Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates:
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal things[edit]Nominating[edit]Guidelines for nominators[edit]Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents[edit]There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs[edit]On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio[edit]Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominations[edit]If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new users[edit]Adding a new nomination[edit]If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Strongly recommended: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. Voting[edit]Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policy[edit]General rules[edit]
Featuring and delisting rules[edit]A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be polite[edit]Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. See also[edit]
|
Table of contents[edit]
Featured picture candidates[edit]
File:Garibaldi Lake seen from Panorama Ridge2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2022 at 21:38:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia
- Info: Garibaldi Lake seen from Panorama Ridge; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Question tilted possibly? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Done: on closer inspection, it was; fixed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is very similar to a previous nomination you made. Was the lake all that color? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I've applied different post processing to address the camera's technical limitations. This is a glacial lake with significant rock flour influx, so the colour is accurate. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Мал полуостров во Дебарското Езеро.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2022 at 21:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info created by Dean Lazarevski - uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Question Is that cloud reflection on the water? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Zoutelande (NL), Strand, Blick auf die Nordsee -- 2022 -- 4984.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2022 at 16:55:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Netherlands
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay 💬 16:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Classic contre-jour seascape with the appropriate high contrast. --Aristeas (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Quite minimalist. Serene mood -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 02:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Zentraler Blick durch den Alten Elbtunnel.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2022 at 09:28:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
- Info The Old Elbe Tunnel in Hamburg, Germany, seen from the northern entrance early in the morning. When the Old Elbe Tunnel was finished in 1911, it was a technical sensation: 80 ft beneath the surface, it connected central Hamburg with the docks and shipyards on the south side of the river Elbe. Created and uploaded by GZagatta – nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support The tunnel is normally a very crowded place, so it’s a real achievement that the photographer has captured it in a silent moment. I also like the perfect vanishing-point perspective and that it seems to lead from dark (foreground) into the light (background). --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Question Would a bottom crop for symmetry improve the image? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support with or without the crop. -- Ivar (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 02:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Beilstein - Schmidbachtal - Blick vom Nonnenwald auf Nordhang im Herbst (2).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2022 at 08:55:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
- Info Colourful autumn forest on the northern slope of the Schmidbach valley near the village of Billensbach, Beilstein, Germany. All by me, --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support It’s just a detail, but IMHO it includes much of what makes up a beautiful autumn wood. The colours may seem exaggerated at first, but they just reproduce my impression of the most beautiful day in that autumn. --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Indian summer in Germany :) -- Radomianin (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 19:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Neptune Wide Field (NIRCam).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 20:53:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Neptune
- Info created by NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, Joseph DePasquale (STScI), Naomi Rowe-Gurney (NASA-GSFC) - uploaded and nominated by Habitator terrae -- Habitator terrae 🌍 20:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Info Perhaps not so clear cut impressive as images of nebulae, but stunning because of the content wise contrast between the galaxies and Neptune (with rings, which is pretty rare for images of neptune).
- Support -- Habitator terrae 🌍 20:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Question I am tempted to oppose this as it seems to be an image created from data and bears no relation to what you would 'see' in a telescope. But I am no expert. It just looks so false. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not expert either, but I can tell this much: most of the light wavelengths can't be seen by the human eye. JWST's sensors can catch these, so mapping to visible wavelengths can be necessary. This can be a calculated (like when the light have traveled for so long it's shifted toward the reds / invisible infrared, so we just "shift back") or just arbitrary. This photo is probably the later case (it's not far enough so that the infrared light is shifted from visible light). Hope it's not too much bullshit that I said... - Benh (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Follow-up Question Does this mean that we should understand and handle this rather as some kind of Computer graphics than as a photo? --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's signal processing, so yes to me. But it's real stuff, just we must bear in mind the colors are mapped because the camera used is NIRcam (near infrared, so I assume it's not visible light). I guess they use a mapping which makes sense. But I think I've said too much and I hope some astronomer corrects me. - Benh (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Benh: For the mapping and the filters click on link and scroll to "About The Image". Habitator terrae 🌍 16:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Just because we now have instruments that detect things our human eyes can't see, doesn't make the image any less real. Look at it this way: A digital camera's sensor records photons of certain wavelengths. It does some very fast calculations with the software in the camera and the result is an image of pixels we can see. JWST's sensors does the same thing. It records photons of other (non-visible) wavelengths, software does some calculations (although way more advanced than in a normal digital camera) and this results in pixels that we can see. Yes, the colors are added/enhanced and not exactly what our eyes would see, but in early B&W photography when colors were not rightly represented (like the blue-yellow switch), people still didn't think the photos were 'fake'. Our everyday phone cameras can now record IR light, from say a remote control, process it and give it a color we can see, and we don't hesitate to call that a true photo.
- A computer generated image is an imagined picture, with user and AI extrapolating and guessing how things might look. JWST's images are not made up or imagined, they are very exact representations of what is out there. We are just not used to seeing it so clearly yet. Imagine how the Lumière brothers would react to seeing an IMAX nature documentary, they would probably also think it looked false.--Cart (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's signal processing, so yes to me. But it's real stuff, just we must bear in mind the colors are mapped because the camera used is NIRcam (near infrared, so I assume it's not visible light). I guess they use a mapping which makes sense. But I think I've said too much and I hope some astronomer corrects me. - Benh (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Follow-up Question Does this mean that we should understand and handle this rather as some kind of Computer graphics than as a photo? --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: By that standard you would be forced to oppose many pictured in Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy like File:Pluto-01 Stern 03 Pluto Color TXT.jpg or File:Jupiter Showcases Auroras, Hazes (NIRCam Closeup).jpg. It has many relations to what you would "see" through a telescope. Fully red objects don't go to fully blue and vice versa. This comes from the fact, that green is a not existing color for stars. Therefore the basic colors don't fully negating themselves. Furthermore: From a technical point of view, this sensor uses the same process as normal cameras: The only difference is, that it doesn't uses the anthropocentristic filters red, blue and green, which evolved to life on earth and not to view stars, but some infrared (which might find their equivalent in some other species than human). Habitator terrae 🌍 16:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- OK, so if it is imagined that's fine as long as it is described as such. And the image of Neptune itself is ground-breaking. My problem with it is the whole image, which must be a composite. The planet and one nebula are illustrated with the same brightness; not to mention Neptune's moon Triton with its six-pronged reflection. The two FPs you link to are fine. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: Why do you think this is a composit, or what do you mean with this? This "six-pronged reflection" isn't to the infrared light or some composit, but because of the form of the mirror (which is needed in normal telescopes) and the high light concentration at one point. See for this en:Diffraction spike. Habitator terrae 🌍 17:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC) PS: Do you mean with "composit", that this is a composit of the different reflection of the different parts of the mirror??
- @Charlesjsharp I just got from Habitator's reply that "six-pronged reflection" means diffraction spikes. If you look closely, there are 8 spikes (two verticals as well). It's probably because the primary mirror is made of smaller hexagons and because the secondary mirror is held by three tubes. I think we can safely say these are acceptable tradeoffs given all the constraints that come with sending such an incredible telescope so far. You can't review these like you'd review a photo taken with a "regular" camera. - Benh (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I still can't understand why some of the planets/moons/stars have the refraction and others don't. But I'm not opposing this anyway; just saying I am not that impressed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- The reason is the concentration of light. Stars often have disffractions, because the source of their brightness come from one "small" source, while galaxies (often) have a more scattered type of brightness. The reason for Triton to be so bright, is that is an big icy moon, which reflects a lot. Habitator terrae 🌍 19:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- No pb with that. But I'd like to underscore that sometimes the context and meaning of the photo outweights the rest. A bit like photos of animals are better when taken in the wild instead of a zoo... don't you think? Anyhow. Enough digression, apologies for that. - Benh (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I still can't understand why some of the planets/moons/stars have the refraction and others don't. But I'm not opposing this anyway; just saying I am not that impressed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp I just got from Habitator's reply that "six-pronged reflection" means diffraction spikes. If you look closely, there are 8 spikes (two verticals as well). It's probably because the primary mirror is made of smaller hexagons and because the secondary mirror is held by three tubes. I think we can safely say these are acceptable tradeoffs given all the constraints that come with sending such an incredible telescope so far. You can't review these like you'd review a photo taken with a "regular" camera. - Benh (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's a composite in the same way as HDR and focus stacked images are composed of a number of photos. I guess you could call it an "Astro HDR" if you like. --Cart (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so. HDR and focus-stacked images are taken at (almost) the same time from (almost) the same position. A composite is a selection of different images combined into one. That's what this looks like. You are suggesting that they extracted the Neptune image from this 'wide angle' shot. That would surprise me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- In fact the different frames were tacken at almost the same time (all on 12 July 2022) at almost the same position (L2 of Earth-Sun with the move of less than one day). I furthermore remind, that this is a considerable shorter time compared to e.g. this image. This short times are a feature of JWST. Of course, this is a image of a solar system object and not of galaxies. Habitator terrae 🌍 19:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) I think you've misunderstood what this image is. This is not Neptune and bunch of images of other galaxies thrown together in one picture, it's what the sky looks like from that point of view when all the stars and galaxies are brought up to the same visibility/brightness, like you do with HDR. They are there all the time, but we have not been able to see them this well until now. Have you seen how big the Andromeda galaxy would look in the sky if you just bring up the light with HDR? You talk about the image of Neptune and its rings being 'extracted' from this, like this was just an ordinary photo. The photos we get from NASA are only what they release. My guess is that this was originally an extremely large image. The part with Neptune and its rings was released as one photo, then the whole wide view was downsized by NASA to fit being shown over the internet and that is what we see here. I also suspect that the JWST sensors can, in simple terms, to a degree zoom in and out on objects they want it to record. You have to let go of thinking about this extraordinary machine in terms of normal cameras and telescopes. --Cart (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think so. HDR and focus-stacked images are taken at (almost) the same time from (almost) the same position. A composite is a selection of different images combined into one. That's what this looks like. You are suggesting that they extracted the Neptune image from this 'wide angle' shot. That would surprise me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: Why do you think this is a composit, or what do you mean with this? This "six-pronged reflection" isn't to the infrared light or some composit, but because of the form of the mirror (which is needed in normal telescopes) and the high light concentration at one point. See for this en:Diffraction spike. Habitator terrae 🌍 17:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC) PS: Do you mean with "composit", that this is a composit of the different reflection of the different parts of the mirror??
- OK, so if it is imagined that's fine as long as it is described as such. And the image of Neptune itself is ground-breaking. My problem with it is the whole image, which must be a composite. The planet and one nebula are illustrated with the same brightness; not to mention Neptune's moon Triton with its six-pronged reflection. The two FPs you link to are fine. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- just to get you an idea, how the raw data looks like: Here an raw image (which is part of the image in green), with an exposure of 7515.740 seconds. This was parallel taken, by what is shown in blue, starting on 2022-07-12 06:28:25.913 (with perhaps, I don't know filtering the noise out with parts of the exposure). Red and orange hat an exposure of 1878.935 seconds, starting with 2022-07-12 06:52:35.448. Habitator terrae 🌍 20:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not expert either, but I can tell this much: most of the light wavelengths can't be seen by the human eye. JWST's sensors can catch these, so mapping to visible wavelengths can be necessary. This can be a calculated (like when the light have traveled for so long it's shifted toward the reds / invisible infrared, so we just "shift back") or just arbitrary. This photo is probably the later case (it's not far enough so that the infrared light is shifted from visible light). Hope it's not too much bullshit that I said... - Benh (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I think this needs to be featured and explained, so the knowledge has more opportunities to be spread. It's fascinating how we can see Neptune's rings. - Benh (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Kloster Seligenstadt.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 16:13:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
- Info Former Benedictine abbey in Seligenstadt, view from the garden. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Milseburg (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Not very outstanding + bended projection, which isn't very necessary with such a long focal + very visible stitching seams on the OOF foreground grass. - Benh (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Nice. I see no issue with the projection --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Uoaei1. Beautiful, and by far the most representative photo of this – historically quite important! – abbey I have ever seen. --Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support The flaws can be seen on closer inspection, but they do not disturb the good overall impression.--Ermell (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Ermell. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 19:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 02:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Filipendula vulgaris - inflorescence - Kulna.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 15:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
- Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support So crisp and detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Delicate beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 19:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful light, very good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 13:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Falconidae (Falcons)
- Info In 1974, this Mauritius endemic was the rarest bird in the World. Due to groundbreaking conservation work the population rose to 800, but has now slumped to possibly 400 birds. This year, the Government of Mauritius declared the Mauritius Kestrel as its national bird. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 13:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support What a coup for you! A very valuable image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Being an admirer of Gerald Durrell, I'd known about his involvement for some years, so it was nice to get to the island (and search for three days!). Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support While I think you might have sharpened (ahem) a little more than necessary, that is more than neatly offset by the way you turned a background which usually derails other FP nominations like this into a pleasing abstraction that, for me, enhances the overall image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Same opinion here in terms of sharpening but overall still ok to me Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Ruine Aggstein 20211024.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 10:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Austria
- Info Castle ruins of Aggstein, Wachau, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful. Great light and details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I like a side sunset(rise) light but too much is in the shade for my tastes. Sorry - Benh (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A beautiful composition, but too much shadows for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Impressing.--Ermell (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 19:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Münster, LWL-Museum für Kunst und Kultur, Lichtkunstwerk "Silberne Frequenz" -- 2022 -- 4266.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 08:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay 💬 08:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Benh (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - No any reason for FP nomination, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I disagree. Enjoyable rhythm, and one of the best of this interesting series of photos of this sculpture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Even though I prefer some of the other images from the series to this one, I see this as an excellent image of an interesting work of art that well deserves the FP badge --Kritzolina (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Definite FP material. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Fun interplay of geometrical patterns -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 02:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Santa Francesca Romana belltower.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 08:00:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Italy
- Info: vertical panorama of the Santa Francesca Romana belltower. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Well done. I would prefer the crop a bit wider at the left and right … Is this possible? --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, it's a bit tighter than ideal. Unfortunately, after correcting geometry, this is all I have. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Bergstroom boven Schlans 1700m. 19-09-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2022 at 05:42:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Graubünden
- Info Channeled mountain stream above Schlans ~1700m. In the long run, nature will overgrow the concrete construction and provide it with a milder color, so that it blends in with the whole. Impressive to watch the Metamorphosis at this stage.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC) - Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I struggle to see the attraction of a mad-made construction with man-made cuttings littering the foreground. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- We had never encountered such a construction high in the mountains to prevent erosion. These concrete blocks will never win a beauty prize. We were enthralled to see how nature will eventually overgrow the construction. Without the above story, it is a meaningless photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - No any reason for FP nomination, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose VI maybe, from description, but per Karelj. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is too cluttered and I miss to find wow here, sorry, Poco a poco (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I prefer natural waterfalls than big blocks of concrete -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Basílica de Santa María la Mayor, Roma, Italia, 2022-09-16, DD 12-14 HDR.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 21:46:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Italy
- Info Ceiling of the Cappella Sistina of Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome, Italy. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Great, but can you please straighten the left side --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Uoaei1: Done, thank you for your feedback, Poco a poco (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Too obviously not centered. - Benh (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Benh: It's impossible to get it centered, check this out. Poco a poco (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Question Can you do something about the bluish fringing around the muntins in the upper window? Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Daniel Case: Done Poco a poco (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 02:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Basílica de San Pedro, Ciudad del Vaticano, 2022-09-14, DD 19-21 HDR.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 21:38:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Vatican_City
- Info Facade of Saint Peter's Basilica, Vatican City. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Love the symmetry. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment High quality, but I prefer the existing daytime FP which has less of the distracting chairs in the foreground. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe that this is not a valid candidate because there is already a great shot of the basilica during the day, the subject looks in daylight completely different. I find that the arrangement of the chairs improves the composition a lot and I also find the lighting of the building in the night very appealing. Poco a poco (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC) PD: I've improved the highlights to recover more detail.
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Terrible foreground of image. -- Karelj (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Karelj, be respectful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am extremely respectful, but I am not blind! -- Karelj (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- You are extremely tactful, too, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support High quality and a definite “wow” photo. Taking a look at our other photos of that famous place shows that the foreground is almost always crowded or blocked. Therefore the existing FP has just cropped the foreground, but that looks unbalanced and in the end even worse to me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks better to me. Oppose per George. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy sky and a strange horizontal line in the sky at the level of the cross. And also an unsuccessful foreground, unfortunately --George Chernilevsky talk 02:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Massis del Casamanya (2).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 18:47:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose bland centered composition, flat light - Benh (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Majestic. --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Bland colors and dull light. Agree with Benh. Bluish tint at the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 01:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Pyrenees in Andorra (10).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 18:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I realise this is how it naturally looks, but the photo is a bit too dark. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful and atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Too blue for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is normal during the blue hour. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Not in my experience of many days spent in the Alps and some in the Pyrenees. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is normal during the blue hour. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:2018-10-11 Victory ceremony (Weightlifting Boys' 77kg) at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics by Sandro Halank–001.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 09:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sandro Halank -- Sandro Halank (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Sandro Halank (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a bad picture; it just doesn't wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop is too tight for my taste. --El Grafo (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Magdeburg asv2022-08 img28 Fürstenwallpark monument.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2022 at 04:08:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments and memorials
- Info Memorial of Franco-Prussian War (1870/71) in Magdeburg. This memorial was created by Hermann Eggert in 1877 -- All by me --A.Savin 04:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 04:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It is a shame that you were too far to the right to take a centered shot and so the flowers at the bottom are not aligned with the monument (and the monument is horizontally tilted), why that? Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Probably this would have been suboptimal due to the tree(s). --A.Savin 01:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Sydney (AU), Queen Victoria Building -- 2019 -- 3580.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2022 at 23:54:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Australia
- Info created and uploaded by XRay - nominated by SHB2000 -- SHB2000 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I realise that there are some people obstructing the building, but whenever I try and picture this place without those people, it looks unnatural and reminds me of how the place looked during COVID and therefore favour the status quo. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Understood, but you still have to choose a time when the placement of people is helpful to the composition. I don't think it is in this instance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I can empathize with you about the people in the photo, but unfortunately, I think, even if you could meticulously clone those four people out the image would still have issues—the sky is too pale and washed out, and much of the image is unsharp. It also seems to me that the perspective was corrected to the point of looking slightly unnatural. Daniel Case (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel Case. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
File:GGB Bhe 4-6 3082 and Bhe 4-8 II Findelbachbrücke.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2022 at 17:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
- Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 22:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ezarateesteban 22:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. What is the shiny thing in the distance that's near the upper margin, to the left of the hill on the right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like a chopper heading for Monte Rosa. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support beautiful! --SHB2000 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Taken at the right moment, from an excellent viewpoint -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 11:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Great white pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus) head.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2022 at 12:44:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus : Pelecanus
- Info Five FPs of this species, but no close up. One head-shot FP of the Genus. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Amazing detail. --Tagooty (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ezarateesteban 22:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Tagooty. --Aristeas (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 20:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Dish with fruits.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2022 at 10:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits (raw)
- Info Renomination, dish of fruits. My photo. --Mile (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Question Would fruit normally be presented like this? Not in the UK. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sure why this has been nominated again, having failed last time (not a close decision) and no improvements have been made. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
r* Neutral the apple almost in a state of decomposition makes the composition ugly --Wilfredor (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I do wish the apple had been fresher, though. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I think Wilfredor is right. Charles, fruit would be presented similarly to this in the U.S., but probably not as crowdedly. However, from my viewpoint, this is a still life, so the artist can make it look any way they want. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment imo the apple is still fresh, but it's infected with a disease like apple scab (caused by the fungus). -- Ivar (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Like Ivar, I think the apple is OK; the scars on the surface are a common apple disease which does not impair the apple’s taste. At least this fruit looks more interesting than the common over-perfect apples from the supermarket (which look only that perfect because they have been treated heavily with pesticides ;–). The rest of the arrangement is flawless. Small improvement to the gallery link made. --Aristeas (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support I would have halved the apple like all the other fruits. Or is there a special reason for this? --Llez (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm failing to make much sense of this arrangement - what is the intention here? It is certainly not how I would arrange fruit for people to eat - partially prepared but not entirely ready for snacking (and who would snack a lemon?). I wouldn't store it like this either, for obvious reasons. Nothing suggests it's being prepared for cooking either - like a knife or a cutting board. So surely this must be a purely "educational" shot - no, wait, why is the apple not cut? And why so many citrus fruits instead of something different like a banana? Is it art then? It a rather crowded arrangement, as Ikan already pointed out above, and if you ask me, the busy tablecloth does not help at all. Excellent food photography requires more than QI quality photography (which is certainly the case here). It requires a solid concept about choice of subject, a setting, and how to arrange the subject(s) within that setting. This one is halfway there, but there's a reason it was rejected in the 2017 nomination. --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Just for your information, I usually eat lemons even with their shells, it has a strong and acidic flavor that is especially dangerous for dental enamel and for this reason I drink a glass of water immediately. It is not something common but it is not completely unreasonable to think that this is a common breakfast somewhere in the world --Wilfredor (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Normal, good quality image, but I do not see any reason for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin from 2017 nomination. -- Ivar (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ivar Poco a poco (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Naria poraria 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2022 at 08:41:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Cypraeidae
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Easily the prettiest of these sets so far. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Daniel Case. -- IamMM (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:De Orangerie De Hollandse Cupido, uitrustend van de vermoeienissen van het planten, 1796 The Orangerie or the Dutch Cupid reposing, after the fatigues of Planting (titel op object), RP-P-1896-A-19118.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2022 at 07:00:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Caricatures
- Info The Orangerie, a British caricature depicting William V, Prince of Orange and the last stadtholder of the Dutch Republic, as a reposing cupid in exile. created by James Gillray - uploaded by Mr.Nostalgic - nominated by StellarHalo -- StellarHalo (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- StellarHalo (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Abzeronow (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Amusing. --Aristeas (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Transfiguration Cathedral - 001.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2022 at 19:58:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Russia
- Info created by Alexander Novikov - uploaded by Alexander Novikov - nominated by Alexander Novikov -- Alexander Novikov (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Alexander Novikov (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment An impressive view, however there are many red and green chromatic aberrations especially at vertical lines of the buildings. --Aristeas (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Aristeas: Thank you for review and your advice. I tried to fix it in JPG. If it is not good enough, I can try to fix it in RAW. -- Alexander Novikov (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Shahfirooz.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2022 at 15:46:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
- Info created uploaded by Ebi.eftekhari - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Striking and pretty. I have no problem with this natural perspective. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support Made me stop scrolling, and actually turned out not to have any technical shortcomings. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support as per Daniel Case. --Yann (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Although the image seems a bit over-saturated, the sky is clearly special at the beginning, and I'm sure the colors were absolutely spectacular in reality. The composition with the building dominating this large landscape is very striking. Excellent capture -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 11:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Himalayas, Cholatse, Nepal.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2022 at 11:00:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
- Info View of Cholatse, Ama Dablam and other peaks to the south of the Great Himalayan Range in Mahalangur Himal. Shot on a location in Chola Valley at around 5,100 metres (16,732 ft) a. s. l. in good weather conditions with some high clouds being formed. Created, uploaded, nominated by --Argenberg (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Argenberg (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Impressive in full screen. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Wow! --PierreSelim (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Awesome, in the original meaning of the word! Is that black thing in the center of the right side some kind of bird? I can't figure out what it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, looks like it is a bird. I’m not sure but it’s probably crossing the ridge between Chola Valley and Ngozumpa Valley and the lowest point in that ridge is 5,400 metres (17,717 ft). Or maybe it has just crossed the Great Himalayan Range (6800+ m). Maybe somebody can explain what bird can fly so high and what is it doing there. --Argenberg (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Striking image --Tagooty (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, find the light not so pleasant. --A.Savin 14:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Weak opposePlease remove the one-pixel large white border at the left, at the bottom, and at the right, that were certainly not there originally -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Better, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support assuming that Basile’s request will be carried out. --Aristeas (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral agree with A.Savin, especially to the right. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Wien Zentralfriedhof Allee A 20221111 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2022 at 09:19:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Austria
- Info Avenue in the old Israelite section of Central Cemetery, Vienna, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing out of the ordinary --Tagooty (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per tagooty, very ordinary on every aspects. - Benh (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Tagooty. -- Karelj (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Prospect Park lake and peninsula in the fall (70354p).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2022 at 22:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United States#New York
- Info all by — Rhododendrites talk | 22:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 22:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I don't feel like this scenery is anything out of the ordinary. I may be influenced by the fact that I see this kind of scene on a daily basis, though. It's nice, but doesn't particularly make me go "Wow!". The image quality sharpness, composition etc.) is also good but not amazing.--Peulle (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Peulle Sea Cow (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support When I look at this photo in full size, I am definitely impressed by the scenery, the contrasting colours etc. And the quality is very good. @Peulle: It’s wonderful that you see such sceneries on a daily basis. Please take photos of it and share them with us … --Aristeas (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't really stand out enough from other autumn photos here. Not to say that you can't make a memorable photo in late autumn (when most of the leaves are gone) but this isn't it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Cygne tuberculé (Cygnus olor) - tête (7).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2022 at 16:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
- Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Gzen92 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support. If you know whether the swan is male or female, please add that information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Unless you can see a pair together (in which case the male is slightly larger), the sex of this species can only be reliably differentiated in the spring/breeding season (the male's "knob" above the bill gets bigger around then). i.e. can't tell from this pic taken in November unless Gzen92 has other information. — Rhododendrites talk | 22:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose We can expect super sharpness and better composition for this common bird. Technically would fail even for a rare bird. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not seeing the issues you're noticing. This bird looks quite sharp to me. Could it be sharper? I think 3 of the 6 Cygnus olor head FPs are sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is little detail in the feathers. The background has not been selected carefully (easy for a common bird) and distracts. Cannot be one of our best. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- The feathers are fine to me, but you definitely have a point on the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special here. Subject easy to catch, and simple composition. - Benh (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Benh. --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Benh -- Karelj (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Benh. Sea Cow (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Lukmanierpass, Passo del Lucomagno. 20-09-2022. (actm.) 04.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2022 at 05:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
- Info Lukmanierpas Passo del Lucomagno. (Reservoir Lai da Sontga Maria near the pass)
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC) - Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support The Swiss tourism agency should hire you and Famberhorst. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 23:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan --Schnobby (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A good image and technically well done with good graphic elements but IMHO it just does not have enough wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Yes, the sky is pale and the mountains in the distance faint. But there is beauty of its own in the raw earth tones around this lake. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 12:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Mary Jackson 1979 Portrait (LRC-1979-B701 P-07085).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2022 at 23:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
- Info created by NASA - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Kritzolina (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Excellent restauration of a solid portrait photograph. --Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -Yann (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 23:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose certainly a good VI candidate and a decent portrait, but in no way outstanding to me. It is not uncommon for the subject in a portrait to not look at the camera. But if done well, that usually tells you something about the subject: artist at work focused on subject, observant soldier, farsighted leader, I'm somewhere else right now ... I'm not getting any of these vibes from this one. No wow for me. --El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I tend to agree with your point about the subject not looking at the camera, so I've struggled to make a decision on how to vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Ice on Lake Erie.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2022 at 19:05:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
- Info: ice on Lake Erie; taken from a window of a commercial aircraft. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I am bothered by the blurriness of what is actually a good image. How high is the camera position?
A description is missing.--Ermell (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, the technical quality is not ideal, which is a consequence of shooting through a window. The aircraft was ~ 8 km above at that point. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Weak support low technical quality, but the image is good. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support A fascinating pattern. This works both as an abstract artwork and has educational value, and IMHO we can be a bit forgiving of the technical quality in this case because of the difficulty to take such photos. --Aristeas (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas --Kritzolina (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- On balance, I Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Again, I wonder which band would be most likely to use this as an album cover. Or, if the band doesn't actually exist, what sort of music they would play and what other bands they'd sound like or be influenced by (I mainly imagine Brian Eno using this, but I'm open to other suggestions ...) Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be delighted if Moonsorrow used it for their future album! --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]
Fri 16 Dec → Wed 21 Dec Sat 17 Dec → Thu 22 Dec Sun 18 Dec → Fri 23 Dec Mon 19 Dec → Sat 24 Dec Tue 20 Dec → Sun 25 Dec Wed 21 Dec → Mon 26 Dec
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]
Mon 12 Dec → Wed 21 Dec Tue 13 Dec → Thu 22 Dec Wed 14 Dec → Fri 23 Dec Thu 15 Dec → Sat 24 Dec Fri 16 Dec → Sun 25 Dec Sat 17 Dec → Mon 26 Dec Sun 18 Dec → Tue 27 Dec Mon 19 Dec → Wed 28 Dec Tue 20 Dec → Thu 29 Dec Wed 21 Dec → Fri 30 Dec
Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]
The bot[edit]
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure[edit]
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to an appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2022), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2022.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night shots, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2022), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.