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 Feb 2025 at 22:10:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info This photo actually belongs with the cherry blossom nom below, but not so much it works as a set. This is the same tree in autumn, and the view is from inside the tree looking out of the canopy, whereas the blossoms are photographed from the outside looking in. I like the almost graphic pattern the trunks make with the leaves and the sky, so very different from how it appears in the spring. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Sensitive and interesting abstract Cmao20 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2025 at 22:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info Pink cherry blossoms. I know, what a cliché. But I think this a gritty and edgy enough to set it apart from many of the kawaii sakura we normally see. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice composition Cmao20 (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2025 at 21:30:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#India
Info all by imehling -- imehling (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- imehling (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak support A splendid and interesting view, but the sharpness could be a little better. Cmao20 (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2025 at 18:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Rallidae (Coots, Rails and Crakes)
Info A near-endangered flightless bird endemic to New Zealand. No FPs of this species. I like that we can see a lot of the context of the background, not just a portrait but a high quality picture of a bird in its environment. created by JJ Harrison – uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2025 at 17:51:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
Info A diesel train DBAG Class 648 as the "Prignitz-Express (RE6)" taken from a poppy field, Northwestern Brandenburg, all by me --A.Savin 17:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --A.Savin 17:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I love seeing one of these train out and about grazing in the wild. The photo illustrates very well how they get their red color. ;) Could you possibly do something about that chroma noise on the front destination plate? --Cart (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good quality and composition Cmao20 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2025 at 12:58:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Ukraine
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Info Dawn in the park after a nighttime blizzard. --Rbrechko (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice! I like such 'after the snow storm' photos. Are those trash bins or fire baskets? --Cart (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Trash bins. --Rbrechko (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good light and magical surroundings Cmao20 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2025 at 07:38:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1940-1949
Info created by US Army Signal Corps – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good job, and the quality of the photo is what you'd expect from shot made in those days on a bumpy and windy boat ride. This guy is bracing himself with his leg and the flag is blown full out, but the photographer is still steady enough to get this photo. --Cart (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- A striking image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2025 at 05:38:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Geology and chemistry#Na→
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 05:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 05:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool. Some of the other salinas are in the Food and drink gallery, but in this close-up where you can see the crystals, I think it's safe to put this as NaCl in the Objects/Geology and chemistry#Na→ gallery. --Cart (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 14:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Very interesting Cmao20 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2025 at 09:03:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
Info This house, the "Manoir de Ban", was the home of Charlie Chaplin and his wife Oona O'Neill from 1953. Charlie Chaplin died here on December 25th, 1977. His widow continued to live in the house and died in the "Manoir de Ban" on September 27th, 1991. After her death, her children inherited the manor and they later entrusted it to the Charlie Chaplin Museum Foundation; created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Interesting place, but lighting could be better. --Rbrechko (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I agree with Rbrechko. It is QI for sure but I personally am not sure it's outstanding enough for FP. I'd like to see more interesting light. Cmao20 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2025 at 22:02:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family : Soleidae (True Soles)
Info Finless sole (Pardachirus marmoratus), Zanzibar, Tanzania. Note: we have no FPs of the whole genus Pardachirus. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool camouflage Cmao20 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent example of camouflage, indeed; at the same time the sole has a beautiful discreet pattern. Very sharp and well-lit. – Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment Good. Went to support, but at full size it looks like the sharpening on the fish is applied to the sand around it, contrasting with the rest of the sand (especially visible along the right edge). It's potentially a fiddly fix, though, because I doubt any subject autodetection would find it... — Rhododendrites talk | 14:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites: Good point, thank you. I reworked it, please, have a look, Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2025 at 21:53:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Turkey
Info Süleymaniye Mosque, Istanbul, Turkey. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful light Cmao20 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support … and very atmospheric. – Aristeas (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 19:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2025 at 19:14:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Butorides
Info Green Heron in Naples, Florida. Created by Andy Morffew – uploaded/nominated by Юрий Д.К 19:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 19:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment Nice light but there are blue halos around the legs, feet, and feathers. No metadata -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I will fix chromatic aberration. Юрий Д.К 10:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- CA has been reduced Юрий Д.К 21:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2025 at 09:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Spices
Info created & uploaded by F. Riedelio – nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 13:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice arrangement and good quality - overall a really good find Cmao20 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 20:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2025 at 08:25:04 (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) 08:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 13:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Satisfying composition, excellent light Cmao20 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 20:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support beautiful Olivier LPB (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful. It’s nice how the new colourful paper lanterns harmonize with the old wooden door – and I love how the paper lanterns cast a shadow pattern onto the floor. – Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent perspective. --Rbrechko (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 14:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2025 at 05:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Vincent van Gogh – uploaded by Slick-o-bot – nominated by Kelly zhrm -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but I've always been partial to the version of this painting that's in The Met. The photo of that version also gives me a better feeling of the painting than this. This one is photographed in a rather "clinical" way without shadows, but that's a matter of taste. van Gogh used a lot of impasto which gives his paintings an almost sculptural dimension, I like that to be seen in photos of his work. Of course, both versions are FPs on en-wiki. --Cart (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2025 at 05:45:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info Fruits of a hawthorn (Crataegus) Focus stack of 24 photos.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 13:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting and high quality Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 20:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2025 at 13:38:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods (no existing subgallery, but it would be "Family : Lithodidae (King Crabs)" under "Order : Decapoda" next to the Anomura)
Info created by Gustavolovrich – uploaded by Gustavolovrich – nominated by TheTechnician27 -- TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support as nom. Far and away the best extant image of this species and submitted by an expert in the field. Precedent for plates like this includes File:Liocarcinus_marmoreus_2.jpg. Well-centered, well-focused, well-choreographed, well-exposed. (Note: dramatic asymmetry in cheliped (front leg) size is natural, not a result of poor composition.) -- TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting and good job with exposure and processing, but for a studio shot I expect much more detail, it's hardly over 2 MPx Poco a poco (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Fake background doesn't work (visible contours) and only 1,890 × 1,299 pixels, too small resolution, in my opinion. No metadata -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- At least to my understanding, this isn't a fake background. I think the small amounts of artifacting around the body must've come from something else. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not a fake background with the unique color #030000 everywhere, and visible white contours around?... Hmm -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but while this is surely a Valued Image, it doesn't cross the bar for FP to me. I agree with Basile Morin that the cut-out lines around the crab are very obvious, hence the fake background is not very well done. Cmao20 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Bad clipping. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2025 at 12:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
Info Wonderful colours, composition, and extremely sharp and high resolution photo. created by Julesvernex2 – uploaded by Julesvernex2 – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment Cmao20, thank you for the nomination, it's great seeing an image of my hometown here! A few days ago I saw a video of this area shot in the 80s, and it reminded me how much it has changed. Gone are the soot-covered façades, the criss-crossing of black tarmac, and the cars everywhere. Now one can enjoy the post-1755-earthquake-and-tsunami architecture, and leisurely walk amidst the remnants of the old naval shipyards. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 19:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent photograph of a beautiful building complex. – Aristeas (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 14:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2025 at 05:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Momotidae (Motmots)
Info Rufous motmot (Baryphthengus martii). all by — Rhododendrites talk | 05:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 05:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow, what a great composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I'm always intrigued by such tail feathers and how their genetics work to make them grow that way. --Cart (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 19:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2025 at 17:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Cemeteries#Poland
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Good quality but the composition seems a bit random to me and I also wonder if it's tilted (look at the background) Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The composition is a bit awkward to me, it's neither centered nor angled, and a step closer would have made the center crosses not interfere with the gate. Not sure it's tilted, we have plenty of fields sloping at one end where I live, it always looks a bit strange though when combined with upright elements. --Cart (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2025 at 09:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Canada
Info: Point Wolfe Bridge, Fundy National Park, New Brunswick; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 10:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The picture is too blurred especially on the left side and also underexposed. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Ermell. Sorry. --imehling (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Ermell. Cmao20 (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Info: offering a sharper alternative with a different crop @Юрий Д.К., Ermell, and Imehling: --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Just for future nominations, please remember that the rules say: "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." In this case the opposes were not based on a faulty crop or composition and no one requested any alterations to the photo. 'Alts' are not to be used for, "let's try another photo if the first one isn't working". We had that years ago and it ended in chaos. Rules are stricter now. --Cart (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment IMO the WB is too cold. The crop and sharpness is much better here.--Ermell (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Done made the WB warmer and also reduced saturation somewhat. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Oversaturated, and not a valid alternative in this case. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support this version only. Cmao20 (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 19:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2025 at 00:48:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1860-1869
Info created by Mathew Brady – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Characterful and well restored Cmao20 (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Fine restoration -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting 'stache. Good restoration, a few spots missed but overall nicely done. --Cart (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'll do another pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Black dots at shield, belly, hem. --Cart (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @W.carter: I'm not sure what you mean by "hem", but I've gotten the other two and did full second and third passes. Maybe I got it? I'm sorry for missing them: Did this while a bit ill as a distraction. and, well... Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think you've got them all now. Thanks! --Cart (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- No worries! Thanks for pointing it out: I hate noticing something I missed in an old FP. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think you've got them all now. Thanks! --Cart (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @W.carter: I'm not sure what you mean by "hem", but I've gotten the other two and did full second and third passes. Maybe I got it? I'm sorry for missing them: Did this while a bit ill as a distraction. and, well... Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Black dots at shield, belly, hem. --Cart (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'll do another pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good portrait, good restoration. – Aristeas (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2025 at 14:17:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Regulidae_(Kinglets)
Info An ornithologist holds a golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) just before it is released at a bird banding station. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 14:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 14:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good quality and composition Cmao20 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support High educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good quality and good composition with nice background. – Aristeas (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2025 at 12:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Jewellery
Info Capsule monstrance of Elisabeth of Nassau-Hadamar from the Essen Cathedral Treasury; information given my the museum: 1385 Gilt silver, chased, cast, engraved, rock crystal , Abbess Elisabeth of Nassau (r. 1370-1412) had the monstrance made in 1385, The center of the monstrance is a capsule sealed with rock crystal discs. It contains part of the cross of Christ. Next to it are relics of the blood of Christ and the crown of thorns. The relics of the Passion of Christ reflect the close connection to the liturgy of the Mass. photographic technique: focus-stack, hand-held
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I understand that this is not a study photo but even with focus stacking I believe that the level of detail is too low, specially at the top. I didn't participate in the former FPC but to me it was also borderline in terms of detail. Poco a poco (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- plus: no additional flash light was allowed. I think the level of detail is quite good. And to be honest: I do not aggree that the level of detail is "at borderline" take a look at the socket of example --Tuxyso (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Fantastic object Cmao20 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 10:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment I think there is a typo in the filename: It should be …monstranz (DWDS). Dictionaries return 404 for Monstanz (example). 217.9.50.231 19:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, it is certainly 'monstrance' in English. But it can be corrected after the nomination is over. It can mess up the code and cause more work if a file name is changed during the FPC nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I will rename it after FP candidature Tuxyso (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, it is certainly 'monstrance' in English. But it can be corrected after the nomination is over. It can mess up the code and cause more work if a file name is changed during the FPC nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2025 at 04:07:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
Info Ruins of the National Assembly building after the Liberation of Manila, 1945. Provided by US National Archives. Cropped version by Poppytarts – nominated by Poppytarts -- Poppytarts (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poppytarts (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would support a JPEG version. Please add the Gallery above. Yann (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Gallery added; thanks for the reminder. When I cropped the original TIFF file using CropTool, I was not given the option to upload as a JPEG. Poppytarts (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- This has to be done locally. Here it is: File:National Assembly building ruins.jpg. Yann (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Poppytarts, you can add the jpeg as an 'Alternative' to this nomination. If you don't know how that is done, I can do it for you. Just let me know. --Cart (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, I don't know how to make an alternative. Please help me on my behalf; thank you. Poppytarts (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Gallery added; thanks for the reminder. When I cropped the original TIFF file using CropTool, I was not given the option to upload as a JPEG. Poppytarts (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Could be FP but there are visible scratches and marks in the sky - IMO needs a bit more attention Cmao20 (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Jpeg version of the original tif. Restoration by Yann
Comment I will do the restoration, but it may take some time. Yann (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Actually, it was not that difficult. Yann (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you so much for the restoration. Poppytarts (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Well done, Yann. Cmao20 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Much better, thank you, Yann. – Aristeas (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2025 at 20:53:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Buteo
Info a juvenile common buzzard (Buteo buteo) in a marshy forest southwest of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Info all by Yerpo
Support -- — Yerpo Eh? 20:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice bokeh Cmao20 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Neutral The back at the back is nice but there are disturbing elements around the buzzard (the compo looks cluttered to me), otherwise nice detail Poco a poco (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak support per Poco a poco. --Rbrechko (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment The most disturbing thing is that little blurred branch in the foreground. Seems like something you might consider trying to remove (and marking the file page with {{Retouched}}). — Rhododendrites talk | 14:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2025 at 20:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Croatia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good composition Cmao20 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose To me it looks unbalanced because of the trees, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2025 at 18:23:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Oliver Mark – uploaded by Oliver Mark – nominated by EUPBR -- EUPBR (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- EUPBR (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Poor quality, low educational value. Yann (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yann, guidelines for quality list 2 mp while here its 5 (if I do the math correctly). The "educational" part is also neither objective, nor based on guidelines. We have photos of white walls featured here. --EUPBR (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please read the guidelines about FP, and you should nominate it to Quality Pictures before. This is not even a QI. Yann (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Sorry but I fail to see what's so wrong with this that it deserves to be FPX'd. Re. educational value: photograph of a well known film director by a well known German portrait photographer who is sufficiently notable to have an English wikipedia article. Re. poor quality: resolution is not huge but it is adequate for FP (5.7 megapixels). Good sharpness at full size, even the individual hairs on Mr von Trier's beard are visible. I don't really like the choice to cut it out and place it on a white background but that is Herr Mark's artistic choice. I find the optical illusion impressive (I've seen it before but it continues to impress) - and I also appreciate Mark's artistic intention in using a slightly psychedelic, 'trippy' kind of background for a portrait of a director known for his avant-garde, dark, and provocative filmmaking. Overall FP to me. I think this is the first time I've ever contested an FPX but I sincerely think this picture deserves more debate. Cmao20 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Innovative portrait, appropriate for a person like Lars von Trier, and sufficient quality per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Felino Volador (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I think technical quality is good for a picture from 2003. And for the rest per Cmao20 --imehling (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I love these rotating snakes (and even uploaded my own SVG version three years ago). The optical illusion is of course more impressive this way as a natural background, and centered behind someone who is in addition a famous film director -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Tentative
Support, but what do we know about the background? Denmark does not have FOP. — Rhododendrites talk | 14:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- At first, I thought he was just photographed in some place that hadn't been renovated since the 70s, since it looks just like one of the ugly wallpapers from that time. But then I realized this is a poster of one of those optical illusion images that have been around since the beginning of the internet. The circles are supposed to be moving if you squint at it the right way. The illusion is diminished here by introducing a man in front of it, it works better if you see it as it is intended. The illusion is called Rotating Snakes. We have an article about it, and a version of it here on Commons. --Cart (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- A very simple pattern repeated endlessly, without any variation. And this effect is based on a fairly old knowledge of how the eyes work and see. Moreover it works with other colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- I do know the illusion, but don't know why that would remove it from copyright eligibility. Is it specifically this graphic that's been used to produce the illusion? I mean, there are many possible ways to produce it, right, and each requires choices about shapes, colors, etc. Looking around I see the work of Akiyoshi Kitaoka used as an example of copyrighted optical illusions. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- On Google There's a bunch of similar "Akiyoshi Kitaoka rotating snakes", all different and with variations in forms, shapes, colors, etc. Thus it's similar to Rubin vase (called after Edgar Rubin) that is more a concept than a specific image, in my opinion. Or Penrose triangle (called after Roger Penrose). These psychologists, researchers, mathematicians are more discoverers than inventors, in fact. We also know this very well in the field of anagrams, for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- I do know the illusion, but don't know why that would remove it from copyright eligibility. Is it specifically this graphic that's been used to produce the illusion? I mean, there are many possible ways to produce it, right, and each requires choices about shapes, colors, etc. Looking around I see the work of Akiyoshi Kitaoka used as an example of copyrighted optical illusions. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- A very simple pattern repeated endlessly, without any variation. And this effect is based on a fairly old knowledge of how the eyes work and see. Moreover it works with other colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2025 at 13:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#San Marino
Info San Marino Co-Cathedral (1838) neo-classical ceilingː A minimalist shot of floral details made by Arch. Antonio Serra - Accademia di Belle Arti di Bologna. Created, uploaded, nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Well-made detail. (It could do with some more fixing of the green-red CA, though) --Cart (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have reduced CAs, many thanks. Terragio67 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Acceptable level of detail but I find these motifs unexceptional, sorry. Basic flower shapes cast in plaster. Not a pattern I would call extraordinary. See "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject." The yellowish cast, probably due to the lighting, doesn't help either. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I thank you and respect your judgement, I would just like to add that these artistic and decorative forms in the eighteenth century were made using lime, clay sand and horse manes, so the yellowish color can easily be explained by the materials used. The maintenance of these natural colors was dictated by the client's desire to have an elegant neoclassical and sober style. Terragio67 (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. The appearance is the same as room interiors under yellow lamps (example), but I believe you and can also guess the two parameters are associated together. Still these elements lack sophistication in my opinion. The solid color also makes the subject quite monotonous. All the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I concur with Basile, sorry, Giò Poco a poco (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2025 at 12:43:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info Former City Duma in en:Uglich created and uploaded by Елена Нечипоренко - nominated by FBilula (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FBilula (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support A scenic landscape with an interesting building. I love the ducks. Cmao20 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I like how the water leads the viewer to the building. --Cart (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice weather but ordinary building, a bit far, unappealing midday light, very average composition with cut out bridge. It lacks wow, in my view. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- When choosing the composition, I focused on the river in front of the building; it wasn't my intention to photograph the bridge. The building may seem ordinary to you, but it has historical value, which makes it interesting. Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ordinary architecture, in my view. Yes, dominant water in front, but no reflection. Harsh shadows. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Certainly, you have the right to your own vision Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- A pleasure to discuss -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Certainly, you have the right to your own vision Елена Нечипоренко (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ordinary architecture, in my view. Yes, dominant water in front, but no reflection. Harsh shadows. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice scenery, clever composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Basile Poco a poco (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 10:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support per Frank. – Aristeas (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2025 at 12:46:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info en:Rostov Veliky Kremlin created and uploaded by FVK36 - nominated by FBilula (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FBilula (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow, extremely dramatic and well composed. Image quality is only okay but the composition makes up for it Cmao20 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting cloud formation --Llez (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Neutral The composition is great. Normally you'd think such clouds would be disturbing, but here they actually enhance the compo. However, I think the quality is lacking, with details lost in highlights and halos around the domes. --Cart (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Great motive and beautiful composition, but unfortunately it looks oversaturated, overprocessed and rather noisy (and there is no metadata). So reluctantly I have to oppose. --imehling (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Composition is great, but the colors look too artificial IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Overprocessed -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Agree Poco a poco (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good for me Юрий Д.К 10:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2025 at 11:47:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Spain
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 11:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 11:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Really sorry. Excellent image quality as usual from you but I personally miss an outstanding composition. I am not sure placing the horizon centrally was the right choice, and it feels like the lighthouse tower is a bit lost in the surroundings. Cmao20 (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Beyond the fence there is a really great minimalist photo to be found of just the sand, guard tower, sea and sky. --Cart (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support This canary yellow is quite explosive in this natural environment. Combined with the azure and turquoise blues of the sea, the contrast is striking. For me it is an interesting minimalist composition, in state -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 10:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Agree that a minimalist composition as described by Cart could be even more impressive, but I still like the result and looking for a while at it it has grown for me. – Aristeas (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2025 at 10:05:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Nevada
Info: sunrise is when the Valley of Fire really lives up to its name. Second nomination: redeveloped to improve fidelity and cloned sky on top; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Great composition and light but I do think the image quality is borderline Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Cmao20.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not convinced by the level of detail, it looks overprocessed, the shadows don't help, either and the compo overall is not extraordinary, either. Rocks but my eyes don't find a path or a main element. Sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good! Юрий Д.К 10:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2025 at 09:42:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Cole L., uploaded by Kroger4, nominated by Yann
Info LCD direct/duplex driver with an onboard I²C-bus interface made by NXP Semiconductors.
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Doesn't look sufficiently sharp to me.--Peulle (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Peulle: Please take into account the size of the device and the resolution. Yann (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support A small component in high magnification --Llez (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It's an impressive view of something that's only a few square mm, but the post processing isn't all there, with a light gradient going from green to purple over the surface. Also, the black border is not doing the image any favors, even if it is just background. Can be fixed though. --Cart (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 06:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 10:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Sun 09 Feb → Fri 14 Feb Mon 10 Feb → Sat 15 Feb Tue 11 Feb → Sun 16 Feb Wed 12 Feb → Mon 17 Feb Thu 13 Feb → Tue 18 Feb Fri 14 Feb → Wed 19 Feb
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Wed 05 Feb → Fri 14 Feb Thu 06 Feb → Sat 15 Feb Fri 07 Feb → Sun 16 Feb Sat 08 Feb → Mon 17 Feb Sun 09 Feb → Tue 18 Feb Mon 10 Feb → Wed 19 Feb Tue 11 Feb → Thu 20 Feb Wed 12 Feb → Fri 21 Feb Thu 13 Feb → Sat 22 Feb Fri 14 Feb → Sun 23 Feb
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/February 2025), 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/February 2025.
- 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/February 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.