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, 2023, 2024 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease 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 documentsThere 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." PhotographsOn 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 audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf 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 usersAdding a new nominationIf 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:
Galleries and FP categories: 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 them 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. VotingEditors 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 candidatesOver 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 policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA 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. 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 politePlease 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
|
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 22:42:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Hong Kong
- Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Similar to File:Hong Kong Harbour Night 2019-06-11.jpg but higher resolution, wider field of view, less saturation, and taken during late blue hour so there's more natural light. -- dllu (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful, and insanely detailed. You can see individual cars on the streets. DS (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I know it's difficult to place a tripod where there are a lot of people, but it's a matter of having patience, Hong Kong is a very populous city. Beautifull image, however, IMHO Too much noise, not exif present, using tripod could improve the noise/DoF/Multiple expositions, etc. --Wilfredor (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 20:47:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits (raw)
- Info How about another one of Ivar's super high res focus stacks of unusual fruit? created by Ivar - uploaded by Ivar - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great technical quality and delightful looking fruit. dllu (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 17:40:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Morocco
- Info created by Mounir Neddi - uploaded by Mounir Neddi - nominated by Mounir Neddi -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Very cool composition and amazing landscape, however, obviously tilted and quite noisy Cmao20 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 15:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Sturnidae (Starlings)
- Info created & uploaded by Maurizio Carlini - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Difficult and different capture outweighs mediocre image quality Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Zzzs (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Portrait a man sitting calmly by the side of a road in Shambhunath Municipality, Nepal-4556.jpg
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 16:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Sitting_people
- Info Portrait of a Shepherd, man sitting calmly by the side of a road in Shambhunath Municipality Nepal, during the lockdown 2020 Pandemic. created by Bijay Chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay Chaurasia - nominated by Bijay Chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent but would IMO be improved if you cropped out the motorbike Cmao20 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 15:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Spain
- Info created by Fernando - uploaded by Fernando - nominated by Fernando -- Fernando (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Although the subject already has a few FA (1, 2, 3), they're all panoramas of the general landscape, not the building itself. There's also a GP available, but I frankly believe this one is better. -- Fernando (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Satisfying Cmao20 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 15:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Anitava Roy -- Anitava Roy (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Anitava Roy (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Fernando (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Question Why do some sections like the stem and bottom of the butterfly look like they were cut out wrong, was the background added? --Wilfredor (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but not sharp enough for an FP butterfly and some weirdly speckly patterns in the background. V pretty but not FP Cmao20 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Low quality, noisy, jpg artifacts, --Wilfredor (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 14:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1930-1939
- Info created by Hugo Erfurth, restored and uploaded by Bammesk, nominated by Yann
- Support -- Yann (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Tmv (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Zzzs (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2024 at 01:19:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Portugal
- Info created and uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by SHB2000 --SHB2000 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Light seems a bit artificial, and colors off -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Agree that the white balance seems on the warm side. Cmao20 (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ximonic: , if you're around, mind if you could fix the white balance? --SHB2000 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 22:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Science
- Info created by WhatisMars - uploaded by WhatisMars - nominated by WhatisMars -- WhatisMars (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support, this is my diagram of the Solar System in Vietnamese. This is an adaptation of File:Solar System true color (title and caption).jpg that's less cluttered. The text have colors of the planets' or moons' surface. -- WhatisMars (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I'm the creator of File:Solar System true color (title and caption).jpg but I've lost the password for the old account. WhatisMars (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Question Why not svg? --Wilfredor (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Please fix language in description + caption. It's not English. And same request for many of your other uploads. Also poor categorization -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how to categorize these images. I'm sorry. Also, why does the diagram have to be in English? There's already File:Solar System true color (title and caption).jpg for that. WhatisMars (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- For categorization, see COM:CAT. For language, the problem is in the file page. You write "English" for descriptions not in English. Idem caption. Of course, an additional description and caption in English would be a nice addition. But first, fix the current one, please. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but while this is a useful diagram, the standard for diagrams at FP should be SVG, not JPEG. I'm also not convinced by the way Saturn's rings are depicted. Cmao20 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Because the images taken of planets and moons are in the raster format and converting it to SVG will have no benefit, as you couldn't scale up a raster image. Making a diagram of these planets in SVG might be possible, but it would have an insanely big filesize and would not be able to capture these bodies realistically. WhatisMars (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Doing this in SVG allows for easier editing, simpler translation, etc. Wilfredor (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Because the images taken of planets and moons are in the raster format and converting it to SVG will have no benefit, as you couldn't scale up a raster image. Making a diagram of these planets in SVG might be possible, but it would have an insanely big filesize and would not be able to capture these bodies realistically. WhatisMars (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 20:02:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
- Info By zooming on the cranckset and the cassette, you can see the mechanical issue that Romain Bardet had in the last listed climb of stage 13 of Tour de France 2024. His rear derailleur had a defect and Romain was unable to shift up a gear. He put the chain on the little chainring to pass the climb and it results that the chain is bent, something that you don't do in normal time. created by Shougissime - uploaded by Shougissime - nominated by Shougissime -- Shougissime (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Shougissime (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Tight crop at the bottom -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your remark, I added more space at the bottom. I did a rotation of the picture to correct horizon and I don't have the possibility to put more space at the bottom if I keep this reframing. In your opinion, does it looks ok? Shougissime (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Cool action shot, nice explanation and good bokeh in the background but I agree with Basile Morin that the bottom crop is very tight and the picture needs more room to breathe Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- thank you for your comment, as proposed I added more space at the bottom. Shougissime (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice action image. --Fernando (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 17:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Doors
- Info Bab al Soufara (Soufara Gates), Remparts of Almohad, Rabat (باب السفراء، باب السفارة - الرباط). Till i reedit my Gardoš Tower i put this. My shot. --Mile (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 13:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Russia
- Info created by Serhiomatviavelli - uploaded and nominated by FBilula -- FBilula (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- FBilula (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, there is potential here but for a motif that is naturally circular I wouldn't support a crop that cuts off some of the circles and seems kind of arbitrary. Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this would work with a square crop. Yann (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 12:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
- Info created by Ted.ns - uploaded and nominated by FBilula -- FBilula (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- FBilula (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I think the building is so interesting and beautiful here. But the light is a bit harsh, and a bigger problem is the depth of field, which means that the flowers in the foreground are very blurry and distracting. It would have been better to take a few steps forward and only show the building. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose In addition to what cmao said, the saturation seems to have been cranked up, making the flowers even more distracting. I agree that the building is interesting and beautiful, however. dllu (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 11:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
- Info created by Atanu Bose Photography - uploaded by Atanu Bose Photography - nominated by TAPAN1412 -- TAPAN1412 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- TAPAN1412 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but while both of these are beautiful butterflies, the level of detail at full size is not what I'd want to see from a butterfly FP in 2024. There is a lack of fine detail on the wing and some evidence of oversharpening.Cmao20 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Low quality, jpg artifacts, --Wilfredor (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 11:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
- Info created by Atanu Bose Photography - uploaded by Atanu Bose Photography - nominated by TAPAN1412 -- TAPAN1412 (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- TAPAN1412 (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but while both of these are beautiful butterflies, the level of detail at full size is not what I'd want to see from a butterfly FP in 2024. There is a lack of fine detail on the wing and some evidence of oversharpening.Cmao20 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2024 at 04:23:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1850-1899
- Info-- from a post of Switzerland - uploaded by Rafic.Mufid - nominated by Inu06 -- Inu06 (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Info → Historical visual of Kaaba in Great Mosque of Mecca, during Hajj pilgrimage in 1886. This image also depicts other historical structures which are currently either replaced, renovated or demolished, see the list below
- Zam Zam well building – (now relocated underground)
- Old and new staircases of Kaaba
- Bani Shaiba (or al-Salam) gate – (demolished in 1967)
- Maqam Ibrahim (Station of Abraham) – (now reshaped)
- Kaaba in black Kiswah(covering)
- Old Ottoman Pulpit
- Ottoman Porticoes in the background with small domes.
- Support -- Inu06 (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It is very interesting but it isn't even 1 megapixel in size, and Commons has a 2 megapixel minimum requirement for size except in cases of 'strong mitigating reasons'. There is an argument that the fact that some of these structures are no longer standing counts as mitigating reasons, but on the other hand, we do frequently promote historical photos that are a lot larger and more detailed than this. I fear this nomination will not succeed unless a higher resolution version can be sourced. Cmao20 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: resolution 1,000 × 639 pixels, inferior than 2 megapixels -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 23:58:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Japan
- Info Morning view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park. c/u/n by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Again, this one took me a while to warm up to, but I think the composition is good Cmao20 (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Sorry, composition is confusing and lacks a clear motive/subject. --Fernando (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Fernardo. -- Karelj (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 18:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Motorsports
- Info Riders during the 40th edition of Gotland Grand National 2023, the world's biggest, and one of the oldest, Enduro competition.
- Created, uploaded and nominated by --ArildV (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great action shot Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks somewhat apocalyptical. 'Ghost riders in the sky', you know. Great shot! -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Request Viewpoint is excellent but crop is tight. Not possible to bring more space at the bottom and at the top, by chance? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above -- Inu06 (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality for the challenging situation. Of course if by any chance you have some more pixels at the top and bottom … they would be welcome ;–). – Aristeas (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment @Basile Morin and Aristeas: Thank you all for reviews. I uploaded a new version with a slightly less tight crop.--ArildV (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Wow, thank you, Arild! Now the photo is even better. – Aristeas (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above. Fantastic! Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support for the updated version. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great work! --Fernando (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Νικόλαος Κυριακάκης (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 17:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
- Info created by LoMit - uploaded by LoMit - nominated by LoMit -- LoMit talk 17:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- LoMit talk 17:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Pretty neoclassical architecture, symmetrical, good quality Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Nice light but too much grass and sky in my view, also not sure the architecture is exceptional -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm unsure about the amount of grass, but I still like it. --Fernando (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 15:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Austria
- Info Göttweig Abbey, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support FP because of exceptional detail and good image quality Cmao20 (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Special viewpoint and clean composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support good viewpoint -- Inu06 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 and Basile. – Aristeas (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
100 Ruble "History of Monetary Circulation of Russia" commemorative coin (2009)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 12:04:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Obverse
-
Reverse
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Coins & Seals
- Info created by David Osipov - uploaded by David Osipov - nominated by David Osipov -- David Osipov (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- David Osipov (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info -- Images of the 100-Ruble commemorative coin "History of Monetary Circulation in Russia" (2009). The obverse features the Bank of Russia emblem; the reverse depicts various historical Russian coins and commemorates monetary reforms. The only high-res contemporary Russian gold coin on Wikimedia Commons -- David Osipov (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The photos are a bit small, but they are very sharp and I think they are really interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is fine but not outstanding and the coins are modern, not of any special value, overall not a FP to me, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info -- Only 27 000 coins have been produced in 2009. Today each of them can cost $2100. This pic is the only high quality picture of this coin in public space. According to Lanta Bank, this coin is considered rare. -- David Osipov (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 11:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bangladesh
- Info Fishermen fishing with a big net in River Padma, district of Rajshahi, Bangladesh. According to the description, environmental damage has led to a gradual drying of the Padma River which impacts all residents and also presents big problems to the fishermen. Created and uploaded by Asker Ibne Firoz, nominated by – Aristeas (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support This photo works in many ways: as an almost abstract artwork with beautiful textures; as an educative document of the special shapes of the sediments in a river; as a photo of the fishermen at work, showing how small are they and their boat; and, according to the photo’s description, as a documentation of the dying river. Quality is very good for a drone photo (a tiny little bit of grain and some small overexposed areas, but overall very sharp, realistic colours and contrast). – The file certainly needs a better name, but in these weeks the international WLE jury is assessing the images and I guess renaming the file right now could break the jury process. Therefore I will rename this file later to a more descriptive name. – Aristeas (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great. As you say, name should be changed, but doesn't need to happen right now. Cmao20 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The picture is smt - quite a transcending one. Quality is great. David Osipov (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Exceptional capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great pattern. And 17 Mpx is not small. Yann (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Exactly per Aristeas -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Amazing - sad and beautiful --Kritzolina (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Sette-quattro (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Fernando (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 05:46:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me --A. Öztas 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- A. Öztas 05:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very beautiful and well done. The problem is that your photo directly competes with this very similar FP which has been taken by Diliff in 2007. It’s not one of his very best photos, but still a very strong competitor with high sharpness of details. Of course there are misc. differences – your photo is more of a night view, while Diliff’s one is a blue-hour shot; Diliff’s version shows misc. persons while your one is free of them; etc. In the end I think the point of view is different enough and better in your shot – the central way leading to the entrance is a clear advantage. So we can keep Diliff’s FP as FP because of the beautiful blue hour atmosphere and the details sharpness, and feature your new photo because of the somewhat better perspective and the better lighting of the arches. – Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- In fact there were a few people around the Colosseum, when I was there to take some night shots. Unfortunately some of them were launching flying LED toys into the air, which caused unwanted light trails… To manage this and still capture the scene cleanly, I opted for a 15-minute long exposure. This helped me minimize the distracting elements while enhancing the lighting of the arches and overall atmosphere. Meanwhile, a police car drove past twice, but due to the long exposure time, it's not to be seen here. --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support For a place this famous we can have more than one FP, and this one is good. Cmao20 (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nobody goes to this place in the middle of the night for nothing. --Wilfredor (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Shortly after I arrived, another photographer from Canada was also packing up his things and we got chatting briefly. It was his last day in Rome and he wanted to take some nice night shots of the Colosseum. Unfortunately, his remaining battery barely lasted more than 10 minutes - I was sorry about that, but I couldn't help his Nikon. In the end, he was just annoyed with himself. To be honest, I thought there would be a lot more going on at a sight like this - especially with regard to photography - but maybe it was also due to the time of day (or night). --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's too bad about the battery! It's frustrating, He is a commons photographer? I'm also from Canada, maybe I know him Wilfredor (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't asked, if he is on Commons. He showed me some photographs of one of his friends, who uses Sony, but to my shame I haven't noticed his Instagram username. If it helps, he had a Nikon Z9, which he had bought a short time earlier. Perhaps we should attach small Commons badges to our camera straps or tripods so that we can recognize each other (satire - or not). --A. Öztas 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's too bad about the battery! It's frustrating, He is a commons photographer? I'm also from Canada, maybe I know him Wilfredor (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Shortly after I arrived, another photographer from Canada was also packing up his things and we got chatting briefly. It was his last day in Rome and he wanted to take some nice night shots of the Colosseum. Unfortunately, his remaining battery barely lasted more than 10 minutes - I was sorry about that, but I couldn't help his Nikon. In the end, he was just annoyed with himself. To be honest, I thought there would be a lot more going on at a sight like this - especially with regard to photography - but maybe it was also due to the time of day (or night). --A. Öztas 12:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive architecture and appealing blue hour -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Replacing the already very good Diliff's image on Wikipedia, using a sockpuppet... why? Just because it's your photo? Livio/Commonists is greeting... --A.Savin 18:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I used a sock puppet (openly declared and linked as such) for a few days for some edits because I could not edit in Wikipedia via this user account due to Apple's iCloud Private Relay and the No open proxies Policy. I had already written to the steward team about this at the time. I have replaced the image because I believe that this (17 years later) image is also good and suitable. I was not aware that there is a grandfathering clause. Fortunately, this is an open project and you can undo any changes. Even if the picture is rejected by you as an FP for this reason - or do you have any comments on what I could do better in future shots, because that's what we're talking about here? I'm always trying to get better at what I do, so this would help in that regard too. By the way I don't know what you mean by "Livio/Commonists is greeting", but perhaps you could elaborate on that. --A. Öztas 20:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the Colosseum has changed much in all this time. I consider Diliff's Photo to be superior. Usually, out of politeness, such a change is put up for debate on the article's discussion page. Wilfredor (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Careless replace of pictures is exactly what the person behind accounts "Livioandronico", "Comminists", "Spartakos" etc.pp. did. We don't replace excellent pictures, unless significant update is necessary. Why don't you replace this one instead (still being used on four pages)? Again, you replace because you care about quality of Wikipedia or because it's your picture you would like to showcase? --A.Savin 05:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm obviously not that familiar with meta-discussions about other users, but that's also not the reason why I participate in Wikimedia projects. So please understand that I will not go into further detail in this regard. Regarding your actual question: I have already explained why I replaced the image. The previous photo is 17 years old, and I thought it made sense to replace it with a current and equally high-quality image. This is not about ego or the need to showcase my image, as you subtly imply, but about offering an image that I believe is equivalent and more current - even if not much changed about the Colosseum itself in that time. I am active on Wikimedia almost exclusively on Commons. Other users tend to work in different projects, some have a balanced mix. For me, it usually works like this: I publish photos on Commons for which I think a free licence would be useful, and then see whether some of them could also offer added value in articles. Unfortunately, you haven't said anything about the photo itself yet, although that's exactly what this is about here. As I've already mentioned, I'm always endeavouring to improve my photography skills and would appreciate your expert feedback. I've already said everything I need to say on the other points you've raised here and anything more would just be repetitive, which is why I consider the discussion closed for me at this point. However, if you consider it necessary, we can continue the discussion in a suitable place. --A. Öztas 12:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I used a sock puppet (openly declared and linked as such) for a few days for some edits because I could not edit in Wikipedia via this user account due to Apple's iCloud Private Relay and the No open proxies Policy. I had already written to the steward team about this at the time. I have replaced the image because I believe that this (17 years later) image is also good and suitable. I was not aware that there is a grandfathering clause. Fortunately, this is an open project and you can undo any changes. Even if the picture is rejected by you as an FP for this reason - or do you have any comments on what I could do better in future shots, because that's what we're talking about here? I'm always trying to get better at what I do, so this would help in that regard too. By the way I don't know what you mean by "Livio/Commonists is greeting", but perhaps you could elaborate on that. --A. Öztas 20:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 05:28:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: ' Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)
- Info created by Anitava Roy - uploaded by Anitava Roy - nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Atudu (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Could do with a spot of selective denoising in places but very good photo Cmao20 (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 17:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Chile#Los Lagos Region
- Info Sharp and well-lit photo of this Chilean natural monument, the only place in the world that's a breeding site for both Humboldt and Magellanic penguins. No FPs of this place, or from this province of Chile. I also love the little boat in the distance. created by Rjcastillo - uploaded by Rjcastillo - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support It has the shape of a giant turtle, and the distant ship also gives it a feeling of immense size. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good perspective and colours. I also like the turbulent waters with surf and foam, and many shades from green over turquoise and blue to violet. – Aristeas (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent in full screen, great find! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 08:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Fernando (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Zzzs (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 16:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Saxony-Anhalt
- Info Portal of the Town Hall (1 Markt) of Quedlinburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful! Cmao20 (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Composition, subject🌹, light -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 08:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes. This is one of the rare subjects where the vertical light and the strong shadows actually work very well. – Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Poco a poco (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 12:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#North Caucasian Federal District
Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Others - Info Balancing rock in the Atsgara Valley with cliffs of Mount Zagedan in the background, Western Caucasus. All by -- Argenberg (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC).
- Support -- Argenberg (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting sight, good image quality Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Very interesting view and subject. It’s a pity that the light is a bit unfortunate – harsh shadows at the stone, flat light on the montains in the background. – Aristeas (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the point of the photo is the balancing rock and the rock are very dark. It appears almost black before opening the image in full size. Maybe it can be fixed if you go back to the raw file. But for me, the main subject of the picture (the balancing rock) is underexposed now and and therefore not FP imo.--ArildV (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- The theme of the photograph is the rock in the context of the surrounding valley and distant cliffs. So it’s not just the rock, but the rock in the valley around it, under a blue sky, in very sunny weather. The rock itself is naturally dark, maybe be even graphite/black because of granite intrusions, and it contrasts with the chalky white cliffs in the distance, which have a different mineral composition. And the shadow on the side of the rock makes it look darker to isolate it further in the landscape. For me, this is a pleasant shadow that reinforces the composition. Like when something is dark, it looks better in the dark. Like a dark spot under the radiant sun. The shadow also highlights the rock’s shape and form, giving it more silhouette, which is again more important here than texture. Thanks for your feedback. Anyway, I made a little shadow lift and will upload it soon. It still looks dark as expected, but maybe less menacing and with more detail and texture in the shadow. There’s plenty of information in the shadows, they don’t look underexposed to me. --Argenberg (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Church of light.jpg (delist)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 11:13:33
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info This picture is clearly a manipulation – it's 2 pictures merged together: daylight (or very long-exposure moonlight) shot of the church and night shot of the sky). See the different noise levels of the foreground VS the sky. And there are artifacts from the background removal (check the blue outlines around the church tower). The foreground also suffers a lot from chromatic aberration, but in the areas, where the new sky was attached, the aberation artifacts were erased. Also, the real church has a cross on the top of the tower, which is missing in this picture. There also used to be a lamp on the left, which was also retouched – you can still see the leftover of the lamp around the pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. I can't beleive that the Wiki community is OK with that and can't believe this could become a FP and a finalist in Picture of the Year. (Original nomination)
- Delist I have stated the reasons in the Info section. I would like to see the original RAWs or out-of-camera JPGs to prove whether (and how) this was manipulated.--RealPhotoManiac (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Why is this request coming from a 20-minute-old account? (in addition to what's been mentioned by Cart below) --SHB2000 (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I was asked about this file, so here goes: Of course that photo is a combination of two photos, but I think not in a sinister way. It's simply an HDR, something that astro-photographers do all the time to get the best possible images. (Example from the same photographer where he describes the process of such photos.) If we are to ban all photos that are not just one photo as in raw, we should get rid of all stacked, HDR and panoramas too. Selecting different settings for the same scene at the same time is not against the rules. --Cart (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- 1) All images created by combining 2 or more photos or should be properly categorised ho highlight this, right? There are rules for that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria) and this picture clearly violates them.
- 2) HDR should be just a series of pictures stacked together, but shot in the same time and place. I would be OK if this was the case. However, it looks like night sky was combined with a daylight foreground. I am not convinced that Moon or any other light source would create such hard shadows. Compared to other daylight shots (e.g https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeshlabotnik/53735747194/), the light looks very similar. Compared to ther night shots (https://www.shutterstock.com/cs/image-photo/northern-light-aurora-borealis-vik-church-546515572), the light is very different. In reality, there are spotlights around the church and nothing to cast light on the mountains around.
- 4) I believe that the encyclopedical value of FPs should come from the fact that they show the reality, which is not the case here. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I recommend confirming the date of the photo with the Northern Lights at that time. I think there should be no problem combining photos from the same place regardless of the time or day. Having this information in the image description would be much appreciated but many users do not know how to do this or do not find it necessary. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Having been twice to Vík í Mýrdal in Iceland and seen that church on a hill on top of the city I am not sure wether this is a single photo or the combination of multiple photos. With long exposure at night, any small light source gets exponentially increased and pictures can look like as if they were taken in day time even though they were taken at night. I can't exclude that the illumination of this picture takes it's source from city light + moon light + aurora light. For example on this picture that I took at 22:01 in Switzerland when it was completely dark to the human eye, the mountain on the photo has harsh light and shadows that only come from the moon and nothing else (but to the human eye the light and shadows were not that harsh, only to the camera because of long exposure)! And the effect is even bigger on white surfaces such as with the snow or the church painting. Conclusion : yes it is possible to have harsh light and shadows on photos taken in complete darkness with long exposure and I can't exclude that this picture is just 1 picture and not a combination of multiple pictures -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- But the chromatic aberrations on each side of the white part of the tower are a bit strange because they are not regular and may seem like there was some editing in that area. So it is not impossible either that it's a combination of pictures. But it might just be poor editing to try to remove the chromatic aberration so it's still possible that it's just one single picture -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- The chromatic aberration is usually most intense towards the corners. Least intense in the center. The objects affected by CA usually have a blue outline on one side and a red outline on the other. So, around the church tower, it is not aberration, but rather leftovers of the original (probably) blue sky that was there before the aurora sky was added. Otherwise, the aberration would be visible also in other parts of the church and not just the tower. And how would you explain different noise levels between the sky and the foreground? And check the transition between the sky and the foreground on the very right. There are clearly visible leftovers from using the selection tool and the eraser. And the little black rock is there twice - on the right side of the rock, behind the one added as part of image 1, you can see the one that was part of the image 2, because the images were not aligned 1:1 when merged together. Also, the real church has a cross on the very top of the tower, which is completely missing in the picture, probably because it would be too hard to paint out the original background in such a complex shape. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I had an occasion were I had chromatic aberrations on the middle-top of a picture so it can happen even with good equipment but you're right that normally one side is red and the other is blue and that in this case it's two blue sides on the church tower. The difference of noise level is also present when comparing the illuminated parts and the not illuminated parts of this picture that I did but you're right that in the case of the church picture the difference seems a bit too big. Also it's very strange that the cross of the church was removed. Finally in light of this I have no doubt anymore that the church picture is unfortunately not real. The position of the northern light also felt too perfect to be true (even if sometimes people can get very lucky) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately all these hypotheses can be classified with the presentation of the RAW, something that I proposed some time ago is that each FPC should have its respective RAW to support the editions. Wilfredor (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I fully support what you have written. It is common that all serious photo competitions require the participants to be able to provide the original RAW files. Wikipedia does not require this so I am sure there are many more secretly manipulated pictures around here. I would be OK with this picture, if it would be properly categorised as manipulated (as all the panoramas and other merged shots should be) and if the manipulation would be done properly (no visible transitions, no artifacts, no ghosts and no alternation of the objects in the scene – like e.g. the cross on the tower, which is missing). RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- The chromatic aberration is usually most intense towards the corners. Least intense in the center. The objects affected by CA usually have a blue outline on one side and a red outline on the other. So, around the church tower, it is not aberration, but rather leftovers of the original (probably) blue sky that was there before the aurora sky was added. Otherwise, the aberration would be visible also in other parts of the church and not just the tower. And how would you explain different noise levels between the sky and the foreground? And check the transition between the sky and the foreground on the very right. There are clearly visible leftovers from using the selection tool and the eraser. And the little black rock is there twice - on the right side of the rock, behind the one added as part of image 1, you can see the one that was part of the image 2, because the images were not aligned 1:1 when merged together. Also, the real church has a cross on the very top of the tower, which is completely missing in the picture, probably because it would be too hard to paint out the original background in such a complex shape. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- But the chromatic aberrations on each side of the white part of the tower are a bit strange because they are not regular and may seem like there was some editing in that area. So it is not impossible either that it's a combination of pictures. But it might just be poor editing to try to remove the chromatic aberration so it's still possible that it's just one single picture -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment As an original supporter of the nomination, I'm leaning towards a
NeutralDelist vote. On the one hand, the indications are in favor of delisting, but on the other hand, the arguments of Cart, Giles, and Wilfredor need to be considered. Because of the recent cases of undeclared manipulation that have come to light, I am more sensitive these days than I was 2 ½ years ago when I supported the image in good faith. If retouching goes beyond the norm, it must be disclosed on the file page. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- I have just found out that not only the cross on the top of the tower is missing, but also a lamp was painted out. Here is a Google Street View for comparison. Everyone can clearly see that the lamp used to be in the picture, but was retouched. You can still see the leftover around pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. With all due respect to the image author, I believe he is indeed a good photographer, but a very poor photo editor. If someone could please turn on image notes on this page, I can highlight all the issues directly in the picture. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Abstainfor now, but tending to {{Delist}} because the orientation of the shadows / light seems different on the church versus on the mountains behind. Church : light comes from the right, while mountains : light comes from the left. Or is it an illusion / perspective effect? However, I find SHB2000's question legitimate, and think it deserves an answer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- On hold Thanks for your 12th edit. Could you also make a thirteen contribution here? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- If I find any other object that was painted out from the picture, I will certainly make more contributions. I see no reason why somebody should be bothered with it. ;-) RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's an unusual start to participate to Commons by nominating an image for delisting. -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- And it reminds us of some other users who were in fact reincarnations of banned users. This is why we are a bit cautious. Sorry if you are really a new user, please understand our caution. – Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- And if I was a reincarnation of a banned user, would it change something on the fact that heavily manipulated photos are widely accepted here on Wikipedia? RealPhotoManiac (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you were the reincarnation of a banned user, you could have fun making us doubt for hours, days, months or years... -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not here to make fun of you, believe me. If you have that feeling, I am very sorry for that. Please notice that I am not attacking anybody. I am here to raise awareness that cheating with photos is unfortunately a big topic here on Wikipedia and that the community here needs to focus on it a bit more. Pictures by this author are an easy example, but in the nearby future, AI generated / edited pictures will bring more difficult challenges, where it will be very hard to distinguish original vs fake images... RealPhotoManiac (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- New account, you want to teach us something on Commons, but you've also like completely lost your background / history / identity before entering here. Obviously you're an experienced user with knowledge on the process, the site, the image note gadget, etc. and for whatever reason do not want to reveal these elements of your profile. Pardon me, but that's rather odd, unless you're the real Zorro? :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you were the reincarnation of a banned user, you could have fun making us doubt for hours, days, months or years... -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- And it reminds us of some other users who were in fact reincarnations of banned users. This is why we are a bit cautious. Sorry if you are really a new user, please understand our caution. – Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- And here is my another contribution. I have checked other photos made by the same author, AstroAnthony. He received a honorary mention in Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2019/Winners/Ireland for this picture: File:The stars and man.jpg. The picture is again a fake. The background can be found in another upload here: File:Milky way nebula.jpg. The foreground is copy-pasted from another photo. Put the images one over another as layers and you will see it. What's the point of awarding a photomanipulation? All heavily manipulated images should be properly categorized and described. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- After seeing this comment I went to see for other uploads of the uploader and I found this picture were there is absolutely no doubt that it is fake with three layers. There is a big difference in detail and focus between the man and the rock on which he is standing. The light on the man is completely different and doesn't match the light of the rock. Also, the man seems badly placed. Finally, we can see that the rocks were cut from their original picture...
- So with all the hints on the other images as well it seems many night shots of this user are not true...
- The position of the aurora on the church also seemed a bit too perfect to be true (but I was hoping that the photographer was just lucky) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like the uploader of this photo also made a new account according to this comment and comparing with this other account name and pictures and multiple of his shots were awarded at WSC 2023 Ireland but I haven't checked yet if the shots awarded are real or not -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have checked some of his other photos. This and this are also suspicious – a man on the rock is inserted. See the different levels of sharpness and contrast. The second photo also won an award outside Wikipedia. Is there any place on Wiki where we could discuss this topic further? I guess this page should stay focused on the church picture... RealPhotoManiac (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like the uploader of this photo also made a new account according to this comment and comparing with this other account name and pictures and multiple of his shots were awarded at WSC 2023 Ireland but I haven't checked yet if the shots awarded are real or not -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist Thanks for the helpful comments -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- On hold Thanks for your 12th edit. Could you also make a thirteen contribution here? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist The arguments above have convinced me. This isn't just normal HDR, the transitions between land and sky are too abrupt for this to be the result of one frame. Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist I don’t see a problem if this photo is composed from two or more different exposures taken at the same date in the same place; this is a common approach in astrophotography – normally one or more frames of the sky are combined with a shot for the foreground which benefits from very different exposure times, ISO and/or aperture settings. Of course it would be much better if that was explained in the description page. It‘s also possible that the combined shots were taken at different dates or times of the day; this certainly would require to be documented; but that’s not sure. But what is sure (and what convinces me to vote for delisting) is that there are some obvious defects, like the missing cross and the coarse contours, which indicate that the montage has been done in a rather careless way. This is indeed a clear argument against the FP status, independent from the other questions. So many thanks to RealPhotoManiac for bringing this to our attention, and also many thanks to other participants, especially to Giles Laurent for the solid information. – Aristeas (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist For example the missing cross is too obvious problem. --Thi (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist Many thanks to all involved for the wide range of information that now provides a conclusive overview to make a reliable decision. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist It now became very clear to me, thanks RealPhotoManiac for the new arguments. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Delist as per all above explanation. Yann (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Looking at the photographer's other uploads, the aurora was shot separately in the thumbnail to the right. Bammesk (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the research, Bammesk. Of course, this changes the situation, as we now have clear evidence. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Bammesk, thank you very much for continuing my work! I was looking for it, but was unable to get all uploads by this user. You have done an excellent job. Things are slowly starting to move in the right direction here :-) RealPhotoManiac (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- This image is in severals wikipedia articles, it should be commented on the wikipedia article talks pages. IMHO is a fake image Wilfredor (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @RealPhotoManiac, Bammesk, and Giles Laurent: Thank you all for your research, also to all other participants! Sigh, now it’s clear that this and other photos by that contributor are rather wild montages, and the intent to deceive is obvious. We must add the appropriate hint on the description pages, using the usual {{Retouched}} template and appropriate subcategories of Category:Photomontages. – Aristeas (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fantastic found, Bammesk. Thanks a lot for your input. Crystal clear, now. Thanks also to RealPhotoManiac for revealing the RealPhotoManipulation :-) Also in the light of Giles Laurent's extended researches / odd elements / new clues, certainly important updates should be done on some file pages, and perhaps specific deletion requests, as "fake images" / noneducational contents. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Deletion requests? I suggest to keep all the pictures – they are an excellent proof of how the photographer was cheating. Without them, there is no proof. Anyway, the manipulated pictures should be removed from the articles and properly described and categorised. They can be used for example in an article about photo manipulation :-). RealPhotoManiac (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- 4th position at Picture of the year, that's not far from the podium. I wonder which place(s) would have reached the background and the church separately :-) But would they just reach the start of the competition? Not sure. I would love to see this church with its natural sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, I wonder how a 2017 image could be chosen as Picture of year 2022. I also wonder how many other competitions was this guy able to cheat with fake pictures. And the worst thing is that nobody was able to recognize it. I can understand somebody is cheating, but I cannot believe that the community here is so easily fooled by so poor photomanipulations. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- We're not superheros.
- You're not a superhero.
- Why nature manipulates us? To answer your question "how a 2017 image could be chosen as Picture of year 2022", that's because it was nominated at FPC in 2022, same year as this painting of 1913. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- update Coincidence or not, suddenly the link given above seems disabled. In any case, there are other "real photo maniacs" according to Google. The link targeted a public account on Instagram, with mobile phone pics of nature and text in Cyrillic script. Maybe nothing in relation with RealPhotoManiac, though, apart from the name -- BM alias Sherlock Holmes (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, I am not a superhero and I do not expect others to be superheros. But it doesn't need a superhero to invest more than 3 seconds checking the picture or to put in the competition rules and FP guidelines a line stating that uploaders need to provide the orginal raw files. After seeing what is possible and what seems to be widely accepted here, I lost my faith in Wikipedia. I am doing all these my actions to draw attention to this topic in hope that the rules and guidelines would be improved and that at least some members of this community would learn to have their eyes a bit more open next time. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- "3 seconds", only?!
- About RAW images, see Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 21#Comment: RAW with FPCs (2019 discussion)
- And Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#A necessary requirement (October 2024). -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Everything in life has trade-offs. Instituting a rule to require RAW files would marginally improve the authenticity/security of nominations and prevent cases like this, but it is also clear that it would gut participation in FPC and that the vast majority of regulars strongly oppose it. We are not a professional photo competition in a position to award prize money, we are a volunteer site and should be greatful to those generous enough to upload their frequently superb content here. Not make their lives harder by adding more onerous requirements. Cmao20 (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, I am not a superhero and I do not expect others to be superheros. But it doesn't need a superhero to invest more than 3 seconds checking the picture or to put in the competition rules and FP guidelines a line stating that uploaders need to provide the orginal raw files. After seeing what is possible and what seems to be widely accepted here, I lost my faith in Wikipedia. I am doing all these my actions to draw attention to this topic in hope that the rules and guidelines would be improved and that at least some members of this community would learn to have their eyes a bit more open next time. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, I wonder how a 2017 image could be chosen as Picture of year 2022. I also wonder how many other competitions was this guy able to cheat with fake pictures. And the worst thing is that nobody was able to recognize it. I can understand somebody is cheating, but I cannot believe that the community here is so easily fooled by so poor photomanipulations. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- 4th position at Picture of the year, that's not far from the podium. I wonder which place(s) would have reached the background and the church separately :-) But would they just reach the start of the competition? Not sure. I would love to see this church with its natural sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the research, Bammesk. Of course, this changes the situation, as we now have clear evidence. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 07:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
- Info Theyyam is a ritual art form of Kerala.
All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Cool picture and I like the colours, composition and bokeh, but sorry, it is quite blurry and artefact-y at full size and the lack of sharpness is still visible on a downsample Cmao20 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cmao. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 21:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements#Morocco
- Info created by Mounir Neddi - uploaded by Mounir Neddi - nominated by Mounir Neddi -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure about this one. Featureless sky and tight crop at the left, in my opinion. Interesting people are very small in the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but on reflection I agree with Basile. Good photo but a tighter, more focussed composition would be better. The interesting parts of the scene are too small in the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, uninteresting sky and water, fishermen are very small. Perhaps a different composition, or colour? --Fernando (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 21:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
- Info created by ReneeWrites - uploaded by ReneeWrites - nominated by User:ReneeWrites -- ReneeWrites (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ReneeWrites (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Well framed; huge resolution and detail. Cmao20 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per Cmao & more than nice --Terragio67 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 17:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
- Info Inside the Sforzesco Castle, in Milan, it is possible to visit the Dukes' Courtyard (Arch. Benedetto Ferrini, 1473), the heart of the life of the Sforza court, which with the swimming pool in the garden, the frescoed portico and the decorations, convey the sumptuous and elegant lifestyle of the Milan dukes. Here it is impossible not to be enchanted and expect to have a souvenir photo for yourself... Created - uploaded - nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I wish it was a bit sharper, but regardless, stunning composition and beautiful place. Cmao20 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. In this case even the two tourists (?) at the right fit well into the scene, like staffage people in a painting. – Aristeas (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Aristeas. The two women are the icing on the cake and make the composition special. Even without them it would be FP-worthy, but with them it's super-wowy in my opinion. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Sorry to dissent. I like the thumbnail, but not the picture at full size. I find the tourist photographer at the right distracting. The other woman wearing a black dress does not bother me. And I would support an alternative version with only this person sitting. I mean you can crop both sides a little, by slightly altering the ratio of the image. Image note added -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It’s good that you dissent, Basile, because you introduce a new point of view and arguments. Only by sharing different points of view we get an informative debate. Your suggested crop is a very interesting alternative. – Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Aristeas. I also think divergent opinions allow us to move forward, within the framework of a respectful exchange. Fortunately I am not the only one nor always a dissenter here :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I feel the photographer gives us the context that the sitting person is posing, and I find that to be important context. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why? There is perhaps someone brushing their teeth behind this photographer, and it doesn't seem inadequate to me to keep it invisible outside the frame. The photographer at the right might have a nice subject, while this view is like showing a "parasitic" element. I mean it really makes "tourist shot", whereas it could be a more careful, more elegant and more subtle composition. This woman posing could also be watching her children playing, or waiting for grandma, or listening to music. Anything possible. And this imaginary part would be more creative in my opinion, for the viewer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- The composition was born together with the two people (presumably mother and daughter from Milan) depicted in the image who are certainly an added value. A flaw that stands out is the proximity of the mother to the right edge, so I enlarged the image as much as possible, as well as making the image slightly more focused. I recognize that Basile Morin's suggestion is equally interesting, so with eight days left until the end of the FP candidature, I believe there is time to think about the alternative one. IMHO both images are good, but feel free to say yours. I would like to thank everyone for the suggestions received. Terragio67 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point, Basile, but personally I have a more favourable view of tourists taking pictures at monuments/tourist places. In this image particularly, the scene just happens to capture what I think is a gentle moment between two women—a painting within a painting kind of thing, while keeping the focus on the monument itself. That’s why I think the photographer forms important context about the woman being photographed. That said, I do also think a square(r) crop would be nice regardless of the women. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your point of view. A square crop is also interesting and I may (weakly) support. Only weakly, because the crop would be too tight at the right of the sitting woman. Thus the larger view below is in my opinion a more airy composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- The composition was born together with the two people (presumably mother and daughter from Milan) depicted in the image who are certainly an added value. A flaw that stands out is the proximity of the mother to the right edge, so I enlarged the image as much as possible, as well as making the image slightly more focused. I recognize that Basile Morin's suggestion is equally interesting, so with eight days left until the end of the FP candidature, I believe there is time to think about the alternative one. IMHO both images are good, but feel free to say yours. I would like to thank everyone for the suggestions received. Terragio67 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why? There is perhaps someone brushing their teeth behind this photographer, and it doesn't seem inadequate to me to keep it invisible outside the frame. The photographer at the right might have a nice subject, while this view is like showing a "parasitic" element. I mean it really makes "tourist shot", whereas it could be a more careful, more elegant and more subtle composition. This woman posing could also be watching her children playing, or waiting for grandma, or listening to music. Anything possible. And this imaginary part would be more creative in my opinion, for the viewer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Fernando (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Alternative image, Dukes' Courtyard - Milan
- Info Valid crop suggestion proposed by Basile Morin... Created - uploaded - nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support this version, while I think the lady photographer was a nice addition (rather than distracting), this crop is more pleasing to my eyes because the other had too much of the side walls. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks, Terragio67, for the alternative. It is like an inhabited / visited place, without focusing on a special activity, that is not particularly extraordinary (everybody take pictures almost everywhere, it's not like fishing for example :-)). A fairly common habit in this kind of place and situation is to wait patiently for the "obstacles to the painting" to finish their business and finally pass their turn :-) However, it seems that here our photographer has dispensed with this effort :-) Once again, this is only my personal opinion and I respect other points of view and other decisions. Notifying the previous voters and participants, @Cmao20, SHB2000, Llez, Aristeas, and Radomianin: @Екатерина Борисова and UnpetitproleX: -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Following the comments (including yours) I enlarged the image to 5182 pixels. In my opinion this action is irrelevant for the ongoing votes. I believe there is an improvement, let me know what you think, please. Terragio67 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Also fine Cmao20 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't care about the lady photographer in the first picture, and I'm not a great fan of square images, so I prefer previous version, but this one has it's own beauty. As a result, I can't make a choice :) -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I’m fine with both versions. – Aristeas (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support +1 -- Radomianin (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sometime i was fan of subjects without people, however i change my mind. I realized sometime they add more than bother. So pic above, here is problem, is she your photomodel or someones else. --Mile (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info @Terragio67: Even if she's your daughter, your cousin or your sister, please add the {{PR}} template (in both versions) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, done, thanks. Terragio67 (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I'd either show both women and tell the story or none at all. --Fernando (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not show the full, authentic situation. --Thi (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 13:40:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Italy
- Info Summit cross of the Schneespitze in the Stubai Alps and view into the Pflersch valley. In the background the Zillertal Alps. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The orange object at the bottom spoils the overall great image and should be removed.--Ermell (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint. I cleaned up the summit area. Milseburg (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Lovely composition and excellent image quality Cmao20 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Perfect! --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support well done --Terragio67 (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic! --Fernando (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Morning view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park - Set
Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2024 at 07:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Twilight view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park
-
Sunrise view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Japan
- Info Twilight view and sunrise view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park. Set nomination. c/u/n by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I supported these before and I still think they are beautiful. I'm not sure it was wise to withdraw them and renominate as a set without any actual change to the content of the images, and I don't think we should make a habit of that. But I do think these look more impress as a duo and may be likelier to pass that way. Sensitive light and mood. Cmao20 (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good idea! JukoFF (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful set. ★ 22:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The power line is very present in this scenery and ruins it for me, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This was exactly my feedback before Poco a poco (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the effort of going at different times, I like the reflection and seeing the difference in color between the hours, but the shot itself seems ordinary, it lacks some element that makes it special. Sorry, it's a well-made shot. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes, it’s a pity about pylon and power line. But from this perspective the pylon fits very well between the trees, so it does not really bother me. – Aristeas (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice reflections, but all the composition seems to be based on highlighting this rather ugly electric pylon, from my point of view. So it is a central distracting element. I find no charm in these hanging power lines, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty much so. Wolverine XI 00:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 22:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Moldova
- Info Saharna Monastery, Saharna, Moldova. It's considered one of the biggest centres for religious pilgrimages in Moldova. The legend says that a monk from the monastery once saw the shining figure of Saint Maria on the top of a rock. When reaching that spot the monk saw a mark of a footstep on the ground. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support This was on my list to nominate Cmao20 (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive room with abundant, but harmonious decoration; excellent photo. – Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support South Sudan, Moldova… what's the next country? ★ 23:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- To be more precise: after South Sudan I visited Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania (including Zanzibar), Kenia, Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain (not mentioning 4-5 countries in Europe) :). I just came back from Turkey, next target is Baja California. Brazil still has to wait :( Poco a poco (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 22:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Spain
- Info RetroChoir of the cathedral of Segovia, Spain. The temple was built in the Flamboyant style and was dedicated in 1768, constituting one of the latest Gothic cathedrals in Europe. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Love the ray of sunlight Cmao20 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful depiction of that famous cathedral, giving an impressive feeling of the size and height of these sacred halls, and the sunray is the the icing on the cake. – Aristeas (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support
There is a noticeable chromatic aberration in the rays of light, specifically one green and one purple. There's a general overexposure resulting in overly bright windows; although this is common in non-HDR shots, I believe it has been slightly overdone in this case. An aperture of F/11 doesn't seem to be sufficient, as the foreground, especially at the edges, appears sharp, but the more distant areas of the rear ceiling lack sharpness and are overexposed. The Corpus Christi looks flat, possibly due to light pollution. In summary, the issue could be mitigated by lowering the exposure and correcting the chromatic aberration, especially in the central purple ray. Regarding the lack of focus at the end due to the shallow depth of field, I consider it acceptable.(See notes) --Wilfredor (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I believe taht what you call CA is light diffraction created when the ray of light crosses the window, similar to the effect you expect when a ray of light goes through a prism. I have reduced the colours though a bit. I also reworked a bit the overexposure of the window in the top center, dehazed the center a bit and applied some sharpening overall. Poco a poco (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's better now, I think it might have been some color refraction, you were there so I'll take your word for it. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good tweaks (adjustments).--Terragio67 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Lovely take of the Dame ;) ! --Fernando (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 21:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups
- Info Albert Edelfelt: The Luxembourg Gardens, Paris (1887) - uploaded by Susannaanas - nominated by --Thi (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Thi (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent reproduction of a notable painting. The painting itself stands out for me among similar Paris paintings from that era because it concentrates on the activities of the children and of their nannies. – Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support High resolution and good quality. Surprising composition with people cropped on both sides, almost like a photograph -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above... stunning. -- Terragio67 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Schlosskirche, featured
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 20:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Looking east towards the altar
-
Looking west towards the organ
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
- Info A long time ago (some years now) I left DXR a note on his talk page pointing out a stitching error in the first of these two pictures, and he kindly corrected it for me. Looking at the picture again now, I think it is interesting enough to be worthy of FP, together with its companion piece, the view of this church's nave in the opposite direction. The Schlosskirche, or literally castle church, is a German baroque building constructed in the mid eighteenth century and adjoining the castle/palace of the town of Bad Mergentheim, where the Teutonic Knights once had their base. It is a notable landmark and I think these pictures give a good impression of the interior, including the beautiful ceiling frescoes (which you can see even more clearly in this picture which is IMO FP in its own right but may not fit into the scope of this set). created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality and detail, perfect depiction of the place and aesthetically pleasing. – Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --ReneeWrites (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Lack of exif information --Wilfredor (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support for the set. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 19:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
- Info All by Kritzolina. Wikimania 2024 made it possible for me to visit the KZs in Auschwitz for the first time. I did not plan to take pictures, but some happened. This one feels like it could work to show some of my feelings there. I am not sure about the gallery for this image. Please feel free to change the gallery to a more fitting one, if you have a clear idea of wher to put it. -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Effective composition that highlights the horrible nature of this place Cmao20 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't work for me. Does not stand out from ordinary images.--Thi (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support In my opinion, the documentary value of this shot is just as high as its artistic value. It is not a whitewashed treatment, but conveys the horror that lies in the imagination of how many people voluntarily threw themselves into this fence in order to preserve their dignity and free will, at least in death, which were denied them in the hell of Auschwitz. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Thi. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support It’s almost impossible to capture the horror of Auschwitz with a photo – in the light of the day that hell on earth looks so harmless and boring. Therefore the best we can do is to make the viewers discover themselves the cruelty which hides among the everday aspects of that place. At the first glance the photo looks trivial: we see just a fence. Second glance: it’s a fence with barbed wire. Third glance: the fence is not just fixed to the fence post, as usual, it is fixed with an electric fence insulators; so this was a electric barbed-wire fence. And if we now look at the background, over the innocent grass, we discover the silhouette of the building, dark and threatening. This menacing atmosphere is enforced by the gloomy day and the muted colours. IMHO the photo successfully captures the banality of evil which is one of the most horrifying aspects of the whole NS mass murder – and that is a real achievement. It would make a perfect cover photo for a book about the NS extermination machinery. – Aristeas (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Thi. -- Karelj (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The picture has good symbolic power. --XRay 💬 18:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose If you don't read the description, it's just a normal photo, and it shouldn't be. JukoFF (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The description is part and complements the process of understanding the file. ★ 23:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support because of the image's high educational value and strong symbolism. I agreed with Thi, but only until I read the description. Before today I was not aware of the horrible fact that there were electrified barbed fences at Nazi camps to prevent prisoners from escaping. Now I do, thanks to this image.--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thi. -- Inu06 (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per JukoFF --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting image, but no FA material. It doesn't convey the idea without a description next to it. --Fernando (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am a bit surprised and confused by this need several people now expressed to have an explanation for this image. This is an insulator with barbed wire fence. Even in animal husbandry electrified barbed wire is banned nowadays in many countries to protect animals from unnecessary cruelty. And this fence is no pasture fence, that is easily visible. Pasture fences look different. So even if you don't know this is an image from Auschwitz, you know it is one that is related to some kind of imprisonment - and one that goes against Human Rights. I did not necessarily expect this image to pass easily. The light is dull, this is not a "beautiful" image due to its message. But I never expected that it would be rejected on the grounds that people are unable to see the message of this image. I have to say this deeply disturbs me. Kritzolina (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- No need to be disturbed. Not many people would know what an insulator is or what it does, or how is it different than a screw to hold the wire in place. The fact that the focused barbed wire is aligned with the horizon also reduces its visibility, which drives the attention to a metal artefact joined to a concrete post. Again, the image is technically proficient, but I never would have said that it's a symbol to the horrors of the holocaust or something similar, and as such it lacks the wow or extraordinary factor that's required for a FP to me. Fernando (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- +1, Kritzolina, the title says "Auschwitz - electric fence." That alone provides enough context, in my opinion. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am a bit surprised and confused by this need several people now expressed to have an explanation for this image. This is an insulator with barbed wire fence. Even in animal husbandry electrified barbed wire is banned nowadays in many countries to protect animals from unnecessary cruelty. And this fence is no pasture fence, that is easily visible. Pasture fences look different. So even if you don't know this is an image from Auschwitz, you know it is one that is related to some kind of imprisonment - and one that goes against Human Rights. I did not necessarily expect this image to pass easily. The light is dull, this is not a "beautiful" image due to its message. But I never expected that it would be rejected on the grounds that people are unable to see the message of this image. I have to say this deeply disturbs me. Kritzolina (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Close wing position of Amathuxidia amythaon (Doubleday, 1847) - Koh-i-Noor puddling on rotten fruit WLB.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 17:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
- Info created by Anitava Roy - uploaded by Anitava Roy - nominated by Anitava Roy -- Anitava Roy (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Anitava Roy (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment a strange green noise under the mouth --Wilfredor (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment A very good picture, nice and sharp, but I agree with Wilfredor, that speckled pattern in the background under the mouth could do with some work. Also I had to fix the gallery again. Cmao20 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 14:13:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Germany
- Info The Ziegeleisee in the Ziegeleipark in Böckingen, Heilbronn, Germany, view from east in spring. Created on the site of a former brickyard, this pond has become home to so many plant and animal species that it has been declared a protected biotope. While I took some photos, a mute swan swept over the water and added a nice extra to the picture ;–). All by – Aristeas (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support As per comments on my talk page, superb composition and light, and I love the swan. Cmao20 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao --Kritzolina (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The beauty lies in the detail of the landing swan. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Inu06 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Pretty landscape with a nice detail in the center. Particularly appreciable at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 18:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Basile, Radomianin and Cmao20. Superb light & details... --Terragio67 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very serene. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very nice scene -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very serene, congrats! --Fernando (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 09:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Chile#Antofagasta Region
- Info created by Silvio Rossi, uploaded by Tuvalkin, nominated by Yann
- Info The Lascar (left) and the Aguas Calientes (right) volcanoes, located in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes Mountains in Chile.
- Support I like the pastel colors, and the composition. Only one FP of nature of Chile. -- Yann (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Hem, luckily, about 30 FPs of nature in Chile (the link was broken). – Aristeas (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 10:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I like the composition a lot but I'm not sure about the image quality. There is not a lot of detail at full size - perhaps due to heat haze of some sort? I'm not quite convinced it's one of our best when we have Chilean landscapes like this but appreciate it's a slightly harsh vote Cmao20 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Quality so-so, but scene is great and bird flying above lake. Black magma stone probably. --Mile (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 09:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
- Info created by Kabelleger - uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 09:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 09:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 10:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great composition and light. Cmao20 (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Terragio67 (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 – and once again a beautiful contrast between the muted colours of the landscape and the bright colours of the train. – Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support Light, composition, fantastic landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info The lack of sharpness might be just a matter of post-treatment. Kabelleger and Cmao20, what do you think about this version? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely an improvement Basile Morin, but maybe not enough of an improvement to add as an alternative. Kabelleger logs in quite often so he might see this. Cmao20 (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wow that's a huge improvement, and without making it look noisy or over-sharpened, I'm impressed! I would just upload it over the existing version. And please tell us how you did that :) Thank you very much! --Kabelleger (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cmao20 and Kabelleger. Topaz Denoise AI was used in this situation. It was a very simple and efficient program, easy to use, unfortunately not available anymore as far as I know. Now it has become Topaz Photo AI, slightly more complex, but doing almost the same thing. With more options also, based on AI. Using both, I really recommend. It's 100% your work, I'm happy you plan to "upload over the existing version". -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Notifying @A.Savin and PetarM: -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Here the sharpness is unfortunately not quite at the level we can usually expect from Bahnbilder.ch, sorry. --A.Savin 14:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, I know what you mean. I continue to support, but I do think an oppose is entirely reasonable in this case, Kabelleger has definitely presented sharper ones. Cmao20 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support JukoFF (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
OpposeAgree with Savin, author put shallow DoF and missed the target, suppose locomotive would be focus point but its in the middle. f/7.1 on 61mm. Not good setting for panorama shot. Composition is nice. --Mile (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Comment I'm sorry that the image quality doesn't hold up, I didn't really notice until it was mentioned here. It is however not a DoF issue; f7.1 works perfectly fine in this situation. It's just that the lens wasn't properly focused to infinity; the 24-70 2.8L has quite a wide range where the center is sharp, but a very narrow range where the edges are sharp. I am aware of this problem but mistakes happen. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Its beter than before, striked vote. --Mile (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2024 at 07:54:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Serbia
- Info St. Mark's Church, Belgrade, Serbia. My shot, drone. -- Mile (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Lovely church, nice composition and good quality Cmao20 (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks unreal — Inu06 (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Building, viewpoint, weather -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Very poor categorization --A.Savin 13:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Any suggestion ? Wanted to put Aerial shots, but probably would be only one so far. --Mile (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm not a fan of aerial photos taken with drones, but in this case the shot is very beautiful and compensates for my first sensations. -- Terragio67 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Sharp and a great angle, very nice. --Fernando (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 21:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Other_land_vehicles
- Info created and uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support @UnpetitproleX: Thanks for the nomination. --Tagooty (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 14:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 15:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, not getting 'wow' from either the subject or composition. BigDom (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, no wow effect for me either. The horizon is at the same height as the excavator. --Fernando (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 21:23:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Algeria
- InfoDecoration of the upper facade of the minaret of the Mosque of Mansourah in Tlemcen, built during the siege of the city in 1303 by the Marinid dynasty. The minaret was one of the three tallest in the world at the time, standing at 45 meters, alongside the Giralda in Spain and the Koutoubia Mosque in Morocco, all inspired by the architecture of the minaret of Qal'at Bani Hammad. .Created by Riad Salih - uploaded by Riad Salih - nominated by Riad Salih -- (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support But the Qutb Minar is older and higher. ;o) Yann (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Minarets in the Maghreb (North Africa + Al Andalusia) are unique in the world, all in rectangular form and all inspired by the first mosque in the region, the Great Mosque of Kairouan. Riad Salih (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Might benefit from slight perspective correction to try to get all the verticals straight, however, this is a really cool motif and a great picture. Cmao20 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- The minaret isn't perfectly symmetric due to the many restorations. Riad Salih (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful -- Inu06 (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Its leaning to left. Rotation nedeed, but i would not go distiortion correction or skewing, then upper part will be much wider than bottom and horizontal lines are sugesting to rotate - just rotation. --Mile (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Just want to second Mile’s hint. Is that minaret leaning in reality? If not, the photo would benefit from a small clockwise rotation. – Aristeas (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, the shape of the minaret appears as such due to a combination of restored portions and others that have been destroyed, resulting in its lack of symmetry. Riad Salih (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 14:55:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Hippopotamidae (Hippopotamuses)
- Info created by Giles Laurent - uploaded by Giles Laurent - nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Would be better still if he was facing towards rather than away from the camera, but regardless, excellent capture Cmao20 (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support As a viewer of this scene, I automatically look at the water, which is very well frozen at 1/2,000 of a second. In combination with the hippo, it conveys to me personally a fascinating moment worth supporting. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive image -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Quality is good but I don't believe that this is a good shot of a fight. We can only see one of the hippos and only from the back Poco a poco (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. I didn't realize it was a fight before reading your comment (although yes, it's written in the title). -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support The images successfully show the might of a hippo, but I'd never say it's a fight. --Fernando (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Zzzs (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
File:Town hall of Mont-de-Marsan (4).jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 10:51:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info Here we have always an image of the town hall of Mont-de-Marsan as FP:
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very beautiful architectural photo Cmao20 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Conditional s, but you must clean those "CA lines on border", anoted. --Mile (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice light and lighting (here modern, less yellowish floodlights are used). Agree that a careful check for CAs etc. would be welcome – e.g. at the left edge of the building and roof. – Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know how I can clean those "CA lines on border" better... Someone can help me? Tournasol7 (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support When viewing the photo at 100%, I found such insignificant CA on the left that they are not noticeable unless you specifically look for them. I don’t consider this a flaw. The photo is well done. -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Fernando (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2024 at 10:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Portugal
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Maybe a bit of a crop on the right would improve. Cmao20 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose 1st WB is off, i would put yellow down, or try whole temp to put down. Then garbage bin in front and 2 light bean disturb. Quality is good. --Mile (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The yellow appearance of the façade is probably due to the floodlights used for the lighting (older floodlights often create a very warm tint); a comparison with the foreground and the sky shows that the white balance is not really off. So either we keep the whole appearance, saying that the lighting makes the façade that yellow, period (actually yellowish façades are common in blue hour shots); or only the yellow of the façade should be reduced, not the global temperature (the latter would make sky and foreground totally unrealistic). – Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment @Aristeas i tried here, global temp wont work, but problem is i dont know original color. Temp of lights really made worst. But i see down is OK temp and sky somehow. --Mile (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment @Mile Wow, thank you very much, that’s a great attempt. Yes, the original colour is the question. But when comparing other photos in the category, I would say that your version seems very likely – when the Basilica looks more or less like this in daylight and like that at sunset, it should look more or less like in your version with enlightment at blue hour. – @Tournasol7: Would you like to upload Mile’s version (or something similar, if you prefer to do these edits yourself) under a new filename (because it’s clearly an edited version) and to offer it as an alternative version in this nomination? It would be interesting to see which version voters prefer. Of course it’s your photo and naturally it’s up to you how you want to proceed! – Aristeas (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done; new version uploaded. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Ah, this garbage bin is a shame. I can only see this element, distracting in the foreground. And while I think the building behind is FP-worthy, I tend to oppose this current composition for that reason. Another angle, with a few steps forward would have improved the whole thing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but foreground is too distracting and messy. Maybe crop the different floor and remove the bin.--Fernando (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2024 at 17:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Italy
- Info In 1691, Count Michelangelo Maffei, who had already had the salt warehouse built, had this powerful building built as a defense against pirate attacks. The main function of the Tower was that of defence, to signal attacks by bandits and raiders and to defend the precious resource of salt, kept in the adjacent warehouse. The Tower could also accommodate the guards who lived in it and made it an independent building, equipped with fireplaces, external water collectors, showers, drainage systems and other utilities. It is inspired by an ancient drawing by Michelangelo Buonarroti, created to defend the coastal areas of the Papal State and preserved in the archive of the Reverend Camera Apostolica. With a square plan with a side of 13 and a height of 23 metres, with walls 3 meters thick, the Tower was a real fort, with numerous openings, windows and loopholes equipped with short and long range armaments. Today it is owned by the municipality of Cervia and is home to the tourist office. Created - uploaded - nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great. I'd appreciate it if you copied this cool info to the image description. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for your remark and support. Terragio67 (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Great detail as usual but the subject itself doesn't look extraordinary to me. It looks in fact almost so strongly renovated that it looks modern. Poco a poco (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I compared this photo with a historical photo and there are no major differences apart from the window frames at the top. The tower was born to be also a palace-fortress of sighting and defense, it was very functional and nowadays it`s presented in a clean and linear way as it was in the past. Sometimes we find more fascinating towers that are ruined and abandoned, this photo is a sign of homage to the municipality of Cervia that maintains it impeccably. However, thank you for your judgment which, for the way you have formulated, for me, is still positive, thank you. Terragio67 (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agree that the tower itself is not as thrilling as other castles of Italy (which is really rich in outstanding architecture), but it’s a pretty building with very interesting history, and an excellent photo. – Aristeas (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2024 at 12:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#South Korea
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose A good shot of a nice temple, but the lack of symmetry (path vs first temple and first temple vs second temple) is a minus that is not compensated with extraordinary detail or light. Poco a poco (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Info Architects chose an asymmetrical architecture a few centuries ago, and I find the tree adapts nicely to its atypical environment in 2024 :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support I wonder if I'd prefer a shot taken a few paces forward, so that it focussed more on the temple entrance and a bit less on the surroundings. I find the perspective a tiny bit wide here (slight distortion on the tree). But this is a beautiful place and well photographed so I'd be happy to see it become FP. Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Totally agree, and I have this view on my computer. But there are things I like also in this large composition: the stone wall, the stone buried in the ground on the left, and above all the single tree, alone in the sky, that completely breaks the symmetry. Thank you very much for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 13:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support for the combination of symmetry with asymmetry. – Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Terragio67 (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2024 at 07:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors
- Info Sculptural group "The Taming of the Horse" by Peter Clodt, one of the four compositions on the Anichkov Bridge in St. Petersburg all by me -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good, compo as 1st. Some tight crop on left and maybe on top but quality and compo make it. --Mile (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support You found a nice angle. The light halo around the monument could be seen as a disturbance, but it must be considered that it also enhances the outline of the monument with the background of the sky creating an effect of prominence, I assume you wanted. I took the liberty of changing captions and category, double check, please. --Terragio67 (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Crop is too tight at the left and at the top, IMO. Interesting angle but the cut out feet are a bit disturbing as part of the composition. Perhaps because the framing is very short -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see a new version has been uploaded yesterday. Which makes my comment obsolete and inaccurate. It's always better to warn participants about changes happening in the background, when their constructive criticism is relevant / taken into account, so that we can follow. But I also have the impression that the clouds are posterized. Not convinced enough by the exceptional nature of the photo cropped at the bottom, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree and not sure about what is extraordinary about this scultpure (as no information is provided). Poco a poco (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
-
weaksupport I do think the crop particularly on the left is a bit tight. The picture needs lead room there. Nevertheless it is a striking perspective from which to view this sculpture, and the image quality is very good. Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Full support now that the crop is improved, but in future, Елена Нечипоренко, it would be appreciated if you tag all voters (both support and oppose) when you make a major change to a picture during a nomination, so that they know they should re-evaluate their vote based on the new version. Cmao20 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the remark, I'll take it into account. Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Full support now that the crop is improved, but in future, Елена Нечипоренко, it would be appreciated if you tag all voters (both support and oppose) when you make a major change to a picture during a nomination, so that they know they should re-evaluate their vote based on the new version. Cmao20 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the white light around the subject is too noticeable. It aids with the wow effect but it looks artificial to me. I'm neutral about the composition. --Fernando (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Poco a poco. -- Karelj (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2024 at 14:29:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
- Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Gzen92 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Satisfying composition but the image seems muted/underexposed to me; there are hardly any highlights/whites in the whole photo. I can see some halos around the trees and to the left of the tower also, so processing could be improved. Same composition on a day with more interesting weather/light (nice clouds or a colourful sunset, maybe) could be a winner. BigDom (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Alternate version (exposure)
- Support Adjusted exposure. Gzen92 (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agree that this is an improvement Cmao20 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
File:2024 Stare miasto i Forteczna Góra w Kłodzku.jpg, not featured
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2024 at 13:50:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Poland
- Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Satisfying composition and good image quality in spite of slightly unsharp bottom right corner. Great drone photo. Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Problem here is i cant fix my eyes on something. I suppoose i should on building in bottom, but crop is bad, if castle is main, also crop is strange. I think you should cover more bottom or move camera back or tilt down. Quality is fine. --Mile (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Mile, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is a visually pleasing shot where the cityscape with its vibrant rooftops and the fortress on the hill blends well with the green landscape, creating a balanced and harmonious composition. -- Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Poco a poco. -- Karelj (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support The round shape of the streets around the hill has a subtle effect on the viewer. For me, the image composition works and personally gives me a wow effect. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
File:2023 Japonki Havaianas (1).jpg, not featured
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2024 at 13:32:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Clothing and textiles
- Info All by me Jacek Halicki -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Fun facts: 1) I can say without a shadow of a doubt that 99% of Brazilians wear Havaianas flip-flops (I have a pair from the Simpsons line); 2) Havaianas means Hawaiians (in the feminine form). ★ 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I've been going back and forth on this but I don't see it as great object photography. It's good quality and there's nothing wrong with it but IMO it's missing outstanding light. Cmao20 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Wed 09 Oct → Mon 14 Oct Thu 10 Oct → Tue 15 Oct Fri 11 Oct → Wed 16 Oct Sat 12 Oct → Thu 17 Oct Sun 13 Oct → Fri 18 Oct Mon 14 Oct → Sat 19 Oct
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Sat 05 Oct → Mon 14 Oct Sun 06 Oct → Tue 15 Oct Mon 07 Oct → Wed 16 Oct Tue 08 Oct → Thu 17 Oct Wed 09 Oct → Fri 18 Oct Thu 10 Oct → Sat 19 Oct Fri 11 Oct → Sun 20 Oct Sat 12 Oct → Mon 21 Oct Sun 13 Oct → Tue 22 Oct Mon 14 Oct → Wed 23 Oct
Closing a featured picture promotion request
The bot
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
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 the 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. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- 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/October 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- 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/October 2024.
- 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 photography, 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
- 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/October 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.