for grandma, or listening to music. Anything possible. And this imaginary part would be more creative in my opinion, for the viewer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- The composition was born together with the two people (presumably mother and daughter from Milan) depicted in the image who are certainly an added value. A flaw that stands out is the proximity of the mother to the right edge, so I enlarged the image as much as possible, as well as making the image slightly more focused. I recognize that Basile Morin's suggestion is equally interesting, so with eight days left until the end of the FP candidature, I believe there is time to think about the alternative one. IMHO both images are good, but feel free to say yours. I would like to thank everyone for the suggestions received. Terragio67 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point, Basile, but personally I have a more favourable view of tourists taking pictures at monuments/tourist places. In this image particularly, the scene just happens to capture what I think is a gentle moment between two women—a painting within a painting kind of thing, while keeping the focus on the monument itself. That’s why I think the photographer forms important context about the woman being photographed. That said, I do also think a square(r) crop would be nice regardless of the women. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your point of view. A square crop is also interesting and I may (weakly) support. Only weakly, because the crop would be too tight at the right of the sitting woman. Thus the larger view below is in my opinion a more airy composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- The composition was born together with the two people (presumably mother and daughter from Milan) depicted in the image who are certainly an added value. A flaw that stands out is the proximity of the mother to the right edge, so I enlarged the image as much as possible, as well as making the image slightly more focused. I recognize that Basile Morin's suggestion is equally interesting, so with eight days left until the end of the FP candidature, I believe there is time to think about the alternative one. IMHO both images are good, but feel free to say yours. I would like to thank everyone for the suggestions received. Terragio67 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why? There is perhaps someone brushing their teeth behind this photographer, and it doesn't seem inadequate to me to keep it invisible outside the frame. The photographer at the right might have a nice subject, while this view is like showing a "parasitic" element. I mean it really makes "tourist shot", whereas it could be a more careful, more elegant and more subtle composition. This woman posing could also be watching her children playing, or waiting for grandma, or listening to music. Anything possible. And this imaginary part would be more creative in my opinion, for the viewer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Alternative image, Dukes' Courtyard - Milan
[edit]- Info Valid crop suggestion proposed by Basile Morin... Created - uploaded - nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support this version, while I think the lady photographer was a nice addition (rather than distracting), this crop is more pleasing to my eyes because the other had too much of the side walls. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks, Terragio67, for the alternative. It is like an inhabited / visited place, without focusing on a special activity, that is not particularly extraordinary (everybody take pictures almost everywhere, it's not like fishing for example :-)). A fairly common habit in this kind of place and situation is to wait patiently for the "obstacles to the painting" to finish their business and finally pass their turn :-) However, it seems that here our photographer has dispensed with this effort :-) Once again, this is only my personal opinion and I respect other points of view and other decisions. Notifying the previous voters and participants, @Cmao20, SHB2000, Llez, Aristeas, and Radomianin: @Екатерина Борисова and UnpetitproleX: -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Also fine Cmao20 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't care about the lady photographer in the first picture, and I'm not a great fan of square images, so I prefer previous version, but this one has it's own beauty. As a result, I can't make a choice :) -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 17:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family : Apidae (Bumble Bees, Honey Bees, Carpenter Bees, Cuckoo Bees, Orchid Bees, and Stingless Bees)
- Info A red-tailed bumblebee or bombus lapidarius, a female worker, collecting nectar and pollen on chives. On its rear legs you can see pollen baskets (or “corbicula”), where it stashes loads of pollen to carry back to the nest. The picture was taken in a garden in the southern part of the Stockholm Municipality, Sweden, by Lake Mälaren, the third-largest freshwater lake in Sweden (after Vänern and Vättern). Created by Simiha - uploaded by Simiha - nominated by Simiha -- Simiha (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Simiha (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry. It's cool to get a bumblebee this close and I think this is a useful image but I don't think the sharpness and depth of field match the best we have in the FP galleries. Cmao20 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacks image quality, and not the best view of the bee --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: quality problem -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2024 (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. |
- I withdraw my nomination Simiha (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 13:40:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Italy
- Info Summit cross of the Schneespitze in the Stubai Alps and view into the Pflersch valley. In the background the Zillertal Alps. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The orange object at the bottom spoils the overall great image and should be removed.--Ermell (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint. I cleaned up the summit area. Milseburg (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Lovely composition and excellent image quality Cmao20 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Perfect! --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support well done --Terragio67 (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Morning view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park - Set
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 07:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Twilight view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park
-
Sunrise view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Japan
- Info Twilight view and sunrise view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park. Set nomination. c/u/n by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I supported these before and I still think they are beautiful. I'm not sure it was wise to withdraw them and renominate as a set without any actual change to the content of the images, and I don't think we should make a habit of that. But I do think these look more impress as a duo and may be likelier to pass that way. Sensitive light and mood. Cmao20 (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good idea! JukoFF (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful set. ★ 22:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The power line is very present in this scenery and ruins it for me, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This was exactly my feedback before Poco a poco (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the effort of going at different times, I like the reflection and seeing the difference in color between the hours, but the shot itself seems ordinary, it lacks some element that makes it special. Sorry, it's a well-made shot. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes, it’s a pity about pylon and power line. But from this perspective the pylon fits very well between the trees, so it does not really bother me. – Aristeas (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice reflections, but all the composition seems to be based on highlighting this rather ugly electric pylon, from my point of view. So it is a central distracting element. I find no charm in these hanging power lines, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty much so. Wolverine XI 00:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 22:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Moldova
- Info Saharna Monastery, Saharna, Moldova. It's considered one of the biggest centres for religious pilgrimages in Moldova. The legend says that a monk from the monastery once saw the shining figure of Saint Maria on the top of a rock. When reaching that spot the monk saw a mark of a footstep on the ground. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support This was on my list to nominate Cmao20 (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive room with abundant, but harmonious decoration; excellent photo. – Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support South Sudan, Moldova… what's the next country? ★ 23:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- To be more precise: after South Sudan I visited Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania (including Zanzibar), Kenia, Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain (not mentioning 4-5 countries in Europe) :). I just came back from Turkey, next target is Baja California. Brazil still has to wait :( Poco a poco (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 22:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Spain
- Info RetroChoir of the cathedral of Segovia, Spain. The temple was built in the Flamboyant style and was dedicated in 1768, constituting one of the latest Gothic cathedrals in Europe. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Love the ray of sunlight Cmao20 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful depiction of that famous cathedral, giving an impressive feeling of the size and height of these sacred halls, and the sunray is the the icing on the cake. – Aristeas (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support
There is a noticeable chromatic aberration in the rays of light, specifically one green and one purple. There's a general overexposure resulting in overly bright windows; although this is common in non-HDR shots, I believe it has been slightly overdone in this case. An aperture of F/11 doesn't seem to be sufficient, as the foreground, especially at the edges, appears sharp, but the more distant areas of the rear ceiling lack sharpness and are overexposed. The Corpus Christi looks flat, possibly due to light pollution. In summary, the issue could be mitigated by lowering the exposure and correcting the chromatic aberration, especially in the central purple ray. Regarding the lack of focus at the end due to the shallow depth of field, I consider it acceptable.(See notes) --Wilfredor (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I believe taht what you call CA is light diffraction created when the ray of light crosses the window, similar to the effect you expect when a ray of light goes through a prism. I have reduced the colours though a bit. I also reworked a bit the overexposure of the window in the top center, dehazed the center a bit and applied some sharpening overall. Poco a poco (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's better now, I think it might have been some color refraction, you were there so I'll take your word for it. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 21:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups
- Info Albert Edelfelt: The Luxembourg Gardens, Paris (1887) - uploaded by Susannaanas - nominated by --Thi (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Thi (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent reproduction of a notable painting. The painting itself stands out for me among similar Paris paintings from that era because it concentrates on the activities of the children and of their nannies. – Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support High resolution and good quality. Surprising composition with people cropped on both sides, almost like a photograph -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above... stunning. -- Terragio67 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Schlosskirche
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 20:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Looking east towards the altar
-
Looking west towards the organ
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
- Info A long time ago (some years now) I left DXR a note on his talk page pointing out a stitching error in the first of these two pictures, and he kindly corrected it for me. Looking at the picture again now, I think it is interesting enough to be worthy of FP, together with its companion piece, the view of this church's nave in the opposite direction. The Schlosskirche, or literally castle church, is a German baroque building constructed in the mid eighteenth century and adjoining the castle/palace of the town of Bad Mergentheim, where the Teutonic Knights once had their base. It is a notable landmark and I think these pictures give a good impression of the interior, including the beautiful ceiling frescoes (which you can see even more clearly in this picture which is IMO FP in its own right but may not fit into the scope of this set). created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality and detail, perfect depiction of the place and aesthetically pleasing. – Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --ReneeWrites (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Lack of exif information --Wilfredor (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support for the set. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 19:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
- Info All by Kritzolina. Wikimania 2024 made it possible for me to visit the KZs in Auschwitz for the first time. I did not plan to take pictures, but some happened. This one feels like it could work to show some of my feelings there. I am not sure about the gallery for this image. Please feel free to change the gallery to a more fitting one, if you have a clear idea of wher to put it. -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Effective composition that highlights the horrible nature of this place Cmao20 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't work for me. Does not stand out from ordinary images.--Thi (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support In my opinion, the documentary value of this shot is just as high as its artistic value. It is not a whitewashed treatment, but conveys the horror that lies in the imagination of how many people voluntarily threw themselves into this fence in order to preserve their dignity and free will, at least in death, which were denied them in the hell of Auschwitz. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Thi. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support It’s almost impossible to capture the horror of Auschwitz with a photo – in the light of the day that hell on earth looks so harmless and boring. Therefore the best we can do is to make the viewers discover themselves the cruelty which hides among the everday aspects of that place. At the first glance the photo looks trivial: we see just a fence. Second glance: it’s a fence with barbed wire. Third glance: the fence is not just fixed to the fence post, as usual, it is fixed with an electric fence insulators; so this was a electric barbed-wire fence. And if we now look at the background, over the innocent grass, we discover the silhouette of the building, dark and threatening. This menacing atmosphere is enforced by the gloomy day and the muted colours. IMHO the photo successfully captures the banality of evil which is one of the most horrifying aspects of the whole NS mass murder – and that is a real achievement. It would make a perfect cover photo for a book about the NS extermination machinery. – Aristeas (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Thi. -- Karelj (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The picture has good symbolic power. --XRay 💬 18:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose If you don't read the description, it's just a normal photo, and it shouldn't be. JukoFF (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The description is part and complements the process of understanding the file. ★ 23:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support because of the image's high educational value and strong symbolism. I agreed with Thi, but only until I read the description. Before today I was not aware of the horrible fact that there were electrified barbed fences at Nazi camps to prevent prisoners from escaping. Now I do, thanks to this image.--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thi. -- Inu06 (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per JukoFF --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Close wing position of Amathuxidia amythaon (Doubleday, 1847) - Koh-i-Noor puddling on rotten fruit WLB.jpg
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 17:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
- Info created by Anitava Roy - uploaded by Anitava Roy - nominated by Anitava Roy -- Anitava Roy (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Anitava Roy (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment a strange green noise under the mouth --Wilfredor (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment A very good picture, nice and sharp, but I agree with Wilfredor, that speckled pattern in the background under the mouth could do with some work. Also I had to fix the gallery again. Cmao20 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Heilbronn - Böckingen - Ziegeleipark - Ziegeleisee - Ansicht von Osten im Frühling (2.2, mit Schwan).jpg
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 14:13:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Germany
- Info The Ziegeleisee in the Ziegeleipark in Böckingen, Heilbronn, Germany, view from east in spring. Created on the site of a former brickyard, this pond has become home to so many plant and animal species that it has been declared a protected biotope. While I took some photos, a mute swan swept over the water and added a nice extra to the picture ;–). All by – Aristeas (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support As per comments on my talk page, superb composition and light, and I love the swan. Cmao20 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao --Kritzolina (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The beauty lies in the detail of the landing swan. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Inu06 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Pretty landscape with a nice detail in the center. Particularly appreciable at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 18:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Basile, Radomianin and Cmao20. Superb light & details... --Terragio67 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very serene. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Salzburg Altstadt Panorama 20240728 P
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 09:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Salzburg seen from Kapuzinerberg at golden hour
-
Salzburg seen from Kapuzinerberg at blue hour
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Austria
- Info Two identicals views at golden hour and blue hour from Kapuzinerberg to Hohensalzburg Fortress and the historic center of Salzburg, federal state of Salzburg, Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Two excellent captures of one of the most famous views of that famous old town. I am not 100% sure whether the set rules apply here or not; but I support either of the two images, whether together or each on its own. – Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support Stunning work, and thank you for spending time doing all the annotations to show us what we're looking at. Cmao20 (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Supportǃǃ Two perfect panos, I'm astonished... – Terragio67 (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support for the set. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Exceptional resolution, nice viewpoint, special light in both -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support It's the return of the set nominations! ★ 23:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --ReneeWrites (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 09:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Chile#Antofagasta Region
- Info created by Silvio Rossi, uploaded by Tuvalkin, nominated by Yann
- Info The Lascar (left) and the Aguas Calientes (right) volcanoes, located in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes Mountains in Chile.
- Support I like the pastel colors, and the composition. Only one FP of nature of Chile. -- Yann (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Hem, luckily, about 30 FPs of nature in Chile (the link was broken). – Aristeas (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 10:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I like the composition a lot but I'm not sure about the image quality. There is not a lot of detail at full size - perhaps due to heat haze of some sort? I'm not quite convinced it's one of our best when we have Chilean landscapes like this but appreciate it's a slightly harsh vote Cmao20 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 09:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
- Info created by Kabelleger - uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 09:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 09:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 10:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great composition and light. Cmao20 (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Terragio67 (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 – and once again a beautiful contrast between the muted colours of the landscape and the bright colours of the train. – Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support Light, composition, fantastic landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info The lack of sharpness might be just a matter of post-treatment. Kabelleger and Cmao20, what do you think about this version? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely an improvement Basile Morin, but maybe not enough of an improvement to add as an alternative. Kabelleger logs in quite often so he might see this. Cmao20 (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wow that's a huge improvement, and without making it look noisy or over-sharpened, I'm impressed! I would just upload it over the existing version. And please tell us how you did that :) Thank you very much! --Kabelleger (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cmao20 and Kabelleger. Topaz Denoise AI was used in this situation. It was a very simple and efficient program, easy to use, unfortunately not available anymore as far as I know. Now it has become Topaz Photo AI, slightly more complex, but doing almost the same thing. With more options also, based on AI. Using both, I really recommend. It's 100% your work, I'm happy you plan to "upload over the existing version". -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Here the sharpness is unfortunately not quite at the level we can usually expect from Bahnbilder.ch, sorry. --A.Savin 14:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, I know what you mean. I continue to support, but I do think an oppose is entirely reasonable in this case, Kabelleger has definitely presented sharper ones. Cmao20 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support JukoFF (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Savin, author put shallow DoF and missed the target, suppose locomotive would be focus point but its in the middle. f/7.1 on 61mm. Not good setting for panorama shot. Composition is nice. --Mile (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry that the image quality doesn't hold up, I didn't really notice until it was mentioned here. It is however not a DoF issue; f7.1 works perfectly fine in this situation. It's just that the lens wasn't properly focused to infinity; the 24-70 2.8L has quite a wide range where the center is sharp, but a very narrow range where the edges are sharp. I am aware of this problem but mistakes happen. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 08:48:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1930-1939
- Info created by unknown photographer, restored and uploaded by Bammesk, nominated by Yann
- Info Three Nobel Prize laureates in physics photographed in 1931. In front row from left to right: Albert A. Michelson (1907 laureate), Albert Einstein (1921 laureate), Robert A. Millikan (1923 laureate). In back row from left to right: astronomer Walter Sydney Adams, mathematician Walther Mayer, historian Max Farrand.
- Support -- Yann (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 09:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good group photo, nice with the signatures, solid reproduction. – Aristeas (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great historical value and well restored Cmao20 (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Terragio67 (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per my support on the English WP FPC page. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Argenberg (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agree with others -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely, very historical moment and restoration well done --Wilfredor (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 07:54:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Serbia
- Info St. Mark's Church, Belgrade, Serbia. My shot, drone. -- Mile (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Lovely church, nice composition and good quality Cmao20 (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks unreal — Inu06 (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Building, viewpoint, weather -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Very poor categorization --A.Savin 13:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Any suggestion ? Wanted to put Aerial shots, but probably would be only one so far. --Mile (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 21:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Other_land_vehicles
- Info created and uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support @UnpetitproleX: Thanks for the nomination. --Tagooty (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 14:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 15:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, not getting 'wow' from either the subject or composition. BigDom (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 21:23:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Algeria
- InfoDecoration of the upper facade of the minaret of the Mosque of Mansourah in Tlemcen, built during the siege of the city in 1303 by the Marinid dynasty. The minaret was one of the three tallest in the world at the time, standing at 45 meters, alongside the Giralda in Spain and the Koutoubia Mosque in Morocco, all inspired by the architecture of the minaret of Qal'at Bani Hammad. .Created by Riad Salih - uploaded by Riad Salih - nominated by Riad Salih -- (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support But the Qutb Minar is older and higher. ;o) Yann (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Minarets in the Maghreb (North Africa + Al Andalusia) are unique in the world, all in rectangular form and all inspired by the first mosque in the region, the Great Mosque of Kairouan. Riad Salih (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Might benefit from slight perspective correction to try to get all the verticals straight, however, this is a really cool motif and a great picture. Cmao20 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- The minaret isn't perfectly symmetric due to the many restorations. Riad Salih (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful -- Inu06 (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Its leaning to left. Rotation nedeed, but i would not go distiortion correction or skewing, then upper part will be much wider than bottom and horizontal lines are sugesting to rotate - just rotation. --Mile (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Just want to second Mile’s hint. Is that minaret leaning in reality? If not, the photo would benefit from a small clockwise rotation. – Aristeas (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, the shape of the minaret appears as such due to a combination of restored portions and others that have been destroyed, resulting in its lack of symmetry. Riad Salih (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 20:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Japan
- Info Sunset view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park. c|u|n by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Good quality and a sensitive, subtle mood but I'm not sure I find this one extraordinary enough for FP. I'll live with it for a while. Cmao20 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Certainly not as eye-catching as some other photos from the wonderful Japanese parks and gardens, but I love the serene mood and subtle beauty. Thanks to the perspective even the electricity pylon with its wires fits well into the composition, that’s quite an achievement. – Aristeas (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The longer I look at it the more I 'get' the composition. Very nice. Cmao20 (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, nice sky but the eye-catching electric line, located in the center, is ugly in my subjective view. Moreover, the landscape is totally in the shadow. The colors of the trees are off -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Laitche (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Close wing moisture sucking of Papilio polytes (Linnaeus, 1758)- Common Mormon (Male) (2) WLB.jpg
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 16:48:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)
- Info created by Anitava Roy - uploaded by Anitava Roy - nominated by Anitava Roy -- Anitava Roy (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Anitava Roy (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sure about this one. Pretty butterfly, great composition and bokeh. Also huge resolution (104 megapixels) but perhaps too huge. The detail at full size isn't there and it makes me wonder if upscaling has taken place because the edges of the butterfly appear pixellated and the camera's native resolution is only 32.5 megapixels anyway (see EXIF data) so it seems like something's not right. Cmao20 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also I fixed the gallery + nominator but it'd be nice if you could fill that in yourself in future. Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- thanks Anitava Roy (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also I fixed the gallery + nominator but it'd be nice if you could fill that in yourself in future. Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Question Upsized image? How can you bring 12,500 × 8,333 pixels from a camera that takes maximum 6960 x 4640 pixels? It doesn't look like a panorama with multiple frames -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 14:55:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Hippopotamidae (Hippopotamuses)
- Info created by Giles Laurent - uploaded by Giles Laurent - nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Would be better still if he was facing towards rather than away from the camera, but regardless, excellent capture Cmao20 (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support As a viewer of this scene, I automatically look at the water, which is very well frozen at 1/2,000 of a second. In combination with the hippo, it conveys to me personally a fascinating moment worth supporting. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive image -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Close wing moisture sucking of Eurema brigitta (Stoll, 1780) - Small Grass Yellow (3) WLB.jpg
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 13:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
- Info created by Anitava Roy - uploaded by Anitava Roy - nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Atudu (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good composition and quality. Cmao20 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Small overexposed area between body and wing and some colour fringing at the legs, but overall beautiful and very good quality. – Aristeas (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --99of9 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 10:51:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info Here we have always an image of the town hall of Mont-de-Marsan as FP:
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very beautiful architectural photo Cmao20 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Conditional s, but you must clean those "CA lines on border", anoted. --Mile (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice light and lighting (here modern, less yellowish floodlights are used). Agree that a careful check for CAs etc. would be welcome – e.g. at the left edge of the building and roof. – Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know how I can clean those "CA lines on border" better... Someone can help me? Tournasol7 (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support When viewing the photo at 100%, I found such insignificant CA on the left that they are not noticeable unless you specifically look for them. I don’t consider this a flaw. The photo is well done. -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 10:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Portugal
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Maybe a bit of a crop on the right would improve. Cmao20 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose 1st WB is off, i would put yellow down, or try whole temp to put down. Then garbage bin in front and 2 light bean disturb. Quality is good. --Mile (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The yellow appearance of the façade is probably due to the floodlights used for the lighting (older floodlights often create a very warm tint); a comparison with the foreground and the sky shows that the white balance is not really off. So either we keep the whole appearance, saying that the lighting makes the façade that yellow, period (actually yellowish façades are common in blue hour shots); or only the yellow of the façade should be reduced, not the global temperature (the latter would make sky and foreground totally unrealistic). – Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment @Aristeas i tried here, global temp wont work, but problem is i dont know original color. Temp of lights really made worst. But i see down is OK temp and sky somehow. --Mile (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment @Mile Wow, thank you very much, that’s a great attempt. Yes, the original colour is the question. But when comparing other photos in the category, I would say that your version seems very likely – when the Basilica looks more or less like this in daylight and like that at sunset, it should look more or less like in your version with enlightment at blue hour. – @Tournasol7: Would you like to upload Mile’s version (or something similar, if you prefer to do these edits yourself) under a new filename (because it’s clearly an edited version) and to offer it as an alternative version in this nomination? It would be interesting to see which version voters prefer. Of course it’s your photo and naturally it’s up to you how you want to proceed! – Aristeas (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done; new version uploaded. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Ah, this garbage bin is a shame. I can only see this element, distracting in the foreground. And while I think the building behind is FP-worthy, I tend to oppose this current composition for that reason. Another angle, with a few steps forward would have improved the whole thing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 10:12:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Computer-generated#Mathematics
- Info Square image with fractal elements full of circle shapes created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting pattern, but I find the colors unpleasant. It seems there is color noise. Yann (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info Ah yes, it turns to purple colors on pixel level. This is because the color comes from a color gradient, that cycles with every iteration (deeper into the fractal) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The hole in the middle is not really successful, in my opinion. I would prefer a repetition of the pattern till the end -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 04:41:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 04:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay 💬 04:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I like the concept but the brush/masking marks on the right-hand side are very visible currently. I also find the metal object at the very bottom right a little distracting. BigDom (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed things. The background has improved in my opinion, even though I didn't find it annoying before. I also removed the visible part of the front headlight from the picture, but I didn't find this disturbing either. --XRay 💬 08:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thank you for that. The headlight at bottom right was merely personal taste; I would not oppose if you as the photographer prefer to keep it. The brush marks on the other hand were IMO a major issue and the photograph looks much improved in the latest version. Very happy to support now. BigDom (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice pars pro toto for the whole luxury car, espec. with the pretty reflection. – Aristeas (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Terragio67 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. --Gnosis (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 04:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 04:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay 💬 04:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition. Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Terragio67 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting light -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Argenberg (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 01:34:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Laos
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent, and cool to get a photo with people praying. Cmao20 (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 04:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support very interesting shot -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support woah, that's a pretty amazing capture of people praying. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The monk in the middle looks like he has a loud noise in his back and neck, do you think you can improve this? --Wilfredor (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is a 1.3 s shot taken with a tripod, so possibly the people slightly moved during this relatively long time lapse. In my opinion it is still decent noise level, unless you pixel peep -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful and very educative. Basile, there is a small, but rough transition between smooth and noisy at the mat (?) – see image note. I do not mind the noise (it’s just natural in this dark place), but the fast transition bothers me a bit. Could you take a look and apply a little bit of local noise reduction there (and maybe at some similar small spots)? Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you! Now it looks consistent. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Terragio67 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support for the improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2024 at 21:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky – Milky Way over the Marukha River valley, Arkhyz, Russiа
- Info created by Deodat Gautier - uploaded by Deodat Gautier - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support It could be a bit sharper but I like it. Cmao20 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Mesmerizing -- Inu06 (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Question Could you please add EXIF data? Or at least some information (date, time, location, camera settings, etc.). --Yann (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Date: 03.05.2021
- Time: 01:10
- Location: Arkhyz, 43.622340, 41.444195
- Camera: Canon R6
- Lens: Sigma Art 28mm f/1.4
- Exposure: 19х16s (wo filter) + 19x16s (diffusion filter)
- ISO: 3200
- Dark, flat corrections.
- Software: Sequator 1.6.1, Adobe Photoshop Deodat Gautier (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great, thanks! Yann (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The image makes me miss the times I've gazed upon the milky way camping in the Himalayas. Soon again, hopefully. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic to imagine we would see this if we had better eyes -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Basile. – I have taken the liberty to rename the file (and to update this nomination subpage) because the old name “Milky Way.jpg” was a bit too general to be useful. Hope it helps, – Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Terragio67 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2024 at 21:19:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals / Sea lion. JukoFF (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info created by Елена Верещака - uploaded by Елена Верещака - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- JukoFF (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose A striking sight, but very noisy. I like it a lot but I'm no longer convinced it is amongst our best with the high standard of underwater photography we have seen from users such as Poco a poco recently. I'm also not sure whether it's a proper underwater photo or just an aquarium photo. Cmao20 (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like an underwater shot, the head of the sea lion is above the water. An interesting view but the quality is pretty low. And yes, there is lack of information, there isn't even a single category Poco a poco (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Cmao20. Taken from above, not under water, but we need more information. We should be able to get the species -- there are only six of them, after all. There is one species in Russia -- Steller -- but I don't know how to tell the difference between it and e.g. California from this photo. The color/clarity of the water make me think it's an aquarium shot, but that could just be my ignorance. Regardless, it could use some denoising (though at 12,800 ISO, a lot of detail may be lost). Happy to support if these issues are fixed. — Rhododendrites talk | 14:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with your remarks, I was hasty with the nomination. Colleagues, please suggest a template for withdrawing a nomination. JukoFF (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- {{Withdraw}} works. It's a good photo -- would be worth nominating after some fixes. — Rhododendrites talk | 19:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2024 at 17:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Italy
- Info In 1691, Count Michelangelo Maffei, who had already had the salt warehouse built, had this powerful building built as a defense against pirate attacks. The main function of the Tower was that of defence, to signal attacks by bandits and raiders and to defend the precious resource of salt, kept in the adjacent warehouse. The Tower could also accommodate the guards who lived in it and made it an independent building, equipped with fireplaces, external water collectors, showers, drainage systems and other utilities. It is inspired by an ancient drawing by Michelangelo Buonarroti, created to defend the coastal areas of the Papal State and preserved in the archive of the Reverend Camera Apostolica. With a square plan with a side of 13 and a height of 23 metres, with walls 3 meters thick, the Tower was a real fort, with numerous openings, windows and loopholes equipped with short and long range armaments. Today it is owned by the municipality of Cervia and is home to the tourist office. Created - uploaded - nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great. I'd appreciate it if you copied this cool info to the image description. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for your remark and support. Terragio67 (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Great detail as usual but the subject itself doesn't look extraordinary to me. It looks in fact almost so strongly renovated that it looks modern. Poco a poco (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I compared this photo with a historical photo and there are no major differences apart from the window frames at the top. The tower was born to be also a palace-fortress of sighting and defense, it was very functional and nowadays it`s presented in a clean and linear way as it was in the past. Sometimes we find more fascinating towers that are ruined and abandoned, this photo is a sign of homage to the municipality of Cervia that maintains it impeccably. However, thank you for your judgment which, for the way you have formulated, for me, is still positive, thank you. Terragio67 (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2024 at 14:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Russia
- InfoThe Resurrection Monastery (Voskresensky Monastery) or New Jerusalem Monastery (Novoiyerusalimsky Monastery). Istra all by Елена Нечипоренко -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great quality, colours and composition, and I love the balloon. Cmao20 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Delicate colors and contrast in a well-balanced composition. Terragio67 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support Architecture, light and the colorful balloon adding poetry to the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I like the way the balloon echoes/inverts the cupolas. BigDom (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The globe appears to be sharper than the trees that are closer, and there is also a distinct white border on the globe. Could you explain this? --Wilfredor (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fortunately, I always keep the RAW files. I took many shots since there were people walking around. I've now uploaded a few of them to cloud storage so you can see that the hot air balloon wasn't added in Photoshop. https://disk.yandex.ru/d/250pA7j438AZuQ Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Baloon added some more vibrance. --Mile (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support word for word per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Cmao20, Basile and BigDom. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful and harmonious composition. ★ 10:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2024 at 23:08:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Posters_and_advertisements
- Info created by Savile Lumley - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Famous poster. FP for sure. Cmao20 (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support It even has its own article. Yann (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support What year is this? Wolverine XI 21:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: March 1915 publication, a bit earlier for design. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Terragio67 (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2024 at 12:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#South Korea
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose A good shot of a nice temple, but the lack of symmetry (path vs first temple and first temple vs second temple) is a minus that is not compensated with extraordinary detail or light. Poco a poco (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info Architects chose an asymmetrical architecture a few centuries ago, and I find the tree adapts nicely to its atypical environment in 2024 :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I wonder if I'd prefer a shot taken a few paces forward, so that it focussed more on the temple entrance and a bit less on the surroundings. I find the perspective a tiny bit wide here (slight distortion on the tree). But this is a beautiful place and well photographed so I'd be happy to see it become FP. Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Totally agree, and I have this view on my computer. But there are things I like also in this large composition: the stone wall, the stone buried in the ground on the left, and above all the single tree, alone in the sky, that completely breaks the symmetry. Thank you very much for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 13:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support for the combination of symmetry with asymmetry. – Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Terragio67 (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2024 at 07:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors
- Info Sculptural group "The Taming of the Horse" by Peter Clodt, one of the four compositions on the Anichkov Bridge in St. Petersburg all by me -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good, compo as 1st. Some tight crop on left and maybe on top but quality and compo make it. --Mile (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support You found a nice angle. The light halo around the monument could be seen as a disturbance, but it must be considered that it also enhances the outline of the monument with the background of the sky creating an effect of prominence, I assume you wanted. I took the liberty of changing captions and category, double check, please. --Terragio67 (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Crop is too tight at the left and at the top, IMO. Interesting angle but the cut out feet are a bit disturbing as part of the composition. Perhaps because the framing is very short -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see a new version has been uploaded yesterday. Which makes my comment obsolete and inaccurate. It's always better to warn participants about changes happening in the background, when their constructive criticism is relevant / taken into account, so that we can follow. But I also have the impression that the clouds are posterized. Not convinced enough by the exceptional nature of the photo cropped at the bottom, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree and not sure about what is extraordinary about this scultpure (as no information is provided). Poco a poco (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
-
weaksupport I do think the crop particularly on the left is a bit tight. The picture needs lead room there. Nevertheless it is a striking perspective from which to view this sculpture, and the image quality is very good. Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Full support now that the crop is improved, but in future, Елена Нечипоренко, it would be appreciated if you tag all voters (both support and oppose) when you make a major change to a picture during a nomination, so that they know they should re-evaluate their vote based on the new version. Cmao20 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the remark, I'll take it into account. Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Full support now that the crop is improved, but in future, Елена Нечипоренко, it would be appreciated if you tag all voters (both support and oppose) when you make a major change to a picture during a nomination, so that they know they should re-evaluate their vote based on the new version. Cmao20 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2024 at 14:29:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
- Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Gzen92 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Satisfying composition but the image seems muted/underexposed to me; there are hardly any highlights/whites in the whole photo. I can see some halos around the trees and to the left of the tower also, so processing could be improved. Same composition on a day with more interesting weather/light (nice clouds or a colourful sunset, maybe) could be a winner. BigDom (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Alternate version (exposure)
[edit]- Support Adjusted exposure. Gzen92 (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agree that this is an improvement Cmao20 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2024 at 13:50:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Poland
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Satisfying composition and good image quality in spite of slightly unsharp bottom right corner. Great drone photo. Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Problem here is i cant fix my eyes on something. I suppoose i should on building in bottom, but crop is bad, if castle is main, also crop is strange. I think you should cover more bottom or move camera back or tilt down. Quality is fine. --Mile (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Mile, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is a visually pleasing shot where the cityscape with its vibrant rooftops and the fortress on the hill blends well with the green landscape, creating a balanced and harmonious composition. -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Poco a poco. -- Karelj (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The round shape of the streets around the hill has a subtle effect on the viewer. For me, the image composition works and personally gives me a wow effect. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2024 at 13:32:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Clothing and textiles
- Info All by me Jacek Halicki -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Fun facts: 1) I can say without a shadow of a doubt that 99% of Brazilians wear Havaianas flip-flops (I have a pair from the Simpsons line); 2) Havaianas means Hawaiians (in the feminine form). ★ 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I've been going back and forth on this but I don't see it as great object photography. It's good quality and there's nothing wrong with it but IMO it's missing outstanding light. Cmao20 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2024 at 08:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Czech Republic
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good photo, I'd like to see the complete reflection but I understand that may not have possible in a single frame. Cmao20 (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support-- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I wouldn't call the architecture extraordinary, the reflection is cropped, resolution rather low for this kind of shot and it feels underexposed. Sorry, not a FP to me. Poco a poco (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Nice scene and I don't mind the cropped reflection (IMO it's better than awkwardly placing the horizon in the middle) but I agree with Poco that it is underexposed and rather small. Also, the description is lacking and neither it nor the categories tell us what building(s) we are looking at, only the name of the pond. BigDom (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 02:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Since there is a reflection, the crop is unfavorable. Really a bit dark and small. --Milseburg (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose A bit to dark. --Mile (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Excellent light but the cut out reflection bothers me, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2024 at 03:09:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info A visual of Maqam Ibrahim (Station of Abraham) in Great Mosque of Mecca, created by معتز توفيق اغبارية - uploaded by معتز توفيق اغبارية - nominated by Inu06 -- Inu06 (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Inu06 (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Saudi Arabia needs more attention. ★ 11:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I agree, besides this photo is interesting and well done. Terragio67 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support It is quite small and has visible blue chromatic aberrations, but the composition is good and I guess it will be hard to get better photos unless we have more Muslim Wikimedians. Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support per above it will be hard to get better photos unless we have more Muslim Wikimedians --RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above. ImamAnik (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 13:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Good compo, but nothing extrardinary to me and there are purple/blue fringes around the people contours. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion but remember that the photo depicts a religious ritual in the Great Mosque of Mecca, the top site of Islam, something very noteworthy. ★ 16:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
weakOppose Interesting scene but nothing is particularly sharp, neither the people nor the structure; has CAs.'Weak' because of the point about limited access (ban on non-Muslims visiting).--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 18:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)- The image is a much smaller crop of the bigger original. I guess the point about access doesn't really stand if a big (but not zoomed in) image of this already exists on commons. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info CA is gone and sharp @Sebring12Hrs and UnpetitproleX: --Wilfredor (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support At least much better than the older photos of that holy place I know from books etc. … I like the wide variety of people of different ages, etc.; the photo seems to show that pilgrimage really unites the faithful independent from their origin, status, etc. – Aristeas (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
This alternative needs explicit approval of the nominator
|
---|
Edited from original[edit]
|
Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2024 at 13:09:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements
- Info created by المصور أنس الحاج - uploaded by Mr. Ibrahem - nominated by Abo Yemen -- Abo Yemen✉ 13:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Abo Yemen✉ 13:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Certainly an impressive sight but I'm unconvinced that the resolution is sufficient for FP in 2024, plus the vignetting in the top right corner disturbs me. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- well the picture was taken 10 years ago. ill try to remove the vignette tho Abo Yemen✉ 18:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Cmao20 does this look good? Abo Yemen✉ 11:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ermell Abo Yemen✉ 11:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely better. I would give this version a mild support given irreproducibility value of a skyline in Yemen. Cmao20 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- The vignette on the right-hand side is the most annoying Ermell (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ermell i dont see any vignette on the right-hand side on the new version? Abo Yemen✉ 09:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- The picture is darker on the far right side and it looks as if it was taken through a window. Ermell (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ermell i dont see any vignette on the right-hand side on the new version? Abo Yemen✉ 09:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ermell Abo Yemen✉ 11:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Inu06 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective correction required --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- may I know what is wrong with the perspective? Abo Yemen✉ 13:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Verticals should be straight Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- may I know what is wrong with the perspective? Abo Yemen✉ 13:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yemen, rare to see. --Mile (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Yes, vignetting, but now it's a war zone; another photo like this one is almost improbable. ★ 14:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Cmao20 Ermell (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Also too hazy in my eyes. --Milseburg (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sure the white balance is correct. Was a filter used for this photo? The upper right corner looks weird and too dark. Interesting view but I agree with others the resolution is very limited for a panorama -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per abpve Poco a poco (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective, sharpness, vignetting... --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Dal lake by Ahanger HOBO.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2024 at 14:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Boats
- Info A visual of a Kashmiri lady on a Shikara (a wooden boat in Dal Lake) with houseboats in the background, created by Abid Sidiq Ahanger - uploaded by Abid Sidiq Ahanger - nominated by Inu06 -- Inu06 (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Inu06 (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good light and composition Cmao20 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I'm not convinced, sorry. The compo is boring (centered), the subject cannot be seen good, I'd rather see her face not her back and the lighting is not good and it's overall underexposed Poco a poco (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment For the diversity of opinions, I find the light attractive, but not the framing, cut too tight at the top. Unbalanced composition in my view, with the roofs missing. Nice colors but possibly underexposed image, yes -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Poco and Basile, sorry. As happy as it makes me to see a Srinagar nom, not FP worthy imo. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Unbalanced compo.Ermell (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 02:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per my comment above -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Alexander von Humboldt - Diagram of a cross-section of the earth's crust - rectified.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2024 at 20:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Science#Science
- Info created by Alexander von Humboldt - uploaded by Sette-quattro - nominated by Sette-quattro -- Sette-quattro (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Sette-quattro (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting diagram, and high resolution, but we can have a better color balance and contrast: File:Alexander von Humboldt - Diagram of a cross-section of the earth's crust, edit.jpg, trying rolling back paper ageing. Yann (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nice! Actually, I like the original scan, I feel it more 'natural' - or better, close to the source - given the age of the diagram. Sette-quattro (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Amazing historical scientific visualization of the Great Alexander von Humboldt from 1850. Ventolinmono (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I quote @User:Yann for the alternative file, an excellent infographic. --LucaLindholm (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, but there is a vertical line with some problems of resolution, form the letters: See_Thiere und Pflandez at the top, to GOTHA at the bottom. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Solid reproduction of one of Alexander von Humboldt’s famous diagrams which helped much to explain and popularized the connection between geology, geography, and biology. – Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas. Cmao20 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2024 at 22:20:11
→
- Info In favor of the Adam Cuerden's levels adjusted version. (Original nomination)
- Delist and replace -- ★ 22:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and replace — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and replace ---SHB2000 (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and replace --Thi (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and replace Cmao20 (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and replace -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and replace – Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and replace .--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 13:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and replace as per the nomination. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist and replace -- Terragio67 (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Unconfirmed results: (info) Result: 0 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)