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 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal things[edit]Nominating[edit]Guidelines for nominators[edit]Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents[edit]There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs[edit]On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio[edit]Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominations[edit]If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new users[edit]Adding a new nomination[edit]If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
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. Voting[edit]Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policy[edit]General rules[edit]
Featuring and delisting rules[edit]A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be polite[edit]Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. See also[edit]
|
Table of contents[edit]
Featured picture candidates[edit]
File:Contre-jour photograph of a standing piglet at sunset with colorful sky in Don Det Laos.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2024 at 03:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Suidae (Pigs)
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support The piglet is a bit too close for my liking, but everything else works for me. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I Like the rim light of the ears Eka343 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Human–canine friendship - smiling girl hugging her dog at golden hour in Laos.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2024 at 02:52:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Illustrating interspecies friendship and human–canine bond. Also very cute in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Plan ACC Saint-Sulpice 01-fr.svg[edit]
Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2024 at 01:19:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
- Info created by Smcj~frwiki - uploaded by Smcj~frwiki - nominated by Smcj~frwiki -- Smcj~frwiki (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Smcj~frwiki (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I appreciate the animated and interactive design of this educational material; it's engaging and informative. However, there are a few areas that could benefit from improvement. Firstly, the font size is quite small, making it challenging to read. Also, I've noticed a disparity in the design elements - some areas are intricately detailed, while others are merely outlined. There's an inconsistency in the sizing between the arrows (when hovered over with the mouse) and the accompanying text. This inconsistency causes the text to overlap with other lines and objects, disrupting the clarity. Additionally, the shading appears overly intense and diverges from the original design, affecting the visual harmony. Regarding the information on the posters, while there's a commendable effort to make them aesthetically pleasing and legible, there's a noticeable dissonance in styles, particularly between sophisticated fonts and simpler ones like Verdana. These aspects, if addressed and refined, would enhance the overall effectiveness of the design. I'm inclined to vote in favor of this image once these adjustments are made. Thank you --Wilfredor (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Wilfredor. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:The boy and the beast.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2024 at 22:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
- Info created by Xavier Fauvergue, uploaded and nominated by Yann
- Support Action and contemplation. Climbing in the French Alps. -- Yann (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question Is this photo classified as black & white? If so, the gallery should be with the other B&W at 'Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Landscapes'. I trust your judgement on this since you are the nominator. --Cart (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think different galleries can be valid for the same candidate -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Black & white? No, the contrast is just very strong. Yann (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Vignetting at the top and at the left. Striking view but low quality and high level of noise probably due to over-sharpening, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Janetta forester (Euphaedra janetta) underside Ankasa.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2024 at 22:32:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
- Info Detailed and high quality photo of a very pretty and quite uncommon butterfly. The only photo of this species on Commons. created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Knolparasolzwammen. 09-11-2023. (d.j.b).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2024 at 05:59:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Agaricaceae
- Info Two young Tuberous Parasol Fungi (Chlorophyllum rhacodes) in natural habitat. Focus stack of 16 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC) - Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent! I love the two little bonus mushrooms too. --Cart (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thoughtful composition and superb image quality Cmao20 (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Lupe (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SDudley (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Both in focus. Natural background, nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Thure de Thulstrup - The Massacre of the Chinese at Rock Springs.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2024 at 23:24:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1899
- Info created by Thure de Thulstrup after photographs by Lieutenant C. A. Booth - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great restoration work and a tragic and horrifying episode in history that should be remembered Cmao20 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Maianthemum racemosum ssp. amplexicaule.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2024 at 21:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Asparagaceae
- Info: blooming treacleberry; no existing FPs of the species. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed, insufficient DoF --Wilfredor (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support A little underexposed, but with these white-on-white flowers, it's very difficult to get the structure otherwise. DoF is fine for a normal flower photo, I don't think we should set focus stacking as a "standard" for FP plants. However, the file description and categories were bare bones to say the least. I have fixed that now. Please remember that you need all the data in the description field too, so that the search engines on Commons can find it easily for people doing searches for say "flowers in Canada". --Cart (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your fixes! --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think the DoF is that good. I agree focus stacking should not be the standard but I have seen a lot of non focus stacked pictures that were sharper than this. Overall I think it's a good QI, well composed and attractive but doesn't wow me either in subject or technical quality for FP. Sorry, I do like your work and think you are a v good photographer Cmao20 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Misinchinka Ranges.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2024 at 21:15:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia
- Info: panorama of Misinchinka Ranges; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Left side trees are leaning to the right and right side trees are leaning to the left. Can you fix that. --Laitche (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see it, the trees look vertical to be. Can anyone else notice this? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Bare bones description (again), please add sufficient info and fill in the box saying "Captions" too. These info fields are not there to annoy authors, they are there to help tools and search engines find the image. The more things you fill in, the better chance is that your picture will be found and used. Isn't that what its's all about here, we want our photos to be used and seen, not just gathering dust in some archive. --Cart (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done: there wasn't much to add, actually; this is a remote part of the province, the peaks are not even named. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I thought the light was a bit flat in the thumb, but viewing at full size the detail and the sweeping majesty of this panorama impresses me enough for the star Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Rough diamonds - necklace in UV and normal light B - composite.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2024 at 20:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Composites and Montages#Composites (Multiple images merged into one)
- Info One of my contributions for the Wiki Science Competition. I wanted to create an image that was a little bit more interesting than just the usual with side by side images. The added "speed effect" also to helps guide the eyes between the individual stones to see the different colors.
- The image is made from two photos edited and merged in Photoshop. (No ICM involved.) The two original photos were put into layers. Selected parts of the necklace in UV photo were then copied into new layers and treated with the motion blur option: Filter>Blur>Motion Blur. The layers were then edited, mainly using the eraser tool at different settings, before being merged into a single layer. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cart (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Beautiful work but I like the last picture of series A best where the artworks are fully visible. --Ermell (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support In my opinion, this is a bit "looser" than the series A proposed by Ermell.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question The UW light image seems to be out of focus. Is this an effect of UW light? Yann (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the case here with diamonds, yes. Material that have strong fluorescence, like the stones here, do not just reflect light, they also emit light back. In simple words, they glow under UV light. So all contours get softened, and you need to set the focus manually under normal light and then switch to UV. Autofocus doesn't work most of the time when you do photos in UV; it can't get a lock on softly glowing things. --Cart (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I wish it were a bit sharper but I accept the above explanation as valid. Very beautiful, scientifically interesting, and a good striking composition. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Harlock81 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for the explanation. Yann (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Helene Schjerfbeck (1862-1946)- The Convalescent - Toipilas - Konvalescenten (32721924996).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2024 at 19:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Children
- Info Helene Schjerfbeck: The Convalescent, 1888 - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Thi -- Thi (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Thi (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful atmosphere and colors in my eyes.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great light, subject and style reminiscent of the Skagen Painters. --Cart (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Famberhorst Cmao20 (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Famberhorst/Cart, and a good reproduction which allows to study the brushwork. --Aristeas (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support but please remove the watermark :-) </joking> High resolution, good quality, interesting painting -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Vue de Grand Ballon vers les Alps.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2024 at 13:41:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Vosges
- Info Far view from the Grand Ballon in the Vosges to the Alps. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support I feel cold just looking at this beautiful, painterly photograph. Cmao20 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful winter view with great light and atmosphere. --Aristeas (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Lupe (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Ermell (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Olhar enigmático da coruja buraqueira.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2024 at 13:01:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Strigidae (True Owls)
- Info Deep look of a burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Ilha Grande State Park, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. The park is on the island of Ilha Grande off the south coast of Rio de Janeiro near the border with São Paulo, in the Angra dos Reis municipality. It covers 62.5% of the island, with an area of 12,072 hectares (29,830 acres). Created and uploaded by Latino Ilha Grande - nominated by ★ -- ★ 13:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes, it's small but its majestic look makes the guideline part "strong mitigating reasons" coherent. -- ★ 13:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Certainly striking, although the beak and some of the feathers on the body are not in focus, which is IMO a problem considering small size. There are 6 existing FPs of this species. This one should probably be delisted even though I really like the composition, the quality is low and it barely passed its initial nomination. This is the closest to this nomination although not as close up. I think that the picture nominated here is better than that one in terms of sharpness and also composition, so overall I am happy to see it become FP. The other four existing FPs are very good. Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose With so many existing FPs, this would have to be a lot better in composition, resolution, sharpness and depth of field. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
- Comment Wider view of the owl added as alternative. ★ 22:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Erizo de mar violáceo (Sphaerechinus granularis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2022-07-20, DD 13.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2024 at 12:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Echinoidea
- Info Detail view of a violet sea urchin (Sphaerechinus granularis), Arrábida National Park, Portugal. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Otherworldly Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support A bit soft, but the subject outweighs that. --Cart (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Soft? ★ 00:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice but dark, like underexposed. I may support if brightened -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Cour des Voraces - plan serré.JPG[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2024 at 10:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
- Info created & uploaded by Ig0r - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Oh yes! Not a "beautiful" shot, but an excellent example for that kind of architecture. --Kritzolina (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cool brutalism. --Cart (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Bit small for a 2023 FP but per Cart and Kritzolina, good composition and motif Cmao20 (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Perfectly summarised by Kritzolina. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support I’d wish for more microcontrast (detail resolution), but it’s probably not significant for this subject. --Aristeas (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Little pied cormorant (Microcarbo melanoleucos) Nusa Dua, Bali.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2024 at 00:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phalacrocoracidae (Cormorants)
- Info created by Eka343 - uploaded by Eka343 - nominated by Eka343 -- Eka343 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Eka343 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support IMO could do with a little bit of selective sharpening on the body (not the head) of the bird, but good composition and quality, and better resolution than the existing FP of this species (though I would not support delisting that one, it is still good to me). Cmao20 (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose No definition in the feathers. It is a good idea to check other images before a nomination, like this one on enwiki. I have just uploaded this image as another example. This nom does not have the quality of the existing FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The one you link to from JJ Harrison is good but IMO not one of his best, I don't think the head is that sharp and is it just my monitor or is there a little bit of colour noise on the body? Yours is really superb though Charles. You should nominate it here or I will. Cmao20 (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks; please do, but perhaps withdraw support for this nom! Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yours and this one have very different angle, composition and colours, and I still like the composition of this photo and the choice of crop to place the bird in one corner and have some lead room. Well, not quite lead room as it's not a moving subject, but negative space ahead of where the subject is looking. Main flaw in this one is as you say that the focus has been missed slightly on the feathers. But I think I'll keep my vote. Yours is better but plenty of birds have 3 or 4 FP Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Charles, thanks for the replay. I just read your book the other day. Really enjoyed reading it, i learn a lot from it and i also quite likes your humors. I Didn't expect to see you commented in my photo :D. Sorry if this picture is not quite your standard. I just beginning learning photography, tbh this photo is my 3rd times using my first camera. I'm also not familiar about this featured picture, quality picture stuff. The rule is quite hard to understand for me a beginner here and also not a native speaker. Hopefully in the future i can improve my skill to be quite your standard. tbh I didn't really like the pose of the bird and the angel I take the photo. I just nominated it because i like the light and the mood. Eka343 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful composition, gesture and light; exquisite background. IMHO we should abandon these “There can be only one” (or two or three …) discussions; FPs are not Highlanders. This one and that one are completely different from the present picture. --Aristeas (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Azumaya and Abeno Harukas in the reflection at keitakuen, January 2024 - 6585.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2024 at 23:25:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Japan
- Info c/u/n by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Laitche (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very intriguing play with those reflections. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Unusual, challenging composition that gets you thinking about what you're seeing. Good image quality and nice light. Cmao20 (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I do really love this old/new Japanese architecture contrast. ★ 21:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Colors are perhaps a bit too muted, but it's an excellent twist on the old vs new concept. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 and Arion. --Aristeas (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Lupe (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Aux aurores sur la Cresta Signal.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2024 at 20:07:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Valais
- Info created by Nicola Beltraminelli, uploaded and nominated by Yann
- Support Taken at over 4,000 meters in the Swiss Alps. -- Yann (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Not that sharp at full res, but what an amazing mood Cmao20 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support So beautiful. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
SupportNeutralI miss the metadata but nice. --Laitche (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I've chaned my vote. The cloud is too red. I guess processing mistake was happen. --Laitche (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)I've cancelled my vote. --Laitche (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- It’s a pity that the metadata are missing completely, there is not even a hint to the colour space. This is problematic as the file may display differently on different devices. By viewing the file in several common colour spaces I conclude that it uses the usual default colour space, sRGB. (In theory it also could be AdobeRGB, but then the colours would be very oversaturated, or good old AppleRGB, but that colour space is really archaic and the photo was published in 2019, so that seems absolutely unlikely.) Therefore I have added a sRGB colour profile to the file, to ensure uniform display. Hope it helps, --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Maybe somewhat oversaturated, but the colours correspond to the stunning visual impression a sunrise/sunset may give in alpine conditions, and overall just too good (visually) for technical nitpicking. --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral As long as the license needs to be verified. --Milseburg (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Any quality issues are overshadowed by the wow factor. ★ 21:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Santa Claus - Sunkist Ad (1928).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2024 at 04:18:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Posters_and_advertisements
- Info created by Schmidt Litho. Co. - uploaded by SDudley - nominated by SDudley -- SDudley (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support In comparison to other works from the same category I recognize that it might not have the same inherent historical value. However, I believe it should be supported due to the artistry of the image which reflects a high quality standard of illustrative artwork from the 1920s. It is also a depiction of Santa Claus in advertising that predates even Coca-Cola's usage of the character. Furthermore, as a piece published in 1928 it has just no definitively entered into the public domain and can be utilized Finally, the file is of high resolution and quality.-- SDudley (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would support a JPEG version. TIFF is fine for archiving purpose, but for displaying on Wikimedia projects, JPEG is better. Yann (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice typical Santa appearance in an add of the 1920s; excellent scan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks to Cart also. Yann (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support An ad that worked in the 1920s. Today the ad-manager would be fired for making an ad with no less than three brand names (Santa, Limoneira and Sunkist) equally visible in the artwork, making the message unclear. ;-) --Cart (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Warm
SATANSANTA 🎅 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC) - Support --Llez (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:White-lipped tree frog (Nyctimystes infrafrenatus) Daintree.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2024 at 11:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Hylidae (Tree Frogs)
- Info The World's largest tree frog. One current FP. Created and uploaded by Charlesjsharp, nominated (ETA: Jan 4 by SHB2000) by SHB2000 -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Amazing detail Cmao20 (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support This photo does justice to the author's username, very sharp --Wilfredor (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Charles, I am very sorry, but I had to open your nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boyd's forest dragon (Lophosaurus boydii) Daintree 2.jpg again because I was told that the rule of the 5th day is never applied to nominations containing an alternative version. I did not know that, but this is the established practice, so we cannot make any exceptions. But this means that right now you have 3 simultaneous nominations. I am sorry but I fear you should remove this nomination temporarily (or the other one) until the oldest nomination can finally be closed. Sorry to all voters. --Aristeas (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
And here I wrote on the dragon nom that I thought we could just let this slide this time since this wasn't Charles' fault, to avoid further confusion. Oh well, you do as you like. Or, perhaps someone can take over this nom? My quota is unfortunately full. --Cart (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Strike this. I have now learned that it was indeed Charles who prompted this mess. My bad for making a good faith comment. --Cart (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Cart, I am very sorry again, but I did not see your notice before writing my own comment here. (If Commons is right, I wrote my comment first.) I would be happy to take this nomination but unfortunately I have two nominations right now myself. --Aristeas (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination as requested. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Charlesjsharp Do you want me to take this nomination myself? I have one spare nomination as of typing this. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you would, SHB2000, that would be very kind; thank you. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Lovely texture. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Since the nom is now managed by another user, the 'withdraw' is striked because of the FPCBot. --Cart (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thank you for taking the nomination, SHB2000! --Aristeas (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Spectacular level of detail, nice compo -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per SHB2000 and I can add that photographing against the light, in this case, highlights more the contour and the slimy and reflective roughness of the frog's skin, precisely because it creates a detachment between the bright and shadowed areas, creating a strong natural contrast. A job to be taken as an example, although it is easier said than done because it requires experience. --Terragio67 (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus) fawn morph Esk Valley.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2024 at 11:01:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Dasyuridae (Small marsupials)
- Info An endangered Australian carnivorous marsupial, now only found on Tasmania. The size of a small cat. No FPs of this Order. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I suggest to highlight here that the eastern quoll hunts at night. Otherwise there would be no reason to prefer a night picture to represent the species. The quality is excellent, but lacks a bit of dynamism. Could you explain the circumstances at the shot moment? --Harlock81 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure I get your point, sorry. This is not a night picture; it is late afternoon in sunlight. Our guide knows where a family live (under a remote building). Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Étéh-étéh Pénjor Galungan.png[edit]
Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2024 at 01:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Religious Art
- Info created by Eka343 - uploaded by Eka343 - nominated by Eka343 -- Eka343 (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Eka343 (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I am sure this is a very useful and encyclopedic diagram but I am opposing it because a) its utility is limited by the fact that it is in Indonesian, a language I don't speak - it would be much better to provide a translation as well; b) given that I don't really know what's going on here I find it hard to judge how much 'wow-factor' this has i.e. how interesting the content is; c) the standard for work of this kind is svg, not png. Cmao20 (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think everyone has to understand the text, I actually like to see more languages on FI, but I don't like the colorscheme and the way the blueish orbs with the number are distributed. Sorry, to me this is not one of our finest images. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Should be SVG --Wilfredor (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Gebänderte Prachtlibelle 2023-2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2024 at 19:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Calopterygidae_(Demoiselles)
- Info created & uploaded by Sven Damerow – nominated by Ivar (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Outstanding composition and quality. And no water droplets. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Νικόλαος Κυριακάκης (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Amazing, one of the very best Cmao20 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support WOW -- Jay.Jarosz (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support Breathtaking level of detail, beautiful composition with a smooth and homogeneous background, very high resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Marvellous! --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Drinking games.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2024 at 19:23:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Aythya
- Info created & uploaded by Prasan Shrestha – nominated by Ivar (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support IMO slightly motion blurred and oversharpened to compensate. But such an amazing photo to see, that it's just about okay for me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great POV Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Foreground not perfect, but great shot. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Unusual and good photo, but the file name is not in line with Commons recommendations. You need to change that when the nom is over. --Cart (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good and interesting shot, but yes, the name has to be changed --Kritzolina (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Pesona Kabut Bromo.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2024 at 17:40:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Landscapes
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by M1qbalimages -- M1qbalimages (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- M1qbalimages (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great image. Please add a gallery above. Yann (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Gallery added ... and yes, great image! --Kritzolina (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Almost right. This is in black & white so it goes with other B&W photos. Fixed. --Cart (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, you are right, but I tried! Kritzolina (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Don't confuse Indonesia with Black & White, it's not the same continent :-) Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Almost right. This is in black & white so it goes with other B&W photos. Fixed. --Cart (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Magical Cmao20 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Mystical and enchanting. --Aristeas (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Mystically misty! Beautiful interplay of light and fog -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Genevieve Clark (Thomson) - Bain News Service (cropped).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2024 at 17:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1910-1919
- Info created by Bain News Service - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Info I've fully (and with a lot of difficulty) restored the uncropped version, but en-wiki made it clear that, without a crop, the composition was not going to pass. Since newspaper photos generally were cropped for publication, I don't feel too bad about doing so. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support An unconventional portrait (e.g. the focus is on her hand holding the phone, not on her face) and probably rather modernistic, quite appropriate for this unconventional and forward-looking woman. --Aristeas (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I opposed this on enwiki and I don't think we should be cropping archive photos. It was a poor composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Aristeas --Kritzolina (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Saddhu at Durbar Square, Kathmandu (edited).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2024 at 15:12:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting people
- Info A Saddhu in Durbar Square, Kathmandu, Nepal. Created and originally uploaded by Anton Gutmann – sightly edited and nominated by Aristeas. The original file is somewhat noisy, so I reduced the grain and added a bit of local sharpening where possible. Yes, you can still spot some grain here and there, but that’s how good it gets without making it too artificial and IMHO the look is OK for such a reportage-style photo. --Aristeas (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Another cool photo from Wiki Loves Folklore 2023, and one of my favourites. Nice balanced composition, beautiful contrast between the vivid colours of the clothes and the subdued colours of the background. --Aristeas (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 15:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support and an extra ++ for the hairdo --Kritzolina (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I would like to know what a yogi thinks about being photographed for a photo for commercial purposes? --Wilfredor (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Good question. I guess that if he’s a real yogi, he may laugh at our material endeavours – or cry out of pity for our earthly delusions. --Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure but I believe that the yogi's philosophy is to maintain a state of continuous meditation without exaltation, that is, crying or laughing are two extremes that distance one from the spiritual path. But maybe I'm confusing an Indian yogi with a Tibetan monk. Wilfredor (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, he is Nepalese anyways ;) Kritzolina (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure but I believe that the yogi's philosophy is to maintain a state of continuous meditation without exaltation, that is, crying or laughing are two extremes that distance one from the spiritual path. But maybe I'm confusing an Indian yogi with a Tibetan monk. Wilfredor (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Good question. I guess that if he’s a real yogi, he may laugh at our material endeavours – or cry out of pity for our earthly delusions. --Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Olivancillaria vesica 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2024 at 10:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Olividae
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 15:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support as usual for your shells Cmao20 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Heilbronn - Kirchhausen - Dorfkern - Schloss - Ansicht von Westen (1).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2024 at 10:02:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
- Info The castle of the Teutonic Order in Kirchhausen, Heilbronn, was built in 1572–1578. View from the west over the former castle moat. All by --Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I don't vote often for those "classic" shots, but this is just too perfect to not support. The composition, the warm colors, the sky with those summery clouds.. it all works just as it should for me --Kritzolina (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Kristolina. This is like one of those jigsaw puzzels you wanted when you were a kid. ;-) --Cart (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 15:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support One of the few images of this kind i've seen where the shadows falling on the subject actually make it more interesting Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would have been better some time earlier without the shadows. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Νικόλαος Κυριακάκης (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 01:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Vivid light and colors, interesting building, nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good composition, nice light and colours. I think the right side is leaning in ever so slightly though. BigDom (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment You have a sharp eye ;–). I have dealt a long time with the perspective correction of this photo because (as usual) not all walls etc. are vertical in reality and it is impossible to get all verticals exactly vertical. In the end I found a careful compromise with gave me the best (i.e. most realistic) overall impression. If I would change it, to get the right walls completely vertical, other vertical lines would start to lean out, even in the right part (e.g. at some windows). Therefore I would prefer to keep the perspective as it is. Asking for your understanding, --Aristeas (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2024 at 05:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Canada
- Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 15:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Firm support I would prefer the focus to be better in some areas but this interior is just too beautiful not to support. Cmao20 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support like Cmao20. Very atmospheric (and quite three-dimensional) thanks to the lighting. --Aristeas (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support The photo was very difficult to take, just do a search on the internet to verify that no one took this photo before --Wilfredor (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Quartier Saint-Sacrement, Quebec city, Canada.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2024 at 05:39:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
- Info All by --Wilfredor (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support A good use of winter shot that makes the building in the middle stand out more than it would in a summer photo. However, could you please add some information on the file page of what the building in the middle is and its function. The category is for the whole neighborhood, so it's not very helpful. You have gone from too much text with the ChatGPT to too little info now, it would be great if you could please find a way somewhere in-between. --Cart (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful winter scene with exemplary aerial perspective thanks to the mist. --Aristeas (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Almost black and white, which helps the few splashes of colour to stand out more and add visual interest Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Mix of trees and buildings, like a green city, and winter mood -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Lupe (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Scuol-Motta Naluns, 15-09-2023. (actm.) 09.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2024 at 05:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons (Graubünden)
- Info Scuol-Motta Naluns, View from Motta Naluns looking south.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC) - Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great and evocative photo. Looks almost other-worldly. Might be even better if the small sliver of blue sky at the top was cropped off, since it draws the eyes away from the mountains. --Cart (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support and your comment. The photo now has some supporters. Should I cut away the blue sky now, or is it better to leave it as is for now?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Leave it as it is for now, and see what other voters say. They may see this differently. --Cart (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support An almost elementary scene, reduced to the max. --Aristeas (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Something different Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Dull light, a large part ot the area of the picture is occupied by gray and white clouds and not by mountains. In addition, this is very noisy. No wow factor. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support What Aristeas said. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Dike - Lazaret 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2024 at 13:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#France
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Just a good QI, yet nothing featurable here, in other words -- no wow. --A.Savin 13:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per A.Savin. -- Karelj (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per A.Savin. -- Jay.Jarosz (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Hmm, I see what you were going for here but I’m just not really sensitive to the mood in this picture. I feel like I’ve seen too much like it. Blurry long exposure water doesn’t appeal to me in general but my main criticism is that I think the composition needs some sort of counterpoint to the waves and the beach. It’s too static. If there were some kind of tower in the place of that tv mast (?) on the upper right, that’d provide the sort of thing I’m looking for. Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose There probably is an FP somewhere in the scene from that viewpoint, but this is not it. The composition just feels off, and the long exposure waves don't work for me here. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm with the others regarding the composition, but I quite like the long exposure. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Leach's Storm-petrel Saint-Jean-de-Monts 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2024 at 12:15:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info Leach's Storm-petrel (Hydrobates leucorhous), a strictly pelagic species with no FP nor good pictures on Commons, was lucky enough to see some on shores during the storms in November 2023 in Europe. c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Your work is really good and absolutely up there with our best bird photographers Cmao20 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Alexis Lours (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Nice thumbnail but low level of detail at full resolution. Noisy and slightly blurry, compared to your usual nominations -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile --Ermell (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Not in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Eurasian wren 2023 12 31 02.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2024 at 11:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Troglodytidae (Wrens)
- Info c/u/n by Alexis Lours - nominated by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent lines and colors in the capture, and these little guys are so cute. Perhaps you could remove that small twig giving the photo the finger at the bottom? --Cart (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you ! Done Alexis Lours (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support How lovely, + excellent quality Cmao20 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support ♪ Happy new year ♫ -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Stortinden and Valletindan behind shores of Forsahavet, Narvik, Nordland, Norway, 2023 September.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2024 at 06:17:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Norway#Northern Norway (Nord-Norge/Nord-Noreg)
- Info created and uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by SHB2000 --SHB2000 (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support That is one impressive landscape and photo!! I love that little cheeky cloud, perfectly placed in the composition. --Cart (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose quite good quality and nice but the shadowed left part makes it not exeptional IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I get and respect Christian’s point, but to me the left part is the necessary counterpart to the right one – the golden light on the rocks and plants at the right appears so warm and golden only in contrast with the bluish cold shadows at the left. Therefore in my eyes this is an uncommon, but really satisfying composition. --Aristeas (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Jay.Jarosz (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support but my support would be stronger still if roughly the leftmost third of the picture were cropped out. Try it for yourselves, it works surprisingly well. Cmao20 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Meiræ 22:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment
Greenish / yellowish aspect, like an old postcard.I love this light but think the white balance is not optimum. @Ximonic, could you adjust the temperature? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC) - Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Opposeuntil the yellowish hue is fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support the new version -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for nomination! :) I stepped magenta a little bit up and temperature a little down. However, I want to keep it a little on the warm side because the blue mountains would over saturate for my liking. May it be a vintage postcard then heh. I don't want to crop the composition - I have a different motif here, and this would get very similar to it. Now going for holiday, so i'm unable to edit for awhile. --Ximonic (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for not cropping. The darkness is needed for the contrast IMO. It's like having Mordor and the Shire in one picture. --Cart (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, my crop suggestion was not to crop out all the dark areas, just about half of it (see image note). But fair play if you prefer it like it is. FP anyway to me Cmao20 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw the note. However, Stortinden (the mountain on the left) is rather well known for it's multiple peak that looks like a double peak with a saddle between them from this angle, and it would really be a shame to cut it in half. Besides I like the big looming dark to counter the brightness on the right side. --Cart (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Golden-shouldered Parrot 0A2A7450.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2024 at 21:42:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittaculidae (True Parrots)
- Info Endangered species - no more than 1100 birds left in the wild. No FPs of this species. IMO really nice to get a male and a female in one frame (presumably a breeding pair) and the composition is really good. created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice that James managed to take such a rare shot. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- He has one that is even rarer, which I shall nominate very soon Cmao20 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's this. A critically endangered bird, fewer than 250 individuals in the world maybe as few as 50. Additionally it's a ground forager so v difficult to get a picture. Even seeing this bird is extremely difficult let alone getting a sharp 21 megapixel photo of it. The only photo of this species on Commons and one of only five or six (and by far the best) on the internet. It's third in my queue of pictures to nominate atm so you will see it here in the next couple of weeks. Cmao20 (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It's a very special shot but very overexposed which is strange; perhaps some processing error. Easy to correct if JJ Harrison is logging on. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Your ability to be demanding when editing wildlife photos is always pleasantly surprising,... sadly much less surprising is your ability to ignore the same (and, sorry, sometimes worse) defects in your own photographs e.g. among many and many others, regards. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't look overexposed on my monitor. The background is certainly light, but I am not seeing any highlight clipping/loss of detail anywhere so I think it's a deliberate choice not to pull the highlights back any further. But I could be wrong. Maybe elaborate on why you think it is overexposed/add notes to show highlight clipping and I can drop JJH a note and ask him to fix? Cmao20 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see that both birds and branch are too bright. Reducing brightness by -70 in Photoshop CS6 is about right, though this introduces halos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Also a nice balanced composition with the branch ending in the corner. --Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Two birds and a homogeneous background which seems natural. Fine composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and composition (birds looking in each other's direction), no distracting background and a hard to reproduce image --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Gross Leuthen Dorfkirche 14.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2024 at 21:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
- Info Simple composition maybe but I really like it and find it striking enough to feature. The west tower of the church is from 1748 but the nave is a brick-built, rounded arch design built in 1857 in the style of the Schinkel school. This kind of architecture aimed at producing functional, efficient, scientifically designed public buildings that were nonetheless attractive. It was critically disdained at the time and many examples have been destroyed, but it is now regarded as a distinctive and valuable tradition that was an important precursor to architectural modernism. created by J.-H. Janßen - uploaded by J.-H. Janßen - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Support-- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)- Support ★ 00:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
SupportIt was certainly not easy to find a working composition with these trees, the lamp post and the background elements which can easily disturb the image of the church, so this is an achievement. --Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)- Support -- Jay.Jarosz (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Support--Mosbatho (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)- Comment Nice colors but the right part is tilted compared to File:Gross Leuthen Dorfkirche 08.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support But please correct the tilt --Llez (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose until the tilt is fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- J.-H. Janßen I see that you have specified that you would prefer to make fixes to your images because you would prefer to work from the original RAW data. If you are currently around on Commons, please could you perhaps find the time to have a look at the tilt issue Basile Morin mentions as an obstacle to this photo gaining 'Featured Picture' status? I think a tiny perspective correction may be the solution. All best wishes, Cmao20 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think that it rather lacks a perspective correction Poco a poco (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I meant. It's only the right part, not the whole image -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like the author is currently not available. A derivative version with perspective fixed has been uploaded: File:Gross Leuthen Dorfkirche 14 - edited.jpg. I will later propose a {{Delist and replace}} nomination if the first one is promoted here -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm not entirely convinced it's an improvement. It has made the lamppost on the left lean a lot more and I think it's now leaning out slightly on the right. However, since this nomination has four days still to go, I will save you the bother of creating a delist and replace by adding an alternative and pinging all voters. And I'll stay neutral on both images so that the community can judge which one they prefer. Cmao20 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cmao20, the lamp post seems to be leaning in reality, see for example on this picture. The walls and the pillars on the left are vertical, only the street lamp is tilted. Thus I think the version below is fair -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Alternative version[edit]
AbstainThis is an edited version by Basile Morin as an attempt to correct the perspective. I am honestly uncertain which one is better, I think it may show how difficult it is to get all the verticals perfectly straight in an image like this. I will abstain from voting on either version and allow the community to work out which one it thinks is superior. Cmao20 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ermell, ArionStar, Agnes Monkelbaan, Phoenix CZE, Aristeas, and Basile Morin: @Jay.Jarosz, Mosbatho, Llez, Poco a poco, and Famberhorst: notifying everyone who voted or commented on this photo. And thank you Basile for helping to try to improve this nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thank you very much, Basile, for the editing and you, Cmao20, for the transparent way to choose from the versions! As Cmao20 said, it is impossible to get all vertical lines straight, some of them must be leaning in reality. After carefully assessing the verticals, I think Basile’s version is nearer to reality. --Aristeas (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support The lamp post seems to be leaning in reality. So this perspective is correct in my opinion. Nice light. Thanks for the alternative -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above.--Ermell (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looking better, thank you, Poco a poco (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Mosbatho (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Tripterygion delaisi, featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2024 at 21:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Female
-
(Territorial) male
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Tripterygiidae_(Threefin_Blennies)
- Info Female and territorial male of a black-faced blenny (Tripterygion delaisi), Arrábida National Park, Portugal. It lives at depths between 3 and 40 metres (9.8 and 131.2 ft) but is most common at depths between 6 and 25 metres (20 and 82 ft). It inhabits 2 disjunct areas: 1. the western Mediterranean Sea and adjacent parts of the Atlantic Oceans from north to the British Isles and south of Casablanca and Morocco, 2. western tropical Africa north to Senegal and the Macaronesian islands. On average, territorial males 6.1 centimetres (2.4 in) are slightly larger than non-territorial males 4.7 centimetres (1.9 in) and females 5.0 centimetres (2.0 in). Note: there are no FPs of the genus Tripterygion. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Very good work Cmao20 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I agree, but might you be able to sharpen the head of the male? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- I applied a bit of extra sharpening Poco a poco (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support please add additional info to the file description as well. -- Ivar (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done Poco a poco (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice! --Cart (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Phoenix CZE (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Educational, good quality and appealing colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and far better quality than in very many educational books --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Trier Stadtansicht Nordost Hubert Clerget.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2024 at 11:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Towns
- Info Created by Hubert Clerget (1818–1899) - reproduced from an original print, restored, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent scan of a nice little veduta. --Aristeas (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting print Cmao20 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Hestskjær fyr i storm fra Nordvest.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2024 at 09:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Norway
- Info This is the WLM winner from Norway. I love how the muted color palette gives a feeling of calm that contrasts with the force of the storm. And of course I always love lighthouses in storms. Created and uploaded by Marianne Johnsen - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Is this the version that won? It's very noisy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the winning picture Kritzolina (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Definitely support! I'm actually impressed with the quality, considering that it is taken from about a kilometer away (the land closest to the island) in one of the worst weather conditions on the planet. With all of the North Atlantic pressing down on you, blocking the light with clouds and saltwater flying everywhere in the air, it's a struggle just to stand upright, let alone handling a camera. You can't compare the noise level with a photo taken on a calm, warm day down south. Attempting to reduce the noise here will get a loss in details and you lose that authentic gritty feel the photo has. --Cart (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Cart. Atmospheric and beautiful Cmao20 (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral -- difficult to assess this one for me. On the one hand, dramatic scenery, and Cart has a valid point. On the other, it's really very grainy. Additionally, the camera coordinates are false, it's the location of the lighthouse instead. --A.Savin 14:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed, coordinates given by the author converted to 'object location'. Camera location is estimated by the angle and this photo taken a few minutes later, where you have a skerry in the foreground. Re the quality, I can only refer to the time I took this photo, and you can see how blurry it is from all the noise reduction, even though the object was right in front of me, not 1 km away. Taking photos like this, is like being inside a saltwater fog and they get noisy because of that. --Cart (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great scene, certainly one of the best of the WLM 2023 winners. Personally I prefer a little noise by a large margin to smushy photographs damaged by hefty noise reduction. --Aristeas (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it has been sharpened too much. Too many artefacts. --Njardarlogar (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Tunnel View, Yosemite Valley, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2024 at 03:38:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
- Info The view of Yosemite Valley from Tunnel View in Yosemite National Park, California, United States. The park is bordered on the southeast by Sierra National Forest and on the northwest by Stanislaus National Forest. It is managed by the National Park Service and has an area of 759,620 acres (1,187 sq mi; 3,074 km2). Created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by ★ -- ★ 03:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I miss the flawless Diliff's photos… (Where're you?) -- ★ 03:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Amazing that there are still FPs not yet nominated amongst his uploads. Even with all the church interiors of his I nominated, there’s about a dozen more strong candidates left. Cmao20 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Νικόλαος Κυριακάκης (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 07:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral Technically excellent of course, but boring light IMO and an unexceptional composition of an extensively photographed place. BigDom (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Rainbow in the waterfall is a plus. --Yann (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the contrails. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Mosbatho (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Saint Lawrence church in Schaan (6).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2024 at 20:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I thought the tower was leaning to the left at first but after opening at full size am pretty convinced it’s just an optical illusion. Not keen on the railings but reasonably satisfied this is the best photo you could have got of an interesting motif. Also like the stormy atmosphere Cmao20 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 03:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing weather, sorry. Dull light. Ordinary church. Foreground is a bit distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Good QI but no FP to me. Per Basile. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ermell. -- Karelj (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, good, but unappealing weather and light. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Like the stormy atmosphere. --Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Landscape in Schellenberg (3).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2024 at 20:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Enthusiastic support I really love this composition. Please don’t crop this photo even if you get criticisms about including too much foreground. The square framing is really striking and unusual, and for me the foreground provides a nice contrast in terms of colour with the rest of the photo and leads the eye gently along the road up to the house. One of the nicest compositions I’ve seen in a while. Cmao20 (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Adorable! ★ 04:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing weather, sorry. Boring trees in the foreground, characterless modern building. Overall it lacks wow in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Unattractive weather can also have its charm.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Famberhorst. The photo has a certain something that you can't ignore. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I've to agree with Basile Poco a poco (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor technical quality with obvious halos around all the tree's branches that are against the sky. Surprised that supporters haven't noticed/don't mind. Charlesjsharp (talk)
- Neutral the idea/composition is somewhat good, but the two shadowed trees are a bit too prohiminent IMO, and there is something somewhat unbalanced. A crop at bottom would not help as this will makes the trees even more prohiminent. I think a wider crop (in the extand there is no disturbing elements in the reality), i.e. more space on the both sides would have been better. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Basile. -- Karelj (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Basile. -- Jay.Jarosz (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Very interesting photo and educative discussion, thank you! My personal result from weighing up the arguments is Weak support. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Basile. Good QI, but not FP. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Ibiza San Antonio sunset at Café del Mar asv2023-04 img2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2024 at 16:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Sun
- Info Sunset at the Café del Mar, Ibiza -- a famous place to spot sunsets. All by me, --A.Savin 16:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 16:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice enough and the sun is expertly handled, but if only the boat wasn't almost merged with the land. I think you should have taken the photo a little bit sooner. ;-) (per "almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing" I think I can be picky). --Cart (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support More than just another sunset to me, good composition and I love the trail of light the sun leaves on the water. Cmao20 (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Overprocessed in my view. Excessive blacks, not enough whites. Moreover, yes, "almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing", and it is an ordinary sunset in my opinion. The boat is too far, and its silhouette almost impossible to distinguish in the darkness. In addition, it is an unappealing motorized boat with no particular charm + seen from behind. The dark sea is flat, and the foreground blurry, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 10:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Well-balanced composition. --Aristeas (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a nice sunset, but it doesn't reach the FP bar. Means not enough WOW. --Laitche (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice but I agree with the comments above, not outstanding Poco a poco (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile, it is a bit too black. And, as per others, though the composition is nice there is nothing exceptional that makes the photo outstanding. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I love everything about this shot except the boat. It's too close to the mountains and I even thought it was a rock at first. If the boat would have been closer and more clearly the subject then I think it would have been a winner. -- Jay.Jarosz (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
File:El Descendimiento, by Rogier van der Weyden, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2024 at 10:17:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
- Info Rogier van der Weyden: The Descent from the Cross. High resolution file. Uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by -- Thi (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Thi (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Really giant resolution – so giant that even on machines with much RAM browsers often display just a low-resolution preview. The same applies to each of the single tiles. Use the zoom viewer (if it works) or download the file in order to appreciate the details. However there is a little problem: The file does not contain a colour profile (not even a colour space hint). I wanted to add it, but before doing so one would need to know the correct colour space – and in this case it is hard to guess it; with sRGB the colours look very faded and greenish, with AdobeRGB they look better, but still too dark, etc. The same problem applies also to the single tiles. This version is scaled down, but still big, and offers a defined colour space and better colours, but I wonder whether they are accurate. Could anybody who knows this paining himself (or owns a good reliable reproduction) comment on the colours and brightness of the original painting? Thanks. --Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Mosbatho (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Eva Nogales in 2023 02.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2024 at 09:09:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
- Info created and uploaded by Cmichel67 - nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Kadellar (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose The photo looks blurry except for the face. I would prefer the cropped version without the leg. --Thi (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose in favor of new version. --Cart (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Support ★ 11:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- In favor of the alternative version. ★ 17:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Overprocessed. What happened to the bottom right corner? -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Oops. Thank you for pointing this out, Basile! There is a strange border, similar to a tear in paper, around her knee, as if somebody had combined two photos without proper stitching. @Cmichel67: Could you please have a look and remove, if possible, that patch? This photo really deserves improvements! --Aristeas (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- You are right -- I've updated it here: File:Eva Nogales in 2023 06.jpg.
- And thank you Cmichel67 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Cmichel67, thank you very much for the other version! To avoid confusion, I have taken the liberty to change your link to a simple text link and to add the other version as an “alternative version” below. This helps voters (and our FPCBot) to distinguish between both versions and to make clear which vote and comment belongs to which version. Hope it helps, best, --Aristeas (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Oops. Thank you for pointing this out, Basile! There is a strange border, similar to a tear in paper, around her knee, as if somebody had combined two photos without proper stitching. @Cmichel67: Could you please have a look and remove, if possible, that patch? This photo really deserves improvements! --Aristeas (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Alternative version[edit]
- Support This is the alternative version mentioned by the photographer Cmichel67 in the comment above. It fixes the problem at the knee (mentioned by Basile) and IMHO also has better/more realistic colours. We should discuss if cropping a bit at the bottom would further improve the photo, but IMHO it’s already a solid improvement. --Aristeas (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support This version has natural colors. --Thi (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Moved my support to this version, thanks everyone for the effort of fixing this nomination. Normal DoF for a portrait, and I really like the "Sassy Scientist" play this photo has, upturned collar and all. It's time to dust off the old stereotype of how scientists are and should be photographed. --Cart (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Kadellar (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 17:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Great contribution!! --Alu (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support We need more portraits like this! --Kritzolina (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Knees decide! JukoFF (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support It was striking enough to make me look her up and find out what her research is about, so I think that’s a success Cmao20 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support--Laitche (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 07:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --BigDom (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Zanana Kund Aur Galta Ji Ka Mandir.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2024 at 18:39:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#India
- Info This image won the third place for WLM 2023 in India, I think it is actually the best picture from that country this year. I especially like how the water is absolutely still and the reflection undisturbed on the right, while there are some waves on the left. Created and uploaded by Sharvarism - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Perspective issue. Vertical lines leaning in on both sides -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Agreed with Basile Morin. Also the contrast is a bit too strong. --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective issue. [Update: sign.] --Thi (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This is indeed a beautiful scene, but since it is an awarded photo, we can't touch it. However it would be a shame to lose it due to such a simple thing as perspective, so now there is a version with perspective correction. Dialing down the contrast was done in a separate step so you can reverse it. You could add this as an 'Alt' if you like. It's not the first time we have different versions of a photo, going with different criteria in different competitions/assessments. --Cart (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Alternative version[edit]
- Support Thank you for creating this alternative version, Cart! Pinging the users who voted so far: JukoFF, Basile Morin, Jay.Jarosz, Thi. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support as per my comment above. --Cart (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support as promised above. --Aristeas (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Galta is my favorite place in Jaipur. Yann (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
SupportNice light. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Opposeper XRay. I did not notice at first sight there are still perspective issues. The top of the building is not horizontal. An inclination of about 2 degrees cannot be explained by the depth of field in this case, and I don't think this old architecture is naturally leaning that much. I can fix it if necessary -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- XRay, Basile Morin, Ermell: This version of the photo is not restricted by the rules of not altering an assessed photo. If anyone can fix it up further, please do so carefully and overwrite my edit. --Cart (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @W.carter my edited version is here, modified from the original on Lightroom (transformations: vertical -7, horizontal -19, rotation -0.4), format 3:2 kept. Can't overwrite your file with my subsidiary account (not enough edits apparently) so instead of creating a third alternative... -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Basile, I understand. I downloaded it and checked it. There was a tiny (0,6 deg) tilt still on the left side. I fixed that and uploaded the new version. So 'ping' Ermell and XRay that this is done now. Hope this is ok. --Cart (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Perfect. Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you all for the care you took with this nomination! --Kritzolina (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support for the alt only, good work in rescuing a pic with strong potential Cmao20 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral IMO still perspective issues. The two persons at the right are disturbing. Otherwise really nice. --XRay 💬 07:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
OpposeI agree with Xray and Basile.--Ermell (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)- Support Nice work. Thank you.--Ermell (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Boyd's forest dragon (Lophosaurus boydii) Daintree 2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2024 at 18:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Agamidae (Dragon Lizards)
- Info Here is the whole of the same dragon. No FPs of genus. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Question Why not the whole dragon?--Ermell (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I thought that this shows so much more detail that people would prefer it. 20:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Category is a red link -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I miss the tail. an important body part when climbing.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Compared to the the photo of the whole, I appreciate more the first proposed one. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Both photos are good in their different ways, but from a purely photographic/compo standpoint, this one is much better. We have 1/2 and 3/4 photos of people, why can't we have the same of animals? Sometimes long tails (or other long parts of animals) are not important for a good frame of the animal. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support [Edit: I forgot to sign.] --Thi (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose in favour of the alt Cmao20 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Alt image fits better --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Alternative version[edit]
- Info version of the whole reptile. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I disagree with Cart here, from a purely photographic/composition standpoint this one is better too. I love seeing the lizard in the context of its surroundings, the bokeh is really nice, and I like that we have some space on the left hand side of the tree trunk. Plus it just looks a little strange IMO to see a lizard without its tail. Cmao20 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Cluttered background but it's nice to see the long tail, and the way the animal climbs up on this trunk. Ideally a stitched photo with multiple frames showing the same resolution as the picture above and the tail would have been fantastic. Next time? :-) Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- It would have been possible in theory as the dragon remained motionless for several minutes, thinking that it was hidden. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Wieggy (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support As the tail is very long, it is useful to include it. Good image --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
* Comment A bit of minor confusion, leading to an accidentally early closing of this. This resulted in Charles making his new nom in good faith, so he now has three active noms. Not his fault, so I think it's best to just let this slide. Correcting things would only result in more mess and confusion. --Cart (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]
Mon 01 Jan → Sat 06 Jan Tue 02 Jan → Sun 07 Jan Wed 03 Jan → Mon 08 Jan Thu 04 Jan → Tue 09 Jan Fri 05 Jan → Wed 10 Jan Sat 06 Jan → Thu 11 Jan
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]
Thu 28 Dec → Sat 06 Jan Fri 29 Dec → Sun 07 Jan Sat 30 Dec → Mon 08 Jan Sun 31 Dec → Tue 09 Jan Mon 01 Jan → Wed 10 Jan Tue 02 Jan → Thu 11 Jan Wed 03 Jan → Fri 12 Jan Thu 04 Jan → Sat 13 Jan Fri 05 Jan → Sun 14 Jan Sat 06 Jan → Mon 15 Jan
Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]
The bot[edit]
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure[edit]
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to 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/January 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 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[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.