Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
This project page in other languages:

Other featured candidates:

3D film 2.svg Media 

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates

FPCandiateicon.svg

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 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:

  • Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • Resolution – Raster images of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. This does not apply to vector graphics (SVGs).
    • Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful color adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.
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:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

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.

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Color is important. Over saturated colors are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or color AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of color brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

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:

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Simple tutorial for new users[edit]

Tutorial: Nominate on COM:FPC
How to nominate in 8 simple steps

STEP 1

  • STEP 1


STEP 2

  • STEP 2


STEP 3

  • STEP 3


STEP 4

  • STEP 4


STEP 5

  • STEP 5


STEP 6

  • STEP 6


STEP 7

  • STEP 7


STEP 8

  • STEP 8 (last step)

NOTE: You don't need to worry if you are not sure, other users will try their best to help you.

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 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

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:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

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: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

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 different crops or post-processing of the original image, 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:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request).

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:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

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:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

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:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as a FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

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:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

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]

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{Withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes (or 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.

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]

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:A spotted deer or Chital in Jim Corbett national park looking straight to the camera.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2022 at 09:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A spotted deer or Chital in Jim Corbett national park looking straight to the camera

Tufted duck[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 23:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Male tufted duck

  • Female tufted duck

File:Zwellende bladknop van een tamme kastanje (Castanea sativa). 16-03-2022. (d.j.b).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 16:18:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Swelling leaf bud of a sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa)

File:Porte d'Aval (Vue depuis la Manneporte).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 16:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cliffs of Étretat: Aiguille and Porte d´Aval, seen from Manneporte

File:Mugger crocodile (Crocodylus palustris) head.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 15:41:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mugger crocodile (Crocodylus palustris) head

File:Abandoned Gulmarg Hotel.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 10:47:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An abandoned hotel in Gulmarg, Jammu and Kashmir covered with snow.

File:Pallas cat.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 10:23:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close-up of Pallas cat

File:Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche, Rosette -- 2022 -- 0669 (crop, kreativ).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 19:39:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rose window (with zoom effect) of the Holy Cross Church in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

File:White-faced Storm-petrel 0A2A9606.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 15:59:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White-faced Storm-petrel

File:Sedum acre single - Niitvälja.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 15:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sedum acre

File:Batsirai 2022-02-02 0956Z.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 06:28:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Intense Tropical Cyclone Batsirai northwest of Mauritius on February 2, 2022.

File:Panama - panoramio (17).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 15:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Maestro Batik Tulis di Imogiri.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 14:58:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Taal Volcano eruption on January 12, 2020.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 09:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Taal Volcano eruption

File:Non-breeding pied-billed grebe-6514.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 09:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Long-tailed tit Gennevilliers 2022 03 18.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 08:54:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Long-tailed tit perched on brambles
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know what to think of the background. It certainly is a bit distracting, but it also gives lots of clues about the environment. The bird itself looks very detailed - Benh (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

File:Світло в капличці.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 07:25:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Light in the chapel
  • Many thanks for your constructive evaluation, Ikan. Presumably due to the low camera position, distortions occurred to the cross and chapel. A correction in Photoshop did not satisfy me: Straightening both objects spoils the photo. My guess is that the camera position is already too low to apply a correction that corresponds to human viewing habits. Best wishes :) Improvement ideas by other reviewers are very welcome. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mein Schiff 4 (IMO 9678408), Rostock.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 07:25:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mein Schiff 4 of TUI Cruises in Rostock
  • Thanks for your thoughts on naming, Daniel. As far as I know, a competition was held to find a name. According to the owner's official communication, the possessive pronoun "Mein" is intended to express the core idea of individuality and freedom. Best wishes :) -- Radomianin (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ring-billed gull in flight (94615).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 22:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ring-billed gull in flight
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Larus
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Larus delawarensis (ring-billed gull) in flight. all by — Rhododendrites talk |  22:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The standard for birds-in-flight has been rather high lately. Typically I don't feel like my equipment can keep up, but a good, well-lit opportunity presented itself, so we'll see. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  22:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Technically very impressive, but compared to other gulls in flight in the Gallery, it lacks impact to me. --Tagooty (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a dust speck just below the right wing --Virtual-Pano (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support spacing and detail is pleasing my eye --Virtual-Pano (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The very subtle background to me really makes this ... it looks like something you'd see in a painting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --IamMM (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is sharp, it is centered, but I don't like the shadow cast by the right wing on the body. And the WB seems a bit to warm. - Benh (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin-Mitte - Amtsgericht I und Landgericht I - Haupttreppenhaus (0047).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 15:48:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info IMO a really nice interior with good image quality and composition. There is an existing FP which is taken from ground level rather than an elevated position. The other one shows more of the ceiling but I find the colours look more realistic in this one. created by T meltzer - uploaded by T meltzer - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I much prefer the exisiting one; I wonder whether the 14mm lens used on this one has introduced some distortion of scale in the foreground? Charlesjsharp (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one shows the ground more clearly. I see no reason why both cannot be FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe if I hadn't seen the other one...but I have. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support per King, with the note that it seems a bit more sharpened than it could have been. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per KoH. --IamMM (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very impressive interior architecture. I totally understand the oppose votes, however my personal feeling when I look at the other FP is it's different enough. Light, PoV and compo -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning subject. I wish we could convince T meltzer to join our community and post more of his amazing architectural shots. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per F. Schulenburg -- Radomianin (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western reef egrets[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 15:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • slate grey morph

  • dark morph

File:Rhesus macaque monkey family D72 16866k.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 08:59:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Family of Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta), IIT Mandi
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a close-knit family group. The females were seen to be very protective of the young ones. The composition conveys this message. --Tagooty (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they would be. When I said crowded, I meant with branches of the tree. It is never ideal to have a PoV below the subject. Often unavoidable, though not so much with a very approachable species. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I take Charles' point about the low point of view but I quite like the expressions here and it is certainly nice to have a family group Cmao20 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just an observation, as I'm not ready to vote: Long-suffering-looking expression from the monkey on the left, but not very sharp. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose How far away was the camera? And how cropped was this image? What was applied afterwards as far as sharpening? 310 mm and ISO 1250 go a long way, but not all of the way, for me in explaining the background so noisy it looks more like a matte painting, and the similar unrealistic effect visible on some of the animals' fur. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Daniel Case: The subject was about 12m (40') distance. Cropped from 6000x4000 to 4492xx3362. Only WB and exposure adjustments applied using Capture NX-D and Lightroom. No sharpening or NR. The fur may look different because the left one is an older animal. I could apply some NR if you think it would help.
    @Ikan Kekek: To me, the face and hair of the monkey on the left is very well focussed. The baby and the right one are a bit soft. --Tagooty (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like the photo, but I'm not convinced it's one of the very best on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback. --Tagooty (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of Pearl Bailey as Butterfly in St. Louis Woman.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 03:35:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pearl Bailey as Butterfly in St. Louis Woman
I don't imagine huge, given the grain size. 4x6"? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:LG market square Ukraine solidarity small planet 265° shrinked.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2022 at 14:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Virtual-Pano - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I opposed this for QI because the upper reaches of the city hall don't look even reasonably good until the size of the photo is reduced to 60%. There are also blotches of color in the sky, in addition to noise that might be expected from a night picture. Nice idea, and I won't be surprised if it's featured, but it doesn't get my vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have revisited the source files and spotted corrupted exposure times in several stacks. The image has been freshly rendered and uploded. @Ikan Kekek: @Daniel Case: --Virtual-Pano (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --IamMM (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks better now, but I still don't feel that it's one of the best photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maréchal Canrobert by Nadar.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2022 at 12:10:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

François Certain de Canrobert

File:Kloster Lichtental - Princely Chapel - façade.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2022 at 06:58:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Part of the façade of the Princely Chapel of the Lichtenthal Abbey, Baden-Baden, Germany with the statues of Uta von Schauenburg, founder of the All Saints' Abbey (right), and of Gerungus, son of Uta von Schauenburg, first abbot of the All Saints' Abbey (left)

File:Fiore di albicocco, leggermente rovinato dalla brinata.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2022 at 16:52:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apricot blossom, slightly marred by frost. Unfortunately, with the change in the climate on earth, early flowering of fruit trees occurs, which is then caught by the frost due to the cold and then compromising the fruits. I photographed because I find it beautiful in its imperfection, as it also happens to people

I photographed because I find it beautiful in its imperfection, as it also happens to people — Preceding unsigned comment added by PROPOLI87 (talk • contribs)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Right, but what do you think makes this not-very-sharp, noisy photo with distracting background one of the very best photos on the site? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC) *Pictogram voting comment.svg Commentthe flowers in the photo have blossomed on the trunk, so the trunk is the background. A strong wind is blowing and it was impossible to photograph other flowers of the same tree on the branches, with a sky background, which would have been better User:PROPOLI87[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First, that you weren't able to do better is not an explanation of how this is one of the best photos on the site. Second, part of the background that's distracting is the strong light on the right and left, though all the yellow flowers (?) are also distracting. Third, it's very hard to get photos of sufficient quality (sharpness, lack of noise) to pass at featured picture candidates with a cellphone. It's been done, but this is not an example of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)*Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentOK, sorry, I didn't understand. Yellow are not flowers, but are lichens grown on the trunk. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC) :*Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentAnd anyway I justified the fact that it was blowing wind because I wanted to propose an imperfect flower, but now any other photo of this flower has become unrepeatable. Among other things, the wind has already blown away all the petals. I apologize again. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Gallery link fixed. Your friendly gallery link service ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    -thank you (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan and the light conditions were not favorable. --Ivar (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I quite like the colours and the light but the image quality is very low for FP, the sharpness is quite poor and to be really honest I wonder how it can have passed QI Cmao20 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Istanbul asv2021-10 img11 Yıldız Hamidiye Mosque.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2022 at 01:13:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yıldız Hamidiye Mosque
Alright then. GA candidate.svg Weak support It's still good enough overall. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Turkey

Larus smithsonianus[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2022 at 01:07:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Assessing

  • Feeding

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Laridae_(Gulls,_terns_and_skimmers)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Juvenile American herring gull (Larus smithsonianus) feeding on fish carrion. No existing FP of the species. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Definitely a valuable series, but it might not be sharp enough for FP. Too bad COM:VIC stopped allowing set nominations a long time ago because of technical issues. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Assessing sounds anthropomorphic. Have you captured the very first peck at the fish? I think the focus was on the body of the left hand image, not the head and F6.3 has limited DoF. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think assessing is a trait that's observed in behaviour of all animals... Regardless, no, I have not captured the very first peck. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm surprised we don't have any FPs of this species, considering how common they are. I'm mainly opposing because of the first image, which compositionally doesn't work for me, and is lacking in some sharpness for a relatively still shot. I'm not sure yet if I'd abstain or support if the second image were nominated on its own, but I don't think I'd oppose. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Similar to Rhododendrites and I don't think this is what set nominations are for. Ideally, we'd have a short video clip here, and I don't think selecting two frames really is the purpose of a set. -- Colin (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I concur with Rhodondetrites assessment here, the left image is very cluttered I'd have waited so that the wave wasn't breaking, the right image is better, although some relevant areas are in shadow Poco a poco (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Unappealing light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Resedafalter am Morgen im Gegenlicht.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2022 at 17:41:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • It is certainly focus-stacked, and I will add the focus stack template to the image page. I don't see much sign that the note you've left is anything but a genuine part of the bokeh, but I could be wrong Cmao20 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for overexposure, yes, this is probably true, but I kind of like it as it is - the early morning sun reflecting off things does make them appear bright white, and I'm fine with that. I agree other photos of this butterfly are probably better from an identification/encyclopedia illustration viewpoint, but I just find this one beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pattern of the bokeh has been duplicated, a typical stacking error. I think the problems could be sorted if Sven Damerow can be contacted to restack. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It has very interesting details, even the drops on the butterfly can be counted. IMO despite the stacking errors this image deserves a star. --IamMM (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cmao20’s and IamMM’s convincing reasoning. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image quality, very bad contrast. -- Karelj (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't mind the weak contrast; maybe it could be strengthened a bit on the insect, but given the generally light colors in this image there's not too much you could do. But for me the expertly executed bokeh makes it almost magical, and I'm not sure that works with any more contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: I do think the crop would help. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe colors are fabulous Dinkum (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do wonder if some have forgotten this is a 43MP live in-the-field insect photo and sharp at 100%. We've recently featured some blurry pictures at a small fraction of that resolution and not nearly as pretty colours and light. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This shot has is shortcomings but still one could loose himself in the abundance of detail and atmosphere and is well worth to be featured IMHO --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, detail, colors, composition Poco a poco (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in accordance with other supporters above. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wildlife Conservation Issue 8c 1971 U.S. stamps.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2022 at 10:10:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

US Stamps
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did notice that the alligator image was the weakest, but I wouldn't oppose on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should he have five toes? Alligators have only four toes (but five fingers, which are not visible here for they are under water) --Llez (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, my error on the toes. The recognised stamp design error was because of the design of the toes, not the number. Silly me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise in Crete dell'Orcia.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2022 at 07:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crete dell'Orcia Nature Reserve, Italy
  • Ikan Kekek: In this version about 2/3 of the sky is cropped. If you think it's OK, please tell me so I can put it as an alternative. --IamMM (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IamMM, thanks for taking the time to make and upload that edit. The sky remains a bit featureless, but I do like that composition better and would vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I prefer the original version. In the alt, the sky is too featureless for my taste. --Tagooty (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Alternative

File:Syrphus torvus macro 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2022 at 23:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Handheld stack of 3 picture of the head of Syrphus torvus
  • Where are there stacking errors in the eye? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've marked them. Is 3 images too few? I'm not familiar wich this type of shot. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added another one, which may indeed have been caused by a gap in the stack. Assuming that the eye eye has a depth of about 1mm, 3 images are enough if the lens is stepped down to f16. However, at a magnification of 2.5x this means that the effective aperture is f56, well into diffraction territory. Using an aperture of f2.8 (f9.8 effective aperture) would produce significantly sharper results, but would require about 20 shots to get the entire eye in focus ([1]) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charlesjsharp, thanks for marking the stacking errors. They're subtle to me, especially on top, and I feel like it's still an FP, but of course I respect your opposition from a position of expertise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Julesvernex2 and Charles --Ermell (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Urraca (Pica pica), Almuradiel, Ciudad Real, España, 2021-12-19, DD 20.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2022 at 23:02:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eurasian magpie (Pica pica), Almuradiel, Ciudad Real, Spain.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Corvidae_(Crows,_Jays_and_Magpies)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Eurasian magpie (Pica pica), Almuradiel, Ciudad Real, Spain. It's a resident breeding bird throughout the northern part of the Eurasian continent. This species is believed to be one of the most intelligent of all non-human animals. The expansion of its nidopallium is approximately the same in its relative size as the brain of chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans. It is the only bird known to pass the mirror test, along with very few other non-avian species. Poco a poco (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture of one of my favorite bird! These are hard to get well on camera due to the contrast of their feathers, well done. A tiny bit of purple fringing under the wing that could easily be corrected. --Alexis Lours (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --IamMM (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This shot is tighter than the snake (see lower down the nomination page), though it is the tail that is too close to the edge rather than the head! Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Charlesjsharp I can offer more crop on both sides but although this nom has nothing to do with the one you refer to, I don't necessarily see the need for more crop on the left here because the magpie is looking down and not to the left like the snake. I'll upload a new version this evening and also address Alexis's comment. Poco a poco (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Much better crop, but still noisy and soft unfortunately. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Weird fringing around the whole thing, but not very serious. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition, but too soft. --Tagooty (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagooty: Please, bear in mind that I'm offering here 30 MPx, not 6 MPx as is usual in this kind of shots Poco a poco (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Poco a poco: 7 MB is rather small for a 30 MP image. I wonder if it was accidentally saved with low jpg quality? --Tagooty (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagooty 7 MB small? how do you come to this conclusion? the bokeh makes 2/3 of the image and there is no detail there. Those things are decisive for the file size. I do restrict the file size to 12 MB, not the quality and this image is far below 12 MB. I tested this topic intensively with my camera and had this discussion on Commons before. I spent some time to check the topic with my camera files. The same applies to others (the threshold could though vary), when I see a 30 MB file out of a 24 MPx camera I just shake my head Poco a poco (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going by my observations of 15-20 MB for 24 MP images from Nikon D7200 and Sony A7C. Granted large uniform areas will reduce size. Tagooty (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Processing sofware can change MB. Topaz Denoise typically increases file size though, as Poco says, aggressive denoise of the background will cut MB dramatically. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I bet this has already been discussed here, but there's no discernible quality increase when using very low JPEG compression settings ([2]). Standardising compression settings could save a ton of money that the Wikimedia Foundation could use elsewhere? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting point. I saved an FP quality out-of-camera JPG image (4.62MB) as Photoshop CS6 quality Medium 6 (12 is best) and you can hardly tell the difference (new size 699MB). It would still be FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons is an archive and so disc space isn't really a problem compared to preserving the image. When Wikipedia serves up a thumbnail (i.e. anything downsized) it delivers a highly compressed version over the internet. That said, using 100% Lightroom (or 12/12 Photoshop) is pointless and better to choose 90% (11/12). Going lower can sometimes fail to capture fine detail, not that this image has any. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charles, very good light conditions though. --Ivar (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Alexis. --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support When downscaled to 3,200 pixels wide, perceived detail seems similar to this image. Diego, nevertheless I think the image would benefit from denoising the background, and from adding additional background to the right (so that the bird's tail is not so close to the edge) and to the top (to have a more standard aspect ratio). --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Julesvernex2: ✓ Done, thank you! Poco a poco (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm quite perplexed by the support. It is a very ordinary image of a very common bird and someone has smeared Vaseline over the lens to give it some kind of low contrast soft focus boudoir technique used to hide the wrinkles in middle aged clients. There is no feather detail on this bird, just blotches of different colour. This looks like an upsized 2MP. Alexis Lours, your File:Eurasian magpie (Pica pica).jpg] (8.5MP) is far superior in every way. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also quite perplexed that after so many years people like me still contribute with dedication (not to mention time and money) to this project in spite of users like Colin, wo invest most of their time not in contributing but in attacking, being rude and in fact insulting. When I read messages with that package I cannot even look into the content. If I had a company and would treat my employees like this, I'm be alone latest after one week. Poco a poco (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poco, you are welcome to contribute images to Commons with dedication, time and money. You can do that without nominating images at FPC and making personal attacks when they get criticised. Really, if you are a delicate soul, then stop nominating, and keep happy contributing your images. But whenever any one of us nominates our own images at FPC we are arrogantly declaring "Look what I created! Isn't it just among the very finest there is on Commons! I offer it here for your admiration and glowing support. Please feed my ego!" Poco, seriously, this photo is what I'd send to Canon with a warranty claim for lens defects. If you don't like reading negative reviews, and want uncritical praise, show your photos to your mum or your wife, whatever. But if you nominate a blurry noisy glare-filled boring static image of a common-as-dirt magpie staring at the ground, then I'll call it out. Meh. I wouldn't even upload this, never mind boast to the world that it is "among the finest on Commons" and get all cry-baby when someone says it isn't. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are totally wrong, and anyone who knows me would confirm that. I can bear criticism, I don't feel need to show my pics to my mum to confirm myself. The problem is the way you treat people here and that "scent" of arrogance in all your comments. After all these years, please, don't pretend that your judgement is fair after you see who is the author. The ugly packaging of your comments along with your attacks and biased voting result in steril reviews in my eyes. Poco a poco (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm mostly a big fan of the angle, the colors and the posture of the bird, which might have led me to overlook some imperfections in the file. Yes, the sharpness is not as good as it could be, but I also feel like quite a few people underestimate how hard these birds are to get well on picture too. --Alexis Lours (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Pica pica photo needs to show the beautiful blue on the wings, which this one does not. My photo is too soft to be FP and is a boring composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're here to judge the finest on Commons, not give stars out of sympathy. We have better bird-in-flight photos than this soft noisy on-the-ground picture of an extremely common bird, so I don't really buy any excuse that this was difficult to get right. Aside from the excellent JJ Harrison's work, take yourself off to Category:Featured pictures by Rhododendrites and examine crisp, detailed high resolution photos with engagine composition and good light. That's someone who only took up photography recently and is using a m43 camera, not some top-of-the-range full frame. It is this sort of "easy pass for the regulars" FPC that discredits the whole process. -- Colin (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a poor image, but one reason why Poco a poco is so upset is because of the inflammatory reviews by Colin. Colin winds us up by belittling our work. He frequently votes oppose, but virtually never supports. Can I suggest Poco a poco that you come over to England and visit the Tower of London. Why not photograph a couple of ravens so you can challenge for POTY. Put the wrong lens on your camera so you have to crop the image. Choose F7.1/ISO 100 to make sure that one bird is way out of focus. Move your point of view so that you achieve a really disturbing background then take your snap. If you win, you will earn the right to pontificate on the art of wildlife photogrpahy for years to come. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those confused by the Tower of London reference, Charles is referring to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Odin and Thor, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30a.jpg, an image of mine from five years ago that both Poco a Poco and Charles opposed. It went on to win first place in Commons:Picture of the Year/2016, a shock that it seems Charles hasn't recovered from. What a sense of entitlement demonstrated here: How dare someone who won POTY with a funny tourist snapshot criticise us? Charles, you say "this is a poor image", and you are an experienced wildlife photographer, so it is kinda weird that you then just make a personal attack on me in order to discredit my judgement that you agree with. But this "poor photo" currently has 12 support and 4 oppose so is well on its way to featured status. Which really is taking a big dump on all the genuinely excellent featured wildlife photos. That's what stinks here. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit that I'm sometimes confused with Charles reviews, leaving comments but not reacting to improvements on the images. Still ok to me because Charles is a tough reviewer overall and consistent with his feedback. I do accept his criticisms and try to improve the image based on them as he articulates it in a manner I can understand and accept them. This is the same for all over reviewers here, and ther are many, but Colin is the big exception. Along with a review he always feels the need, specially when it comes to my noms, to try to discredit me and my work. Be tough in criticism if you like, that's your good right, but be fair and respectful to fellow Commoners. That's all I ask for and I didn't receive for many years now. --Poco a poco (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, all you ask for is that people support your photos so your ego gets a boost. Do you think nobody has noticed? -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking away and changing the topic is the easiest way to ignore your problem. Keep being rude as you have always been. I was really happy to get my first FPs prometed a bunch of years ago, agree, but approaching 800 FPs now that excitement is gone. And still I'd like to celebrate someday the 1,000 FPs with you (or rather in spite of you) here on Commons. --Poco a poco (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the thing right there. You want 1000 FPs and think I'm here to spite that. It doesn't enter your head to think what you are doing to help others get their FPs or how much work other people have to invest of their time for you to get there. Poco a poco, do you have any idea how many of your FPs I've commented on, where you have improved the image as a result, and achieved not only an FP but a better photograph as a result? No, you really don't. Wilfredor complains when I don't give him negative reviews, as that's how he sees him becoming better as a photographer. If you take a photo of a fossil in rubbish lighting or are sloppy in your focus stacked editing, which is better? That you churn out another 20 meh FPs with uncritical support, or that you go read a book on lighting, or work harder on your photoshoping and stacking technique? When you nominated that 3MP blurry shark photo, do you think it was better that nobody said anything and we had a crap FP, or that you uploaded/inserted a much better image instead. This isn't primary school where teacher's job is to encourage your infant brain with praise. I did a quick search of our nominations that I collected back when I collected stats recently. You have reviewed precisely 17 of my featured picture nominations, and I've reviewed over 174 of yours. Of those, I can see 76 oppose and 65 support, the rest comments or neutral. That's a 43% oppose rate and your overall failure rate at FPC is 40%. So I'm not actually out of step with the community. Bet that surprised you. I have reviewed 10 times as many of your images than you have of mine, and supported at least 65 of them. Yet in all that work, which I and hundreds of others have put in to helping you get your featured pictures, you write like I'm personally here to prevent you getting any. Could your comments be more ungrateful and entitled? -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to you is like talking to a wall. Surely I can improve a picture or any skills if I get constructive criticism, from you and from many others but when you cover your criticism with attacks and disrespectul comments I don't care to understand when you say. In your case the effect is the opposite. You discourage me to upload images, improve them or even take my camera and go out, but who cares. Bye. Poco a poco (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, looking at the EXIF, you've used a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM along with a 2x extender. That's a lens introduced in 1997, the era of film, coupled with a 2x extender which is widely known to degrade image quality, mounted onto a modern camera with one of the most demanding sensors ever made. This antique is not going to produce acceptable results in 2022, and explains why I reckon you've got about 2MP of detail that just looks a hazy glary mess at 30MP. We have much much more detailed 6MP images at FP and the quality of bird compositions has improved in recent years too. What is continually frustrating, is that reviewers who actually bother to judge the image properly, and compare it to our existing FPs and repository, and who dare to oppose because it is quite frankly a dreadfully bad quality bird photo, get personal attacks and childish blackmail. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very balanced voting record, Colin. Perhaps I too only remember your opposes, not your supports. Do you have the same type of voting stats for my FP noms (and my voting on yours), please? It would be good to stop fighting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I rather agree with Colin. The eye is not really in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose certainly sub par compared to other birdies FPs, even considering the size. I'd blame the issues on the post processing (sharpening, NR) mainly. - Benh (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    hmmm Colin might have a point regarding the quality of the lens. So maybe reprocessing it won't help. - Benh (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Fri 18 Mar → Wed 23 Mar
Sat 19 Mar → Thu 24 Mar
Sun 20 Mar → Fri 25 Mar
Mon 21 Mar → Sat 26 Mar
Tue 22 Mar → Sun 27 Mar
Wed 23 Mar → Mon 28 Mar

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]

Mon 14 Mar → Wed 23 Mar
Tue 15 Mar → Thu 24 Mar
Wed 16 Mar → Fri 25 Mar
Thu 17 Mar → Sat 26 Mar
Fri 18 Mar → Sun 27 Mar
Sat 19 Mar → Mon 28 Mar
Sun 20 Mar → Tue 29 Mar
Mon 21 Mar → Wed 30 Mar
Tue 22 Mar → Thu 31 Mar
Wed 23 Mar → Fri 01 Apr

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. 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)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
     (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. 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 ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. 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.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2022), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

  1. 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)
  2. 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 ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2022.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. 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).
      2. 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).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
    3. 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.
  5. 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]

  1. 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=--~~~~}}
  2. 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 ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2022), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=631619896"