Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2022

File:Dresden - Frauenkirche - Innenansicht - Kuppel (3035).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2022 at 18:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Germany
Info I think this is the last of T meltzer's ceilings I shall nominate, until he uploads some more. I like the composition of this one and I found the warm colours very compelling. created by T meltzer - uploaded by T meltzer - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452385 01:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eye-catching, like most T meltzer images of interior architecture. -- IamMM (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Germany

File:RAI EMD GT26CW Mohammad Abad.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2022 at 06:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose IMO not amongst David's best train pics, even though at this spot & timepoint he surely did nothing wrong. --A.Savin 11:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Menggembala Kambing.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2022 at 08:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Others
Info created & uploaded by Herusutimbul - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fairy tale. Yann (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But unfortunately the camera isn't up to today's standards - all very soft. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451910 00:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, the wow factor prevails; the focus lies on the goat shepherdess. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. The woman is sharp (cf. the ornaments on her dress); I guess that there is just not as much post-processing sharpening as we are used to. --Aristeas (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomer T: Thank you for constantly discovering and nominating cool photos from less-known Commons contributors! Among others, the WikiKaleidoskop has indeed some very interesting contributions. To highlight the featured pictures from it, I have created a category Category:Featured pictures from WikiKaleidoskop; if this photo is featured, please add the category to this photo, too. --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could quibble with aspects of the composition, but it's certainly an appealing image. It's not so exotic or fairytale-like to me, though. Except that I saw the goats and the bamboo forest separately. The goatherd I knew herded his goats down the coastal highway every afternoon, and each time, one or two of them would come into our house and start eating garbage, and I would have to grab each one and put them back outside. But I digress. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique picture --Wilfredor (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A visual story. Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 16:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is different Poco a poco (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Others

File:Доброе утро в лесу.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2022 at 10:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Gastropoda
Info created by Мария Обидина - uploaded by Мария Обидина - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 10:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 10:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The subject is sharp and the light is lovely, but I'm struggling with the composition. Will have to come back to this. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How did it get onto the flower head? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either a photomontage or manipulation. Hopefully it was not left here :-) Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Who cares? Yann (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I care. ~~I don't like an image that seems to be natural has a snail placed in an impossible position. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)~~ Following the statement that the photo is genuine. I won't now oppose because of the crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the snail, but I don't like the left and bottom crops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452381 00:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - The point Charles made pushes me from on the fence to weak oppose. The more I look around at beautiful photos of snails in idealized scenes, the more skeptical I'm getting of them. I just finished writing here (a photo by someone who also has a lot of incredible snail photos) that I think there's a place at FPC for staged/composited/heavily edited photos, but (a) it needs to be marked as such, and (b) if you have control of the scene, there's just not much reason for this kind of crop. Of course, if I'm wrong about snails climbing up to dandelion seedheads on their own, I'll strike this. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Lupe (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Rhododendrites Poco a poco (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all other opposes. I like the idea generally, but it just has too many issues. And to add, an image whose title means "good morning in the forest", should have some suggestion that it's taken in the morning or in a forest ... this has neither. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why create this stories to diminish the work of others? Rhododendrites: seems staged? it seems?? > 10 s search on google images.

It is not because you never saw, that you could affirm that do exists.

You (all) do not understand the impact of this "theories". -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 01:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? As I said, there's an entire genre of manipulated/staged images of snails, so finding a couple other examples of snails on flowers doesn't disprove anything. Importantly, however, the two you have linked appear more realistic than this one, as the snail is not sitting atop perfectly intact dandelion seeds, as though it fell onto the flower from above.

If anyone is interested in discussing it more, I mentioned it here: WikiProject Gastropods. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does one Wikipedia, in this case, in English, has the authority to decide things here?
If the capture is rare, it shouldn't be here? ??? Now can we not have rare events registered? A straight answer: is it impossible to happen? No. So we should discuss the photo, not this theory.
If it is staged, results of stack 300 photos, has a studio... nothing, nothing of this matters. If it is a good photo, the style does not matter.

Photos are not a thing that came straight from the camera... It never existed.

We have Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#United_Kingdom several images that were have manipulated and are the junction of several photos, none of that was signalized as photo manipulation, but as they have a certain look, they don't need to accomplish all the exigencies that you all made for the other photos.

Was pretty quickly to remeber why I do not use more of my time to bring my best photos to Commons. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 00:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does one Wikipedia, in this case, in English, has the authority to decide things here - it doesn't have any authority here. The subject is a gastropod and that is a group that knows about gastropods. I opened the thread in the hope that someone there could provide insight. Ideally, they could say "it does not look staged," and I would likely apologize and strike my oppose vote.

If it is staged, results of stack 300 photos, has a studio... nothing, nothing of this matters. - As I've said (and as I've voted in the past) we should absolutely be open to promoting any of these things... but we need to know if they're staged, if they're composites, if they're studio shots, etc. For one, they should to be described as such; secondly, our standards shift somewhat when the photographer has more control. This is why it's harder to promote an animal in a zoo than a wild animal, and why we have higher standards for sharpness and lighting in a studio shot. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, you are only forgetting one small thing, this photo is the first place at WLE internationally. A lot of specialized wildlife photographers evaluated this photo, and it is mandatory for the contest that the capture was in a protected area.

What you are saying is: "Wikipedia has better photo specialists than the WLE, and I can evaluate the photo better than the local jury and the international jury of WLE."

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 06:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were there gastropod specialists on the WLE jury? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the local juries were clueless when it came to selecting winners. WLE has not bothered to list this year's international jury. In previous years, a number of judges were not noted for having photogrpahic expertise. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

q.e.d.

I have nothing more to add. It is now not only disrespectful to the photographer, but also to WLE volunteers, and judges. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 02:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Assuming that this photo is not manipulated, it's excellent in my view Cmao20 (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A snail climbing up there without damaging any single stem? Unrealistic -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support not sure what bothers opposers. That's a gorgeous result whether it is stagged or not (and it seems it wasn't). - Benh (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all other opposes. -- Karelj (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is staged, the photographer should get a special mention for his skill of training snails to seat on top of dandelion flowers... ;o) Yann (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Yann: Good point ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Rhododendrites and Daniel Case. "Good morning in the forest" makes no sense here. Our Image guidelines state: "Images should have a meaningful file name". -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset Duo tree Doi Samer Dao Sri Nan National Park.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2022 at 12:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Thailand
Info created and uploaded by BerryJ - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated colors. And there's a dust spot in the sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The overdone colors make a dull scene look interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- IamMM (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosa canina focus stacked-20220522-RM-123334.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2022 at 20:34:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info All by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great resolution and sharpness. Can anyone identify the little insects on the far petal? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Poor focus-stacking @Ermell: . Errors visible at thumbnail size - needs a complete rework. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A somewhat differentiated assessment would certainly have convinced me. However, I have corrected a few small errors that do not change the overall impression.--Ermell (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Major improvements made. Remaining small errors are masked by the dark background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Rosaceae

File:Septa marerubrum 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2022 at 05:13:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Cymatiidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support [Homer Simpson voice:] Yum, caramel-vanilla! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Cymatiidae

File:Tanzende Türme in Hamburg 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2022 at 18:56:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Windows
Info all by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just like patterns in photos. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some windows could be sharper (see note) --Llez (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it ... but please optimize CA reduction. --XRay 💬 13:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding CA reduction &c: I will try my luck … --Aristeas (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have removed/reduced the CAs and added a little bit of sharpening (and a tiny little bit more contrast) to the area marked by Llez. I hope you like the result ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like the real cool cover for that really boring math textbook we all had at some time ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank and Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451026 10:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural_elements#Windows

File:Alfred Waud by Timothy H. O'Sullivan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2022 at 03:22:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created by Timothy H. O'Sullivan - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice composition. It's disappointing that his face is out of focus, but I guess that couldn't be helped because it took 20 minutes or something to do an exposure, and he had to move his head repeatedly? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a more-or-less candid photo taken outdoors without equipment to keep him still from 1864, I'd say it's incredible. Timothy O'Sullivan did some very impressive work for the time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way this picture itself shows technology marching on ... a photograph of the sketch artist at work. Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People_at_work

File:Baju Kain Kulit Kayu.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2022 at 08:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created by Ganjarmustika1904 - uploaded by Ganjarmustika1904 - nominated by GuerraSucia -- GuerraSucia (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GuerraSucia (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question How was the resolution reached, from a camera capable of 8688 × 5792 pixels, to a picture made of 10,025 × 6,684 pixels? Stitched frames? Up-scaling? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely upscaled and looking at it, it does indeed feel like that. I don't see a need for that I'd support if fixed. The quality is not great but given the lighting conditions good enough to me. Poco a poco (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please upload the original file, per our Image guidelines : "Do not save edited JPEGs with a significantly higher quality than the original—doing so increases an image's file size but not its quality." -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a matter of fact, the guideline wording is way out of date. AI software like Topaz Gigapixel AI means that upscaling can enhance quality. I use it for making large prints. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very subjective opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A lot going on in this image; I can't easily tell what's going on. Might be more suited for VI. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oxxxymiron RAW Berlin asv2022-04 img15.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2022 at 12:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Musicians and singers performing
Info Russian rapper Oxxxymiron at one of his "Russians Against War" benefit concerts. 6 April 2022 Berlin, All by me --A.Savin 12:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait. Yann (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture! JukoFF (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's nice to see an FA-quality Russia-related photo after all the Ukrainian ones we have (deservedly) promoted recently. I like the sort of Christlike pose ... it fits with staging an antiwar concert. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Musicians and singers performing

File:Spanish festoon (Zerynthia rumina) underside.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2022 at 15:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)
Info This is the underside of the same species that was promoted FP yesterday. French lavender seemed to be everywhere in Extremadura, Spain, in April. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose nice, but resolution is quite low. --Ivar (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This size would have been okay 15 years ago, but not in 2022 -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life cycle of Melanitis leda leda

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2022 at 18:06:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Eggs of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)
Mature eggs and 1st instar caterpillar of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)
5th instar caterpillar of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)
Freshly formed pupa of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)
Mature pupa of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)
Eclosion of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)
Eclosion of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)
Eclosion of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created by Sarpitabose - uploaded by Sarpitabose - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting series, but we miss 2nd-4th instars; 5th instar is a posed image and the freshly-formed photo doesn't match the others. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I miss the imago --Llez (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a set and not all at FP quality. Certainly a useful collection but they don't all match and are incomplete. Some of the images may pass FP on their own. -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination and will nominate individual images for FPC later. Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bodhisattwa: FWIW I consider the last 5 images on their own a valid set, showing progress of the same animal over time. (Though maybe it could be wise to omit the freshly formed pupa since its background is quite different. Alternatively just have a set of 3 showing the eclosion.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles River Esplanade Boston May 2018 panorama.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2022 at 23:21:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "I love that dirty water ..." Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States

File:Close wing posture sucking of fluid from dead fly by Charaxes delphis (Doubleday, 1843) - Jewelled Nawab.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2022 at 04:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created by Atanu Bose Photography - uploaded by Atanu Bose Photography - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and also seems like a valuable image in the right scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice shot. Was this just one shot or focus-stacked? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support But why is there bright yellow text informing me of Indian protections of the species? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support (IMHO a bit too much sharpening, but that’s a matter of taste, obviously.) --Aristeas (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Educative and the species seems well identified -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too bad it's not a green butterfly, given the datestamp. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:Mount McCoy Simi Valley June 2021 002.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2022 at 00:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments and memorials
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hazy background. The cross in concrete is quite ugly in itself, and the light a bit harsh -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This works for me. Everything in the photo makes the cross stand out more powerfully, especially the streaming clouds, but the haze in the distance actually gives me more of a feeling of the power of the cross extending forever than if the background were sharper - essentially, very effective religious symbolism and messaging, regardless of whether KoH is a Christian (I don't know) or I am (I am not). I don't find the cross ugly, but that's not the point to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, the cross itself is not appealing and the light or quality not extraordinary, nice view though. Poco a poco (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Basile that the cross itself is not the most aesthetic but the picture is still striking and effective to me Cmao20 (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would work better with a clear blue sky, for me. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estatua Hombre Trabajando, Bratislava, Eslovaquia, 2020-02-01, DD 45.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2022 at 12:46:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
Info Statue of Man at Work (called "Čumil" in Slovakian), Bratislava, Slovakia. The bronze statue, one of the biggest attractions in the city center, is a work of Viktor Hulík and was installed in 1997 to celebrate the renovation of the pedestrian zone of the slovakian capital. According to the author it is "an expression of the well-being, smile and good mood that once prevailed here". I agree with the author and would like to see what you think about it as a potential FP. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question A sunnier day might have offered more contrast? Looking at images online it is clearly a very difficult subject to capture. I prefer the views from the side that show the hole and the manhole cover. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this photo had been taken on an sunnier day, people may have opposed with the comment “harsh light, burnt highlights”. The somewhat subdued light seems appropriate for this subject, and there is still a good contrast between the brighter and darker parts of the sculpture, it appears quite 3-dimensional. --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Aristeas, the light is good enough to illustrate the motif, and that's the main thing here Cmao20 (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An intriguing photo for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support He looks like me at saturday evening....-- Karelj (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still look happy.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors

File:Interior of the Castle of Montrésor 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2022 at 12:08:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really interesting interior. I plan to support, but I'm wondering whether it would make sense to dial back the brightest highlights just a little. Parts of the upper left corner look just a bit blown, but I think that's tolerable in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question To be clearer: Could you please dial back the brightest highlights? I plan to support if they are dialed back. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded, Tournasol7 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. I think the photo is interesting enough to merit a feature now, though of course I'd like to see other points of view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan Cmao20 (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Crowded, but maybe that's the point, and I like the lines. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451633 10:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lac de Montriond 07.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2022 at 12:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7. Here another photo of this lake, which is already FP. -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the existing FP and its landscape format. The foreground here doesn't add much. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Lovely spot. Is there a slight CW tilt, or just an illusion? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded, Tournasol7 (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. When I look at how peaceful and satisfying the other composition is, I find that I can't even consider this nomination. You may feel differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Are people talking about this as the other FP? If so, I don't find them comparable at all, and personally prefer this one. It doesn't look like something I've seen umpteen times. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. The view is the same as the central portion of this new nomination which I don't think adds anything very interesting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Rhododendrites. Completely different compositions – the other photo was about the expanse of the lake, this photo is about the harmony of curves in foreground and background. --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO a far more interesting composition than the existing FP, which I would not have voted for. Cmao20 (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Lovely composition. Both foreground and background in sharp focus. Did you combine multiple images?. Very nice - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see them differently. I like the curve of the retaining wall in front (not in the other image) and how it accentuates the curve of the far shore. I like the reflection of the retaining wall. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451821 10:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie

Ceramica pisi caterpillar, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2022 at 06:16:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Side view
Top view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Noctuidae_(Owlet_Moths)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive as usual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. A few very minor cloning issues. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Noctuidae_(Owlet_Moths)

File:160322-066 View from Thiri.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2022 at 17:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Nepal
Info Green terraces of Thiri village near the Gandaki river in the midst of the cold desert region of Mustang, which lies in the rain shadow of the great Himalaya (visible in the far background); created and uploaded by Faj2323 - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support May look not that exciting at thumbnail size. But when I looked at it in full size, I was intrigued by the landscape and also enjoyed the details. Good find! --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An image that definitely is worth looking at it again and again. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I think the foreground wall is suboptimally placed and has an effect of blocking the viewer from the rest of the scene rather than leading them in, but I like the landscape as a whole very much. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Settlements#Nepal

File:Chinese tuin Het Verborgen Rijk van Ming in Hortus Haren 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2022 at 15:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Floors and ground elements
Info Chinese Garden The Hidden Empire Ming in Hortus Haren in the Netherlands. Mosaic pavement courtyard.
all by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pattern. Have taken the liberty to change the gallery link: we already have some comparable photos in the “Floors and ground elements” section. --Aristeas (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452257 10:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that texture. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Satisfying photo Cmao20 (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Floors and ground elements

File:Black Bittern- Warriewood Wetlands.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2022 at 08:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ixobrychus
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451391 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ixobrychus

File:James Birdseye McPherson c. 1862 by Barr & Young.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2022 at 11:57:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Barr & Young, Army Photographers - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Early photos had a lot of head space. While sometimes it's clear, e.g. notes written at the top of it, that some or all of it was intended to be cropped, this one has no such indication. Mind, the bottom of the mount had a lot of empty space too, so maybe it was meant for a frame, but, nonetheless, seems wrong to cut a historical photo. ~~And if you ever want to run Dungeons and Dragons set in the American Civil War, there's your dwarf~~ Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a face! Tough guy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451143 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Ockerbraune Trichterlinge (Infundibulicybe gibba)-20191017-RM-155028.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2022 at 11:17:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Agaricaceae
Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is special to me because of the group of three mushrooms, and of course the details are great. There's also a housefly as a bonus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're welcome! You're freed up to nominate something else now. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452220 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The best mushroom photo I've seen here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Agaricaceae

File:Ou4 sh2-129 wf c lshorgb 2193m 3489m 2060m 120m 7876m 131h.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2022 at 19:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info created and uploaded by Ram samudrala - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452394 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like there are artifacts in some places, such as the blue area. Does anyone else see that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it. But my eyes have had the best time.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Nebulae

File:Tapaculo (Bothus podas), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-05, DD 64.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2022 at 19:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Pleuronectiformes_(Flatfish)
Info Deepwater sole (Bothus podas), Teno-Rasca marine strip, coast of Tenerife, Spain. No FPs of this family yet, indeed first images uploaded to Commons of this family. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good camouflage, but because of the beautiful patterns on the scales and the well-captured 3-dimensional shape of the fish, this photo really works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing wrong with this image but I found some other images more interesting in Category: Bathysolea profundicola. -- IamMM (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IamMM: if you mean the images with the sole swimming, I agree, those are also interesting but a pretty diffent shot than this one. I'd indeed like to try a nomination somewhen with this one, too. From all shots of the sole laying on the floor I believe that this one is overall the best one, specially in terms of quality. --Poco a poco (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quality is better than the others but on a subject like camouflage, I prefer this one which shows more details of how it works. The image you mentioned is also worth the nomination IMO, I find it interesting that camouflage is effective even when the fish is swimming. -- IamMM (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan, good arguments for a good photo. --Aristeas (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colour of the shadows is strange. --Ivar (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, will fix it tonight Poco a poco (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Done Poco a poco (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451559 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one of those rare pictures enhanced by the animal's camouflage. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Order_:_Pleuronectiformes_(Flatfish)

File:Mating of Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus, 1767) - Pea Blue.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2022 at 15:57:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lycaenidae (Blues, coppers and hairstreaks)
Info created by Atanu Bose Photography - uploaded by Atanu Bose Photography - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems deserving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the composition, but the sharpness is missing on the right hand butterfly. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The beautiful arrangement makes (mostly) up for the softness of the right butterfly. --Aristeas (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452428 10:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /----A.Savin 12:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lycaenidae (Blues, coppers and hairstreaks)

File:Piping plover (93872).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2022 at 21:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Charadrius
Info Piping plover adult, parent of the chick in this nomination. Note: As this is a sensitive species, I have not included a precise location (just the county/city), but I commit to updating the file with more specific categories and geotags when the breeding season is over. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding! --Ivar (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed! --Aristeas (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Charadrius

File:Staircase of Liesikuja parking hall in Myyrmäki, Vantaa, Finland, 2022 May.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2022 at 09:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Finland
Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different ;–). Well done, good handling of both light and dark areas, and the composition conveys the ‘energetic’ atmosphere of that staircase. --Aristeas (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first, I wanted a lower bottom crop to see the bottom of the top part of the lower staircase, but ultimately, this composition works for me, and I see the interest in the motif and form. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that gritty, angular urban feel. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Took me a while to make up my mind, but the light and the colors make it special for me --Kritzolina (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451949 10:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different, I like it Poco a poco (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /----A.Savin 12:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors#Finland

File:Staircase of the BGK Building (26620981474).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2022 at 07:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Poland
Info created by Bart Lumber - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, very abstract and European modern. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, that's a nice fresh spin on the abstract staircase theme - love it! --El Grafo (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking Poco a poco (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /----A.Savin 12:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors#Poland

File:Gotipua performance.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2022 at 14:22:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created & uploaded by TAPAS KUMAR HALDER - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Yann (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite an amazing image. Thanks for nominating it, Tomer! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I knew this trick with two people :-) Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. Most similar FPs, espec. the dancers are in the People#Events section, therefore I suggest to use that section here, too. --Aristeas (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support It could be a little sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Events

File:Karen 17.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2022 at 08:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info Karen tribal woman in traditional clothes, ethnic village, Pattaya, Thailand. Created and uploaded by Varvara Kless-Kaminskaia, nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming portrait of a woman at work. As appropriate for an environmental portrait, the photographer has selected a small, but not too small DOF which separates the person nicely from the background, but still shows enough of the background to make clear what the woman is producing. The face is tack sharp, the bokeh good, the colours are vivid, the light is beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The file should be renamed, but because this photo takes part in Wiki Loves Folklore (WLF) 2022 and renaming it right now could confuse the jury, I will rename it later when WLF is over ;—). --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice hat -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO the filename should be improved. --XRay 💬 07:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right; please compare the first comment after the nomination statement ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452088 12:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People at work

File:Mugger crocodile (Crocodylus palustris) Gal Oya.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2022 at 18:27:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Crocodylidae (Crocodiles)
Info A head shot of the same animal was promoted to FP in March. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For the record, the other FP is File:Mugger crocodile (Crocodylus palustris) head.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good sharpeness of object (crocodile) compared with surroundng. -- Karelj (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seldom argue about a negative vote, but I think the sharpness of the crocodile is pretty good. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lupe (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452256 15:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Crocodylidae (Crocodiles)

File:A Bukharan dance performed by members of the Rina Nikova ballet in the citadel of Jerusalem - Restoration.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2022 at 11:55:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created by Zoltan Kluger - restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice photo, and I love that the doire-players (the tambourinists) are smiling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as restorer. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm really torn here. I really like the idea, but not the execution. First of all, it's back-focused on the structure in the background, and that is visible from the preview. As that structure is also placed in the center and noticeably brighter than the dancers, it competes with them for attention, distracting from what is supposed to be the main subject (according to the title). The dancers are crammed in at the extreme edge of the frame. Them facing left makes sense in terms of lighting, but having your subjects looking outside the frame is rarely a good idea. I like the diagonal the ladies on the right build with their line of sight (eyes → top tambourine → heads of dancers), but unfortunately, they are out of focus too. Them again being much brighter than the dancers also does not help, as human attention is naturally drawn to the bright spot. So we have 3 subjects competing for attention, but none of them manages to stand out as the main subject. Judging from the other images in that series, this was a staged photo shoot under somewhat controlled conditions. So standards are a bit higher than for a random encounter in the streets, which makes me lean towards opposing. Close, but not quite a master piece. --El Grafo (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: I certainly see your point. The thing about historic media is that what survives is what survives, and it can't be retaken. I attempted to mitigate the flaws - if you compare to the original, details in the shadows are much more visible - but it is, by necessity, imperfect. I still think it's a compelling image, but, well, as I said, you get from history what past generations saved for you, and nothing more. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden Agreed, and I'm trying to factor these things in when I draw a conclusion. I'm sympathizing with Kluger, as I've been shooting film on a manual focus SLR lately ;-) -- El Grafo (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. Especially the back focus, compared to this which shows more detail of the performers and their clothes (but one musician isn't quite captured well). -- Colin (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451509 12:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Traditions

File:Aardappelgal veroorzaakt door de aardappelgalwesp. 22-05-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2022 at 15:18:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others
Info Biorhiza pallida in a Quercus robur. Focus stack of 65 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment file description is misleading. There is definitely not Biorhiza pallida on the photo. What we see here is oak gall from last year and it has mold on it. --Ivar (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I'm not questioning your knowledge, but this "potato" grew on a branch this spring, as did the lighter specimens in the other images below this photo on the same oak tree. What kind of description do you propose?--Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this can't be fresh gall, because insects are laying eggs in the spring and emerge from different galls after two to three months. This has wholes in it, which means insects alredy left. File descripiton changed. --Ivar (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the change. I went to the oak today. All "potatoes" have now turned black and shrunk a bit I think."--Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451837 15:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Others

File:Busha cemetery 2021 G06.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2022 at 14:15:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments_and_memorials
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly nice but I can’t see anything special here. In other words: no wow. --Kreuz schnabel 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This simple, crooked, almost grass-covered gravestone touches me very much; it tells, without making many words, of the many lost lives, of all the lost love. Sometimes the simple things are the most impressive ones. Small change to the gallery link, IMHO this one fit’s better into the “Monuments and memorials” section. --Aristeas (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I positively think that each of your points is correct – just in the whole they miss the point. You’re supporting the object depicted, while on FPC we judge about the image taken of it. Your argument could, taken as it is, be applied to any image of any memorial in the world. This very cross here could have been taken in a much more breathtaking way I suppose – with a shorter focal length at shorter distance from a lower point in more appealing light, it could make an extraordinary image. This image is not extraordinary IMHO, while the cross as such still might be. --Kreuzschnabel 17:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, because Kreuz has proclaimed the downfall of the West if this photo won I remove my vote, “to save the FP badge’s value”, as Mr. Kreuz has put it. --Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The way in which the gravestone is interwoven with the environment is the deciding factor for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would oppose were it not for Aristeas' eloquent arguments, it does seem a little low on the 'wow' for me and I'm not sure the image quality is outstanding. Cmao20 (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452641 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, George, but no wow, and not special for the viewer. Hard light. Highly detailed cross and highly detailed background. We have an abundance of similar images, and I don't see this one being any more poignant or artistic than any other. -- Colin (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Midday summer light, not special enough for FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. Tomer T (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haane Manahi.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2022 at 03:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by George Robert Bull - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really striking portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the editing: the increased contrast (compared to the "original") looks good in some areas (e.g. the glossy parts of the skin), but it leads to loss of detail in the hair. More importantly, though, it makes the eyes even darker than they already are leading to an over-all less engaging image. Maybe check this again: At least of the non-calibrated monitor I'm looking at right now, I prefer the tones of File:Haane Manahi - Original.png (looking at the original files, not thumbnails). --El Grafo (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support regardless of the above, this is a fantastic shot. The only thing it's missing imho is some sparkle in the eyes (i.e. catchlights) - almost another Guerrillero Heroico. --El Grafo (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Sciurus alleni 57581141.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2022 at 00:23:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Sciuridae (Squirrels)
Info created by danygl - uploaded & nominated by Lupe -- Lupe (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lupe (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451185 10:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Great expression, but I find the tree distracting and I don't think you've got the room to crop further and have the image still be eligible. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little small but still FP to me Cmao20 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an exceptional squirrel photo, and very small for 2022. No exif. -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sciurus vulgaris 186868985.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2022 at 00:34:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Sciuridae (Squirrels)
Info created by Сергей Неклюдов - uploaded & nominated by Lupe -- Lupe (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lupe (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute, and also shows the winter coat nicely. --Aristeas (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than all but maybe one of the other FPs of this species. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Aristeas and Ikan --Kritzolina (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support with bonus points for the frontal view. --El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452540 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough in focus (depth of field). No EXIF so cannot see settings used. Unhelpful background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Sciuridae (Squirrels)

File:Caldera de las Cañadas 04.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2022 at 06:08:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain#Canary Islands
Info I nominated this picture already some years ago, but I withdrew because of some problems in editing. Now I made a new trial from the RAW files using another software, and I think, the result is better; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive landscape, the rocks look like sculptures. Gallery link fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Compare quality with this Featured picture [1] Je-str (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparing them I see advantages and disadvantages for both of them. The contrast is handled more gently in this photo (in the other one more shadows are almost black); however because of that strong contrast the midtones show more ‘clarity’ in the other one. The other photo seems sharper, but that could mostly be due to more sharpening in post (the border between hills and sky looks a bit like cut with a saw in the other photo; maybe the sky was processed separately with a mask with hard border?), in this photo some details appear less sharp, but in return more natural and appealing. In the end it comes down to the fact that both are different photos taken with different settings and processed differently; the other one was focussed more on the background, the present one more on the foreground, the other one was processed with stronger contrast and sharpening, this one with more gentle settings, etc. --Aristeas (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Both photos are interesting. One difference that to me is in favor of this one is that it lacks really blurry areas, which when they're in the foreground can be disconcerting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451372 15:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light in this picture is better than in the other one, where the rock is mostly dark in the shadow -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Please correct the double chain on the left under the rock pillar on the right. --Milseburg (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the hint --Llez (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand that the focus is on the roque on the right, on the roque Cinchado (the closest to the tip of the Teide), why did you choose to do so? I'm a bit confused because IMHO that should be the highlight of the image. Background information: the roque Cinchado is so popular that it was the main motif of the 1000 pesetas bank notes in Spain. Poco a poco (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reason is simple, BTW your comment is part of the answer: The Roque Cinchado is the most photographed object in this region, I also made photos of it (see e.g. here and we have already 3 FPs of the Roque Cinchado ([2], [3], [4], the last one by me) in which this rock is the main motif. I didn't want to nominate a fourth view, but to give an impression of the landscape around this rock, which is IMO also very impressive, especially the lesser known Roque Torrotito in the immediate vicinity of the well known Roque Cinchado. --Llez (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, you got my Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Spain#Canary Islands

File:Cangrejo hermitaño (Dardanus calidus), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-09, DD 47.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2022 at 12:58:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Diogenidae_(Left-handed_Hermit_Crabs)
Info Hermit crab (Dardanus calidus), Teno-Rasca marine strip, Tenerife, Spain. This species can grow to a length of 12 centimetres (4.7 in) and it uses large gastropod shells, such as those of Tonna galea and Charonia species for protection. This exemplar in particular used a Triton's trumpet (Charonia tritonis). Dardanus calidus is a scavenger, feeding on decaying matter from the sea bed. It has been collected from depths greater than 100 metres (330 ft), but is more typically found in shallower water, and it's spread from the East Atlantic (Portugal to Senegal) and Mediterranean Sea. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, the quality of this wild image cannot come close to the tank-based FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A matter of taste, I believe, some areas here have more detail, the antennae are complete and the lighting is much better (without strong shadows). I don't have to tell you the challenge of wild photography versus zoos. Poco a poco (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The light is really beautiful and gives (together with the limited DoF) the crab an impressive, three-dimensional look. --Aristeas (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451351 08:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Diogenidae_(Left-handed_Hermit_Crabs)

File:Splendid Fairywren 8352.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2022 at 10:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Maluridae (Australasian wrens)
Info Another beautiful bird from JJ Harrison, no FPs of this species. created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452334 15:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Do we know the subspecies? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 15:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Maluridae (Australasian wrens)

File:Spring forest Yyteri 3.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2022 at 10:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Finland
Info I thought the light and shadows in this picture were really compelling. created by Kallerna - uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent take on a classic theme (‘the winding road leading through the woods’, etc.). --Aristeas (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The spacing of the trees gives this photo a really nice rhythm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451270 15:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination! —kallerna (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nicely composed. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it slightly tilted in ccw direction? Poco a poco (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, also add the description in Russian. --Brateevsky {talk} 09:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition - Benh (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finland in one image. But actually a late winter scene. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Finland

File:Istanbul asv2021-11 img29 Aksaray PVS Mosque.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2022 at 12:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Other
Info Main gate of the Pertevniyal Valide Sultan Mosque (or Aksaray Mosque), Istanbul --- all by me --A.Savin 12:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 15:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an interesting subject documented in a useful but imho unexciting way. --El Grafo (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per El Grafo, too, but mainly due to the strong distortion on the right, you were too close to the subject. Poco a poco (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom corner is too close to the edge. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mediocre composition. Tomer T (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion at the right, per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo and KoH. Composition might improve with the trees, at least the one behind, being fully visible. What about the person resting on the cardboard, is it in the frame on purpose? --Kreuz schnabel 08:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 02:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 02:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papaya - longitudinal section.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2022 at 15:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great as usual. No whole fruit this time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The huge close-up is nice too -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very appetizing. --Aristeas (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:Piping plover chick (93850).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2022 at 21:06:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Charadrius
Info Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) are a small, near-threatened species of shorebird. Here in New York, there are a few protected areas they nest, and this chick was among the first to hatch. They can walk just hours after hatching and look like tiny cottonballs with legs running around the sand. They're so small and so well camouflaged that considerate birders watch where they step in the area, just in case. I debated whether to nominate this one or this one, and would be open to opinions as to whether I made the right choice. Obviously contrast is an issue with a light, sand-colored bird in its natural habitat, but I think this works. Note: As this is a sensitive species, I have not included a precise location (just the county/city), but I commit to updating the file with more specific categories and geotags when the breeding season is over. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bird disappears into the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Serves as a great example of crypsis. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank. --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451943 10:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Micha (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Cute but detail is rather low Poco a poco (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Charadrius

File:Knoblauchrauke (Alliaria petiolata)-20220502-RM-123023.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2022 at 09:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Brassicaceae
Info Flower of the garlic mustard flower. Focus stack of 15 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Today this plant is often handled as an irksome weed; you have managed to show it’s simple beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452584 08:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great combination focus / bokeh -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-done bokeh. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Brassicaceae

File:Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw building 0010.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2022 at 07:27:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
Info created by Wojciech Kryński - uploaded by Boston9 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive when viewed in full size; the twilight and the interior lighting add up to an atmospheric view. There are some dustspots in the sky; I will upload a ‘cleaned’ version in a few minutes. --Aristeas (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Patched black area (oops ;–) at top right corner; removed dust spots from the sky; reduced noise/JPEG artefacts in the sky. --Aristeas (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for the technical help! I need to wash my screen: did not notice those spots --Andrei (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451103 10:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too much empty sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:W.E.B. Du Bois by James E. Purdy, 1907.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2022 at 11:32:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by James E. Purdy, restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden, nominated by Yann (talk)
Support -- Yann (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well! Thank you again! Literally less than an hour since I finished it, no less! I did my best with a very... annoying restoration, and think it came out very well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great photo, but I think your restoration work is not yet quite complete. It's my opinion that the diagonal brown line on his shirt was not in the photo originally and should be removed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember collars used to be detachable. I think that's part of the collar/shirt combination. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case you might not know which line I'm referring to, I'll try marking it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's part of the stitching of the fancy lapels. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: It's probably obvious, but dark-skinned people in very bright clothes is a compromise in the limited dynamic range of historical photos. Took me ages to start to interpret it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451984 08:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Rufous Whistler 3344k - Capertee Valley.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2022 at 18:20:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pachycephala_(Typical_whistlers)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451145 08:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Axel ^(talk) 14:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pachycephala_(Typical_whistlers)

File:Portrait of Madame Dugazon (Louise Rosalie Lefèvre), in the title rôle of Nina (Scene V).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2022 at 19:48:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera
Info created by Jean-François Janinet, uploaded and restored by Adam Cuerden, nominated by Yann (talk)
Info Madame Dugazon (Louise Rosalie Lefèvre), actress at the Comédie Italienne in 1776 playing the title rôle in Scene V of Nicolas Dalayrac's Nina.
Support -- Yann (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well! Thank you, Yann! Most appreciated! Really happy with how well this came out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451230 15:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera

File:WikiProject Barnstar Hires.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2022 at 12:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Really nice barnstar image, good for a barnstar example. Created by Antonu - uploaded by Antonu - nominated by Ilovemydoodle -- Ilovemydoodle (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ilovemydoodle (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Tomer T (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image should be re-created using vector graphics as a SVG file. --Aristeas (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan, the format isn't really the problem. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basiliscus plumifrons 151415306.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2022 at 13:37:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Order : Squamata (Lizards and Snakes) Suborder:Iguania, Family:Corytophanidae
Info Female Green Basilisk (Basiliscus plumifrons) in Costa Rica, Tortuguero National Park. Created by Jan Ebr - uploaded & nominated by Lupe -- Lupe (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lupe (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uploading from iNaturalist means you might not have got the best resolution available. And it gives us no EXIF. The image is too dark and if it was lighter I think you might find it is too soft and possibly noisy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand iNaturalist gives you scientific value. Lupe (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. iNaturalist is a website for wildlife amateurs. It is, like Wikipedia, a great place to look, but I find many errors there. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The Research grade images are georeferenced time-referenced and have at least 3 identifications with at least 2/3 agreeing. The resulting datasets can be quoted with a doi making them usable for scientific papers Lupe (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. iNaturalist's Research grade is a junk description. iNaturalist is like Wikipedia - a great place to start with for an id, but not one to rely on. Don't you think this reptile is Basilicus vittatus and not Basilicis plumifrons? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The color of the juveniles is different from the adults, so I also looked both at B. plumifrons & B. vittatus juveniles and B. vittatus has pretty clear latereal stripes I don't see here. B. plumifrons usually has white dots I don't see here, but it also says they can be missing. The distribution range matches for both. --Lupe (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would put money on B. vittatus, having seen many live B. plumifrons in Costa Rica though I have never seen this species. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna take your word for it. Give me the literature references and I will change it Lupe (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in a similar vein to Charles. This doesn't measure up to the bigger, sharper amphibian pics we've been promoting lately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's a reptile Lupe (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reptiles, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan and Charles. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Lupe (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:View on Gyakar.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2022 at 19:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Excellent detail and beautiful contrast of the autumn colours of the village with the arid hills and snowy Himalaya. And the bridge on the gorge! Simply gorgeous. ^{(edit: no pun was intended)} Created and uploaded by Jmhullot - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautifully layered and 3-dimensional. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tightly framed; mountains are too close to the top edge. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, indeed a bit more sky would make the photo even more attractive ;–) What do you (all) think: Would it be ethically OK to add a little bit more (artificial) sky? The sky is almost featureless, so adding some artificial sky would not adulterate the photo. To make clear what I mean I will try to create and upload an ‘amended’ version; if you don’t like the result, we can just revert it. --Aristeas (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here’s my two cents: I actually don’t mind the top crop (imo it is sufficient except maybe in the top left corner, where the highest peak is a bit close to the edge). Idk if this makes sense, but I kinda think of the mountains as part of the sky. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A good view. Well, => here is a variant with a little bit more (artificial) sky added. (After some consideration I have uploaded it under a new name because the added sky may be seen as a serious change.) What do you think? Is this better or worse? Would we need even more sky? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, but then again it’s just more empty space. I’ll add it as an alt. :) UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The photo is indeed cropped too much at the top. But for me this is a special photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Famberhorst. --Aristeas (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC) — I prefer the alternative version, but this one is good, too ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452385 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I go for the alt version Poco a poco (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also prefer the alternative version --Lupe (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Thanks to Aristeas for a very well-done edit. Version with more sky added in. I Support both versions, since to me the crop is too inconsequential to the image as a whole. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit better, but not a real photo in a way. I don't think there's that big a difference, though I like the slight increase in sky in this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better. Yann (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Added sky. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No big difference, of course, but a bit more room to “breathe” for the mountains. --Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. I see nothing wrong with adding sky as long as the end result is an faithful representation of reality. After all, we do promote modern drawings, which are completely artificial additions to a blank canvas. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minor edit and it's documented, this version is better Poco a poco (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm inclined to agree with Diego/Poco (not sure which you prefer outwith the file pages). Some edits are much less... dangerous? than others. Flat sky colour is one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Princess Rosalina 💄 452800 08:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the edit is documented and this version with added sky is better --Lupe (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, fine capture. The added sky is a clear plus to the overall impression. Any edit that supports a nomination is an important input. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Nepal

The chosen alternative is: File:View on Gyakar (edited).jpg

File:Океанская тема.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2022 at 19:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks and minerals#Others
Info created and uploaded by AlexmarPhoto - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 08:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---Princess Rosalina 💄 451123 09:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk

) 14:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I couldn't guess what it was. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like a painting --Lupe (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abstract -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Ocean theme" ... why the title? Would make a great desktop, though. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out, I did not check the meaning of the file name. Will improve after the nomination. -- IamMM (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and minerals#Others

File:Lea Schneider bei Fokus Lyrik 2019 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2022 at 19:55:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info all by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing appealing about this. Photos of people in a panel with a mic in front of them are rarely appealing. Look at the other photos in the FP group. Not in the same league. -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. A good, but straightforward pic with nothing really breathtaking about it, in other words: no wow. FPC is not about good pictures, not even flawless ones, it’s about extraordinary, outstanding images. --Kreuz schnabel 17:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd turn the above argument around and say: For a portrait taken at some kind of panel, this is really good. It has decent lighting and a nice clean background. The mike I find very appropriate for a modern-day poet as long as it's not covering anything important. The only thing I don't quite like is the uneven stage make-up, but it makes sense for a "people at work" kind of shot. Looking at the bigger picture, this does indeed stand out among previously featured portraits, most of which are somewhat stiff and traditional-looking. This one follows a more modern approach with an intimate and dynamic composition that is not afraid to cut off the top of the head (how dare you! we don't do that here at Commons!) and has loads of negative space/lead room. --El Grafo (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per El Grafo's convincing analysis. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo --Lupe (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose [Later edit: I think the composition and cropping are ok, but the photo isn't impeccable from the technical point of view: with the shallow depth of field and high ISO count even the parts that are in focus have a somewhat soft appearance. I don't feel this is one of the best portraits on commons.] --Micha (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Unsuccessful crop at the top -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment missing on oppose vote

Question What do we do? Micha, you need to give a reason for opposing; otherwise, your vote should be invalidated, thereby causing this nomination to pass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Negative votes with no reason are not very constructive and fortunately extremely rare. The guidelines say "Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate" and "Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: No reason". Did this user found unnecessary to repeat "per Colin" like the three others above? It's a shame this vote occurs only 12 hours before the end of the voting period. Still I think in the past we used to validate such controversial scores, like here for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My feeling is that we can wait a day or two for Micha to give a reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fair, provided that the notifications are activated -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[OK] Resolved. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frauenkirche Dresden, Altarraum.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2022 at 15:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded by Raycer - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Kind of a busy composition, and a little too much noise. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. -- Karelj (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- IamMM (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plain tiger (Danaus chrysippus chrysippus) male underside Phuket.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2022 at 18:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info One current FP. Focus stack of ten images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A pleasure to look at. --Micha (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please reduce your sharpening settings. The plant is clearly oversharpened, and the butterfly would look more natural with less sharpening, too. And there is some posterization in the background, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451161 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree with Aristeas that there is as usual to much AI software in it but overall FP in this case to me Poco a poco (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:Mt Fairchild 2022.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2022 at 16:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Washington
Info created by Sea Cow - uploaded by Sea Cow - nominated by Sea Cow -- Sea Cow (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sea Cow (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know drone photo technology or the location, but this looks like the sort of image you could take from the ground with a better camera on a day with better weather. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better weather would have helped a lot here--Ermell (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and also too much less-interesting pine forest foreground to be great (as opposed to good). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It’s a nice idea and composition but needs better quality and light. Too soft at less than 6 megapixels. With a clear view, this could be great indeed. Has the sky been desaturated, or is it naturally that grey? --Kreuz schnabel 15:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks a bit too dark. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and strongly suggest nominator withdraw the nomination. This image has not gained any support beyond the nominator in several days here. It is very unlikely to succeed and there is no point in keeping it open.Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]
- Huh? Why does this image not meet our guidelines? Which guideline in particular is violated here? FPX is for images that are obviously entirely misplaced on FPC, and I cannot see this in this very nomination, even though its seeming to fail so far. Why don’t you want to allow the 9 day voting period here? --Kreuz schnabel 22:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I have changed it above. Perhaps we need to make some sort of template for this if {{FPX}} is not seen as appropriate. (As for your criticism, hasn't it generally been a rule in the past that images that receive no supports beyond the nominator in three days are taken down? At this point the nomination would need 13 supports to offset these opposes, and I have never seen that happen. I doubt you have either). Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Certainly not :) my point is that a lack of supporting votes just doesn’t mean the image nominated is against our guidelines for nominations. Yes, it could have been declined earlier but hasn’t. --Kreuz schnabel 17:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Sea Cow (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orangerotes Habichtskraut (Hieracium aurantiacum) Focus stacked-20220528-RM-172459.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2022 at 20:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Cichorioideae
Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I plan to nominate a photo by someone else next, but this is one of the best flower closeups I've seen, so I couldn't pass on nominating it. I love the details and the warm light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never seen this good of a close-up like this. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light is awesome -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Gallery link changed: the ‘plants’ galleries are somewhat tricky, there is a special page for the Asterales. --Aristeas (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, Aristeas. I didn't see that page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Stunning light! -- Radomianin (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Cichorioideae

File:Paterson Plank Road Jersey City November 2021.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2022 at 00:39:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice drone shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451562 15:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A nice one, is the rail much lower in terms of height that the road? My impression is that it is much lower looking at it like this, hard to believe (but possible). If that's not the case I suggest to apply some vertical perspective correction to "rise" the bottom half of the image Poco a poco (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, if you go to Google Maps you'll see that it's built on the side of a cliff. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Supporting in that case, thanks, Poco a poco (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support A view of a scene from my home state that I never would have imagined existed. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is nothinhg special for FP nomination here, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel the same --Lupe (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Exceptional perspective as usual with drone shots, but other than that nothing special. --Milseburg (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I looked at this picture a couple of times in order to find something exceptional, but it seems to be just an ordinary quality image taken by a drone. The roads aren't parallel, the rail road curves too much so that the bottom part is uneven at the sides, the bottom part also lacks vegetation and the waste in the middle is uninteresting, and the composition doesn't seem to be outstanding in this period of the year. It might work better if you try to catch a section where the roads are fully parallel with more vegetation sometime during late spring or early summer.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles

File:SBB RAe 4-8 Rheinbrücke Feuerthalen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2022 at 11:32:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by David Gubler - uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 11:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 11:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support would have preferred a different season, but nice composition --Lupe (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very eye-catching train, nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose I would have liked it more if it had been summer with the trees in full leaf. But on the other hand this allows you to see more of the surrounding cityscape. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Sargo real (Diplodus cervinus), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-09, DD 49.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2022 at 15:58:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Sparidae_(Porgies)
Info Zebra sea bream (Diplodus cervinus), Teno-Rasca marine strip, Tenerife, Spain. The zebra seabream has a high compressed laterally body with a pointed snout and thick lips. It's found in eastern Atlantic Ocean from Gulf of Biscay to South Africa and also in Mediterranean Sea. According to the fishing pressure which undergoes on the zebra seabream living area, it has a solitary or gregarious behaviour. The zebra seabream is carnivorous and its diet consist mainly in benthic food like sea urchins, worms and bivalve molluscs. Diplodus cervinus has many threats to its population. One of the threats is being overfished. The abundance has been reduced by 85% of the unexploited equilibrium level. Note: it would be the first FP of this species. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting fish and also the background with the different colors without distracting --Lupe (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice close-up. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know it was underwater, and it's generally a good pic. But you should see if you can do more about that noisy line on the back fin ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case: you meant the caudal/tail fin, right? I applied some denoising in that area Poco a poco (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Although it's under water, I'm not sure the focus is optimum here -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are 2 option in terms of focus, I either got the fish or the background, and if it had been the latter it wouldn't be a candidate. Regarding where the focus point is, I just installed this Lightroom plugin (no clue why Adobe is not providing this feature) to figure it out and it is quite in the middle of the fish, which is of couse a matter of luck underwater as I cannot prepare and shot as I can do over the surface. Poco a poco (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAICT it is only showing you the focus point you set, it's not telling you if the focus was proper, which is was Basile is skeptical about. - Benh (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not sure what we are discussing here. The focus is on the fish, the fish is flat and in a parallel plane to the chip on the camera, so the question about wheter the focus was on a proper spot is a secondary issue for this kind of subject. I'd understand this discussion with a subject with one end far from the camera and the other one much closer. Poco a poco (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems blurry. Motion blur at 1/250s? The tail is totally blurred and the fish seems to leave. Concerning the focus point, it also depends on the speed of the animal. Leaving fast = distance increased from the focus tracking to the shot recorded -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Sparidae_(Porgies)

File:Three-spot grass yellow (Eurema blanda blanda) underside Phuket.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2022 at 21:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info One of the common, but easily misidentified little grass yellows (about 20mm). Two existing FPs. Focus stack of ten images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both the butterfly and the flower in focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)

File:Wilhelm - Costume design for Arac, Gunon, and Scynthius (Princess Ida, 1884).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2022 at 11:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by William Charles John Pitcher - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 451118 08:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there anything out there about what the medium was? Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Watercolours and pencil on card. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I thought. Will categorize appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera

Eclosion of Melanitis leda leda, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2022 at 19:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Eclosion of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)
Eclosion of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)
Eclosion of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)
Eclosion of Melanitis leda leda (Oriental Common Evening Brown)

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created by Sarpitabose - uploaded by Sarpitabose - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question The first image isn't really part of the set. Do you have a final shot that doesn't crop the pupa? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: , Do you want me to remove the first image of matured pupa? I guess, there isn't any other shot for the final eclosion. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just my view; others may have different opinions. The last shot is a shame. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: Removing the first image of matured pupa. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting set, but sadly FP quality (imho too much is out of focus) is missing here. --Ivar (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Main parts are in focus. Focus stacking not a good option with this activity. --Axel ^(talk) 15:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The second picture is not FP-leveled in my view. Out of focus parts too blurry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based purely on technical picture quality, I think only the last photo is an FP, but I'm torn because the depicted process is fascinating. Therefore, I abstain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:06-วัดเบญจมบพิตรดุสิตวนารามราชวรวิหาร.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2022 at 05:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Thailand
Info created and uploaded by BerryJ - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The processing (?) is questionnable but the composition is gorgeous - Benh (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly per Benh. (It’s interesting that this photo did not win in WLM 2018 in Thailand – IMHO it’s a better monument photo than most of the Top 10 winning images.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC) – Strike out my vote until the end of the discussion about the genuity of the reflection. --Aristeas (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really a genuine reflection? TBH it's hard to believe -- both the clarity of the puddle water, and the fact that the distance between camera and gate must have been rather short, in comparison to the size of the temple the distance between gate and temple. --A.Savin 12:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I have asked myself the same and have taken a closer look before voting. There are some differences between the building façade and its reflection, e.g. some “smears” in the reflection and some additional highlights here and there, which show that the reflection is at least not a simple copy of the image of the façade. The reflection also shows both at the left and at the right margin an additional ridge turret (or however this may be called) which is not visible on the façade. And I did not find any very obvious transition problems at the borders of the puddle where the reflection ends. Of course I know this does not prove much, but at least the reflection is not just a simple copy, so that it would be a shame to fall for it ;–). IF the reflection is artificial, the counterfeiter has obviously made some effort to disguise it. – But what do our experts for fighting fake photos think on this one? --Aristeas (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a fake. If you take the photo, copy it into a layer, flip it and adjust it to 50% opacity, the building and reflection will fit exactly on each other. That doesn't happen with a real reflection. Since a reflection is always "looking up from underneath" the original, the horizontal distances between roofs and windows will be different in original and reflection. That is how you spot these fake reflections. Also most reflections will have a slight perspective distorsion. This one hasn't. There might have been som small puddles on the ground and the creator simply extrapolated on it. --Cart (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is identical but that cannot be. I also find the reflection far too bright. Still a very good fake job. --Poco a poco (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a fake reflection. The gates definitely aren't fake because they simply cannot be copied, mirrored and paste (or it's an extremely good job). And it's normal for the temple to match its reflection from where it is. - Benh (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder whether parts of the reflection (the gates, and maybe parts of the roofs of the building) are genuine and other parts, especially the central parts of the facade, are fake/artificial. --Aristeas (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's bit of a mix. The gates looks genuine but the middle is "enhanced". There is another one, File:001-วัดเบญจมบพิตรดุสิตวนาราม.jpg, by another user possibly around the same time since the puddles look much the same, and that image can't ge "flipped-matched" no matter how hard I try. --Cart (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I tried Google pics and I think a non-manipulated reflection at this spot must look like on this one, or this one. --A.Savin 02:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's because that second picture is not perfectly level contrary to that candidate. U could match with some slight perspective transformations - Benh (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose fake. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assuming the gates are genuine, we can affirm the water was still, and explain the overall sharpness. I looked a bit more carefully and the temple is definitely not a copy and paste. From that angle, it ought to look very similar, but there's a slight misalignment between elements of the roof which tells me it's also genuine reflection. Why would author do such a manipulation? - Benh (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reflection is not a copy-paste of the top. Agree with Benh there's a slight perspective effect leading to a tiny misalignment, indicating there are two different views. The camera was probably placed on the ground. However 1) the picture is Overprocessed, an impression several of us have here, and that can be confirmed by looking at the other uploads of the same user (example of over-vivid-saturated colors), and 2) the upper part of the image was manipulated because two branches of the roof have been deleted at the left and at the right (see image notes), while they are visible in the reflection. Enough clues to conclude to a fake IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all. I can't personally comment on whether it is fake or not, but due to the 5 comment on the undeclared manipulation I withdraw my nomination. --IamMM (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piscina de San Pedro, Marsaxlokk, isla de Malta, Malta, 2021-08-21, DD 36-46 PAN.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2022 at 21:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Malta
Info St. Peter's Pool, Marsaxlokk, Malta Island, Malta. The site, called in Maltese Il-Bajja ta Pietru, is a popular bay among tourists looking to snorkel. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{Panorama}} missing. One frame, center right, slightly suffers from motion blur -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ummhh, looking at it closely I see some room for improvement, will rather work on it and nominate it for FP later --Poco a poco (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

}

File:Anchusa officinalis inflorescence - Kulna.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2022 at 05:16:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Boraginaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. -- -donald- (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like other good focus-stacked pictures of flowers, this is a great document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and excellent quality. --Aristeas (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Boraginaceae

File:Gallito (Stephanolepis hispidus), franja marina Teno-Rasca, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-06, DD 16.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2022 at 06:38:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Tetraodontiformes
Info Planehead filefish (Stephanolepis hispidus), Teno-Rasca marine strip, Tenerife, Spain. This species of bony fish grows to a maximum length of 27 centimetres (11 in) but is more typically about 17 centimetres (6.7 in) long. The fish is laterally compressed and deep bodied. Planehead filefish are sexually dimorphic and are found in the Atlantic Ocean at depths of up to 300 metres (980 ft). Its range extends from Nova Scotia to Uruguay in the west and from the Canary Islands to Angola in the east. It is found near the seabed on reefs and over sandy and muddy sea floors. The age of the fish is established by using the fast and slow growth rings found in the anterior dorsal fin spine. The species has a lifespan of about three years and reaches half its final length by the end of its first year. Note: we have no FPs of this family. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452038 08:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low contrast and not shrap enough. -- Karelj (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish Poco a poco (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support no big wow and slightly blurry. By the way there is an image of the family listed in the FP gallery (also by you) --Lupe (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe: It doesn't see blurry to me at all, but fine. Please, consider that so far we had only aquarium and dead (or at least out of the sea) images of this species, which is not so often and in fact is hard to photograph, as far as I can say. The existing FP belongs to the family Balistidae, this one to the family Monacanthidae. So, different families but same order, Tetraodontiformes. Poco a poco (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's listed in the wrong family? --Lupe (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, you mean the link above, ok, I fixed it, thanks. Poco a poco (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Order_:_Tetraodontiformes

Orangerie Kassel, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2022 at 02:40:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Kassel Orangery, left pediment
Kassel Orangery, right pediment

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info The left and the right pediment of the baroque Orangery in Kassel; all by me --A.Savin 02:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 02:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant and impressive set. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done. It does almost look like the same picture --Lupe (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Walls

File:Gabrielé Castagnola - Love or Duty.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2022 at 11:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Duos (depictions of two people)
Info created by Gabriele Castagnola, restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden, nominated Yann (talk)
Info Chromolithograph of Love or Duty by Gabrielé Castagnola, printed by Hangard-Mangué, Paris. Depicts Lucrezia Buti and Filippo Lippi, like many of Castagnola's works. The nineteen colour blocks on the lower right hand side show the many inks used in this chromolithograph.
Support -- Yann (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support You are being exceedingly kind, Yann. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colour blocks and the registration marks are really interesting; such stuff normally does not appear in production prints, they give us a little insight in the “making of”. --Aristeas (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I propose another gallery link? The People page is used only for photographs, this picture fits better into our “Non-photographic media” gallery pages, so I have changed the link to People#Duos (depictions of two people). --Aristeas (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, think it makes it very useful, especially in Chromolithography articles. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restoration of a beautiful lithograph. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The man from Gianyar (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/People#Duos (depictions of two people)

File:Moonflower Canyon across the Colorado River near Moab City, Utah.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2022 at 08:50:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Colorado
Info created by Bernd Thaller, Flickr - uploaded by RTG - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little dark in the shadows, but great composition and symmetry overall. --Axel ^(talk) 14:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is good but the sky, which was darkened afterwards and not quite cleanly, is disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ermell, the sky doesn't look natural Poco a poco (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If the sky was darkened. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Judging by the whiteness of the clouds, their contrast to the sky and the saturated colours it seems like a polarising filter was used. Nothing wrong with that. --Micha (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree that a polarizer is definitely in play here. But ... there is an almost continuous slight halo on the ridgeline, and I would like to know more about that. Also the filename could be better. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Filename can be changed. Tomer T (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too contrasted. It looks overprocessed -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mount Washington Cog Railway October 2021 012.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2022 at 04:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the apparent simplicity and innocence. Would be a good cover photo for a novel by Stephen King: It looks so pretty, nice and neat, but behind such friendly façades often lurks the true horror. --Aristeas (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intriguing in its simplicity. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very pretty motif, but I think I'd like it better if you backed up a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Lupe (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Upper right corner cropped. The lower left corner is fine, but the asymmetry spoils the composition in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing wrong with it, but I miss something here, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trappe til nordre ringgade.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2022 at 10:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Denmark
Info created & uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks to Tomer T! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like entrance into public free toilets. Nothing for FP nomination here at all, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the symmetry and how the picture captures what I imagine was the intention of the architect - the play of forms and light. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Kritzolina. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detail resolution could be better, but the composition is good, as explained by Kritzolina. Even if this really was the entrance into public free toilets, this would not reduce the value of the form. In general, it is more difficult to create good photos of ordinary or nasty things; everybody can take a nice photo of a beautiful flower, but it needs artistic skills to photograph the ugly and boring in an appealing way. --Aristeas (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have nothing to add to the above comments --El Grafo (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job Poco a poco (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting to me. Well-done, sure, but nothing incredible to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea and nicely done. The uninteresting foreground is too dominant though IMHO. Crop suggestion added (on nomination page), that might make it more appealing. --Kreuz schnabel 15:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good suggestion. No promises, but I'd definitely reconsider if that crop were made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you apply the suggested crop, please upload the cropped file under a new name and offer it here as an alternative – the crop is very interesting, but it certainly changes the effect of the photo, therefore please don’t just replace the original version with it. --Aristeas (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded a cropped version. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI feel this new crop is way too tight, the first version was a lot better - *sigh* now we do have a problem, I don't really want to withdraw my support for the original image, but can't really support this one ... --Kritzolina (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with undoing the cropped version - please help me. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. --Kreuz schnabel 22:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Personally, I prefer the original version. The front space, in my humble opinion, gives the picture more room to grow. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Villy Fink Isaksen: : I’d suggest to withdraw this nomination and place another one with the two versions as a set, so we’ll get a clear voting. Winning this one (as it seems) might keep you from nominating the other crop. --Kreuz schnabel 08:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this one.. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A soothing architectural abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me even though you could've removed the white wipe.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Many bricks converging in an interesting way, but the disgusting yellow drippings at the top of the wall repel me -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose distracting foreground --Lupe (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors#Denmark

File:Conehead mantis.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2022 at 19:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Empusidae
Info created by Mkrc85 - uploaded by Mkrc85 - nominated by Lodewicus de Honsvels -- Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no idea what's going on, but whatever it is, it isn't in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed. Nice composition, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Could be great, pity it's blurred. --Kreuz schnabel 06:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting idea, but per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sasheer Zamata (81960)b.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2022 at 02:45:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events
Info Sasheer Zamata is an American comedian who was on Saturday Night Live and does work in support of women's rights for the ACLU. Here she's performing a stand-up routine at the Tribeca Film Festival, during an event about the Time's Up movement. I've been debating whether to nominate this for a while, because it clearly isn't the best technical portrait we have, but it covers several subjects we don't have many FPs of and I think the quality is good enough for the context. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good portrait. I think it deserves the star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good facial expression and posture. I know nothing about her, but I am immediately impressed and interested (much more than by most photos of so-called celebrities); this means it’s a good portrait. --Aristeas (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this, even if the background is a bit dark. And I would like to see this Picture featured, because it would be one of the few portraits of women in that gallery that are neither historical nor sexualized or exoticized. --Kritzolina (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI now realize that this is not going under portrait, but under people at work ... where there are more interesting images. I am a bit confused why some of them are there and not under portrait, perhaps exactly for that reason? --Kritzolina (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction is a little unclear. Based on the current taxonomy, I tend to think of portraits as depicting people sitting/standing/posing for the portrait (intent/context) while "people at work" is for people actively engaged in their work. Maybe it would make sense to have something like a "performing arts" section, of which "musicians and singers performing" would become a subsection. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a good idea! El Grafo (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Expressive and definitely FP-worthy. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think too much noise reduction and loss of fine details Ezarateesteban 21:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see her doing something post-SNL ... I felt sorry for her there because she never really found her niche (and it didn't help that she got so easily overshadowed by Leslie Jones). Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People_at_work

File:Will Burgdorf Fotografie Selbstporträt.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2022 at 22:18:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1930-1940
Info created around 1930 by Will Burgdorf - uploaded by User:Bernd Schwabe in Hannover - nominated by Karl Oblique -- Karl Oblique (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karl Oblique (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, This photo is absolutely tiny, way smaller than the bare minimum size of 2 megapixels. Since it's already a blur at its current size, please don't try enlarging it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Size doesn't always matter; also, there's no larger file of this image to be found on the web currently. Furthermore, I don't believe a larger file size is going to change the impression we're getting from this photo. – The photo is a great example of pictorialist style and I like it a lot. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too blurry and per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- COM:VIC might fit better. --A.Savin 10:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's supposed to be blurry - with the size still no FP --Lupe (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. It is impressive but certainly not one of our very finest. What about the white edge on the left? --Kreuz schnabel 15:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely too small, per Ikan, and with a weird white line at the left, as noticed by Kreuzschnabel -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also so see a problem in the white edge, but I also see a work of art here. The blur is definitely intentional and part of the composition - without it the picture would not have the Wow for me that it definitely has. I agree with Frank on most things and would support if the white edge can be fixed. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a slightly higher-resolution version, although I can't tell if it is of higher quality. Updated with the suggested crop. As a general note: I've shown this to a few people and something like 25 % are completely blown away by the optical illusion it creates while the rest looks at me as if they are worried for my mental health. So this may be somewhat similar to that golden or blue dress from a few years back. In any case, it was always obvious that it wasn't going to impress with its pixel count, and applying such criteria to art may be easy, but wrong. Karl Oblique (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty strict rule. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should talk about this rule for historical images of articstic value, but with the current version, we now have a white line at the bottom that would need to be cropped and a white spot in the upper right corner that should be easy enough to fix --Kritzolina (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A very interesting photo, educative and inspiring, but what we would feature here is a reproduction of that photo and to do this we need a reasonable reproduction, i.e. sufficient resolution and quality. The original is intentionally mostly out of focus, right, but I want to see this in the reproduction for sure and to study the gradation from sharp to unsharp etc., and therefore I need a certain resolution and quality. --Aristeas (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just too small, even allowing for its artistic merit. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the new version has a big watermark across his chin. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scarlet lily beetles (Lilioceris lilii) mating.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2022 at 20:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Chrysomelidae (Leaf Beetles)
Info Having a break from destroying my lilies. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ok for me Ezarateesteban 21:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Consistent DoF. This couple is not shy -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for photographing this couple instead of killing them immediately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Did you know that these beetles can shriek (not very loudly)? --Schnobby (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support how did you manage that they just stopped doing that during the series of your focus stack? Poco a poco (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They probably like it sloooow ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support More insect pr0n! Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 04:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family : Chrysomelidae (Leaf Beetles)

File:Bank of China Tower massing model.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2022 at 16:29:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
Info created and uploaded by Cmglee - nominated by -- Benh (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the most eye catchy, but very clean and made very clear to me the principles behind the tower design. I think all diagrams should be like this. -- Benh (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Why 1x, 2x, 3x and then 5x, skipping 4x? I think because of en:Tetraphobia - Benh (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might just be for aesthetic reasons. In any case, I'm inclined to Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good diagram, but why would it merit a feature? I'm inclined to oppose on the basis that it's not interesting enough to feature (imagine this as Picture of the Day!) but would be a very good VI, but talk to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it really improves the en:Bank_of_China_Tower_(Hong_Kong) article and help understanding why the tower looks the way it does. It's not outstanding, but at least clean and flawless. And that's really what diagrams should be IMO. It can also make one reading the associated article when put in a front page of Commons (though this is more an en:FP thing). Finally beauty is sometimes in the simplicity :) - Benh (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this is a little too simple to feature, I think. I'll sleep on it, though, and decide tomorrow. Thanks for giving me your take. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for your support. If there's anything I can do to improve it (or make it less simple, e.g. texture or drop shadow), please let me know. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 01:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not considered suitable here, I'd try it on en:WP:FPC, which has much more of an encyclopedic value consideration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said it's flawless... so... but since u propose, maybe a bit more room between each step. And yes, if it fails here, you may want to nominate on en:FPC. That diagram is worth being promoted somewhere. - Benh (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Benh Many thanks for your compliment! cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 13:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a good diagram, but looks too simple to be an FP IMO. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment. I think "too simple" does not quite hit the point there. Having an appropriate level of abstraction is an important trait of a good illustration, and I think this one is almost 100% spot-on in that regard. It would make a great VI, but it is not flawless. 1) Conceptually: The whole nX thing only becomes clear after reading the description and looking at a picture like File:Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong.jpg. And even afterwards, I don't quite understand how this would be relevant for what's being shown here. 2) Visually/aesthetically: I don't want to go into too much detail here*, but in essence, the balance between thickness of outlines, fonts size, size and visual weight of operators and spacing between elements and sub panels is off. It feels crammed, and the labels, pluses and arrows are a tad too dominant. The chosen colors remind me of 1990's Excel defaults for diagrams, which were easy to distinguish but not particularly pleasing to the eye, to say it mildly. The shading successfully delivers a 3D feeling, but I've got the feeling that reserving the brightest/punchiest colors for the small triangles on top may not help with visual attractiveness. --El Grafo (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC) *Sorry, can't help it: One problem is that the pyramid in the second panel from the right is poking out of the whole arrangement in a way that is not balanced with what the nX are doing. That could be counter-balanced by moving the nX further up, but then you increase the white space between them and the drawing below. Balance that by moving the panels further apart (too tight anyway), keep adjusting until everything falls into place. Alternatively, putting the nX below the towers, maybe even removing them completely, might work better. Sorry again, I'll shut up now.[reply]
@El Grafo Many thanks for the constructive feedback. I appreciate your detailed roadmap to act on. Happy to learn more about graphic design. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 13:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just some ideas that may or may not work ... El Grafo (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, but please nominate to COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Tight crops on side, and it's really hard to understand just from the image what this is intending to demonstrate. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cenotaph sketch by Lutyens.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2022 at 22:00:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Others (probably? It's a little hard to classify)
Info created by Edwin Lutyens - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too simple for a feature IMO. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historically interesting for me to make it as FP and very well restored --Kritzolina (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me, this is a valuable VI, not a picture to feature as outstanding to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the detail of the hand-drawn inkwork. You can disagree. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong; I like it, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We have thousands of documents like this on Commons. Not one of the best IMO. Simple sketch with nothing more. Technical drawing, far from a piece of art. Subject in itself boring in my subjective view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's by a famous architect of probably his most famous creation, and I think I did a great job restoring it. Are all architect plans invalid for FPC? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the original, almost no difference in my point of view, concerning the restoration. But as part as the original is concerned, it is not an exception design. Vertical and horizontal lines drawn with a ruler, then a short caption, finished. No wow, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could imagine some complex architectural plans for some Gothic or Renaissance buildings that could merit a feature, for example, and possibly some Neo-Gothic ones. I think they would probably require a level of complexity as well as beauty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chamaeleo namaquensis 661138.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2022 at 13:58:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Chamaeleonidae (Chameleons)
Info Namaqua Chameleon (Chamaeleo namaquensis) in the Namib Desert of Namib-Naukluft National Park‎ in Namibia. Created by i_c_riddell - uploaded & nominated by Lupe -- Lupe (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lupe (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred on the head. Has someone just placed a dead bug in the sand? 15:28, Charlesjsharp (talk) 9 June 2022 (UTC)

About the bug maybe, but speculating about the interaction between the chamaeleon and the person is part of what makes the picture interesting to me. It does tell a short story. You see where the chamaeleon was coming from, what it is focused on right now and what it wanted to do next. Maybe the person also wanted to take the bug away to lead the animal somewhere else or just stop it right before it's eating the bug since there are no finger marks in the sand. I don't see any manipulation with the hand clearly visible and I also don't think the head is blurred. --Lupe (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I find the hand and the fingers distracting. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting hand, weird setting, narrow depth of field -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dark blue tiger (Tirumala septentrionis septentrionis) male underside Phi Phi.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 19:43:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info One FP of a different subspecies. All by Charlejsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The man from Gianyar (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good light on the butterfly but damaged wing and ugly blurred foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:Ice tube.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 03:34:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
Info Wiki Science Competition 2017/Winners. Created by Erwan AMICE - uploaded by AMICE - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original. Difficult shot under water and in the cold. Professional photographer working at the French National Centre for Scientific Research -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view! -- Wolf im Wald 07:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay 💬 13:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something really new! Yann (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but a little explanation of what tool was used to drill this ice tube would be helpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer questioned. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ermell (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating capture. It embodies claustrophobia and hope, imo. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for obvious reasons, but like most of the candidates that emerged from the Wiki Science Competitions, the educational value of this is disappointingly low. Not because there would be anything wrong with the picture, but because there's no informative description. What's the point of the hole? I'm sure they're doing amazing research in there, but what is it about? --El Grafo (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the comments above, what is the purpose of getting into a hole with chilly water? it would be also great to know about the diving equipment used, it must be a dry suit probably with internal heating. The image would definitely benefit from a WB improvement to get it blueish instead of greenish. --Poco a poco (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC) PD: Btw, the detail is just ok.[reply]
Support Just seeing that divers have to do this sort of thing for the sake of science is, to me, educational enough. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Longer story can be read from here. Kruusamägi (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Author's comment imported to the file page. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena#Ice

File:Porta Nigra morgens.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 08:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info 270 megapixel stitching of UNESCO World Heritage Site Porta Nigra at Trier, Germany. All by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 08:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 08:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive detail of course. Two issues I don’t like too much: 1. Sharpening. Looks slightly oversharpened to me, there is a tiny sharpening edge visible against the sky (at the resolution given, this is top-level complaining of course). The image should not need that much sharpening. 2. The dominating foreground shadow, blocking the viewer from the building somehow. I’d prefer most of that cut off. --Kreuzschnabel 08:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't really like the shadow either. But the location is quite difficult. There are only a few days of the year when the north facade of the building is illuminated by the sun early in the morning. As you can see, the picture was taken on June 19th., one of the longest days of the year. Unfortunately, you have to choose between the shadow and a bad light (too lateral). I didn't cut off the shadow any further because then I would have to cut off the sky as well and I don't think that would look so good. I think the building needs its space! ;-) -- Wolf im Wald 08:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - We’re entering into matters of taste here. Yes, it needs space, and with the shadow part, I get an impression of space being taken from the frame instead of granting more of it. The building is somewhat crammed between two large unicoloured areas – foreground and sky. A crop as suggested might even free it. --Kreuzschnabel 08:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see what you mean and thank you for the suggestion above. I tried this out in Photoshop and I have to say that I like it better with more shadow. But you're right, it's probably a matter of taste! I just don't like the main subject (almost) hitting the bottom edge of the picture. I'm curious what others think about it. -- Wolf im Wald 08:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about brightening the shadow then? and not only the street part, I think the whole pic would benefit from some toned down contrast (just my 2 cts). - Benh (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because no one has voted here yet, I just uploaded a new version with a little lighter shadow. It was important to me not to falsify the original lighting mood too much, so I only brightened it up slightly. Thanks for your feedback! -- Wolf im Wald 09:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Am I the only one who likes the shadow that produces such a contrast with the lighted gate? I'm reminded somewhat of the monumental paintings of De Chirico with long shadows. The shadow helps provide this photo of a Roman monument with a sense of monumentality. This is also a huge and impressively sharp photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredibly detailed and pin-sharp. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent.--Ermell (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge resolution, interesting architecture, and the light on the building is pleasant. Still agree that de shadow on the ground is unsuccessful, but overall the illuminated parts are dominant -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Poco a poco (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't know we had Category:Arecaceae in Germany as a category until this image ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany

File:Ramzovské sedlo, Czech Republic - small wooden hut.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2022 at 12:33:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Czech_Republic
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too dark for me, but that may be what you intended. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classic rural Central Europe... --SHB2000 (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough in my view. The light is unexceptional. Overall dark. Gray vegetation -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of the look of Communist-era Eastern bloc films, the cool kind you had to go out of your way to see ... ordinarily I'd oppose due to the subdued color, but here I think it makes the image appropriately moody. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too subdued for me. The hut has a kind of appealing minimalism of design, but while I do consider this a good and well-composed photo, it doesn't overwhelm me such that I'd vote to feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good picture, but too dark for my tastes. Perhaps it could go at Quality images? – The man from Gianyar (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly VIC in the right scope, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Государственный музей А.С. Пушкина 5.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 07:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info created by User:Ulaisaeva - uploaded by User:Ulaisaeva - nominated by Ulaisaeva -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, but shadows too dark and the bright areas too bright. Both missing details. Another motif could use the strong contrast, but not this one with the sculptures. Square format would helo a little bit too. Correction of horizontals would be good. A minor disturbing element is visible bottom left and should be cloned out. --XRay 💬 13:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If I didn't see color noise, I'd support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights and lack of details on the parts in the shadow -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have suggested a crop but as Ikan and Basile noted there are also non-trivial technical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saltair-Pavilion-1900.jpeg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2022 at 03:21:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The original Saltair Pavilion at the Great Salt Lake in Utah, 1901 (colorized).

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1900-1910
Info created by Detroit Publishing Co. - uploaded by Eubulides - nominated by FormalDude. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before looking in details, please could you deleted the black line at the right and the black spot at the upper left corner? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Basile Morin: Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Also the link to the original source does not work, apparently. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compared to other versions of this photo, like here or there, this nomination suffers from excessive contrasts with blown highlights noticeable in the sky and the snow of the mountains, and /or saturation of the artificial colors. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trèfle des prés (Trifolium pratense).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2022 at 08:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fabaceae
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 08:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 08:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but compo (busy background), light (midday sunlight) and resolution are imo not outstanding. Compare with these: 1, 2 and 3. --Ivar (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Especially considering how common this flower is, Ivar's point is very persuasive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your remarks. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 11:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pärnu rannaniidu matkarada 2022. aasta juunis.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2022 at 09:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Estonia
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support though maybe a bit more NR in the sea/sky won't hurt. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but not a compelling enough scene to me in this light and weather. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exactly per ikan Kekek. --Cayambe (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dwarsdoorsnede van een gesloten bloem van een paardenbloem (Taraxacum officinale) 08-05-2022. (d.j.b).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2022 at 15:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Cichorioideae
Info Cross section of a closed flower of the dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Focus stack of 24 photos.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed and educational. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 05:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support All the same, maybe the highlight on the center of the flower could be dialed down just a bit. Daniel Case (talk)

Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately there is not enough room for it upstairs.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Cichorioideae

File:Коломенское 35.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2022 at 16:50:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Asteroideae
Info created by Ulaisaeva - uploaded by Ulaisaeva - nominated by Ulaisaeva -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB off (blueish colours), poor quality (block artifacts in sky), and I cannot see any inspired composition here, it looks like an arbitrary framing with the flowers cut off on the left. --Kreuz schnabel 22:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wouldn't say poor quality - the artifacts aren't that obvious at full size on my 13-inch monitor, only on my 23.5-inch - but this is FPC, not QIC, and I don't see much in the way of composition, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance is wrong -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB, per others, and contrast is too watered-down. Also, beyond the {possibly oversaturated) color, it doesn't stand out much from our other sunflower photos. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:The geologic map of the Moon at 1-2.5M scale.png, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2022 at 01:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Other maps
Info created by Jinzhu Ji, Dijun Guo, Jianzhong Liu, Shengbo Chen, Zongcheng Ling, Xiaozhong Ding, Kunying Han, Jianping Chen, Weiming Cheng, Kai Zhu, Jingwen Liu, Juntao Wang, Jian Chen, Ziyuan Ouyang - uploaded by MChinaGA - nominated by MChinaGA -- MChinaGA (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info see the original file for higher resolution -- MChinaGA (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MChinaGA (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. Some captions are a bit hard to read (they should have used an even higher resolution ;–), but nevertheless a great achievement. --Aristeas (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others --El Grafo (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still amused by the use of "geology" in the title ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps#Other maps

File:Anefo 932-2378 Keke Rosberg, Zandvoort, 03-07-1982 - Restoration.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2022 at 09:05:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Hans van Dijk - originally uploaded by CatRacer22 - restored and reuploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you so much for the nomination! Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but his face in shadow is not causing this photo to strike me as compelling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jacket collar shadow. Indistinct eyes. Busy background -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others plus busy background. Not bad at all but not outstanding either --Kreuz schnabel 06:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's an F1 racing driver (more like legend) in his native environment thus we get "busy background" and "collar jacket"... It's a characteristic photo of Rosberg which is good enough for me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Just doesn't stand out for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm fine with everything else mentioned above, but having the eyes hidden in the shadows like that just doesn't work for me. --El Grafo (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coral (Favia favus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-27, DD 12.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2022 at 10:09:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Coral (Favia favus), Ras Muhammad National Park, Red Sea, Egypt. This species of stony corals is massive and forms thickly encrusting dome-shaped colonial corals. There is a great diversity of form even among the same species. The corallites project slightly above the surface of the coral and each has its own wall. The septa and costae linked to the corallite wall are well developed and covered by fine teeth. The polyps only extend and feed during the night. Each one has a small number of tapering tentacles which often have a darker coloured tip; these are called stinger tentacles, or sweeper tentacles. They use these to sweep the water to see if any other coral is in its area; if so, then they begin to sting the other coral. This is commonly known as coral war. Each coral is trying to make sure it has enough room around it so it can continue to grow and have more surface area for its offspring. Note: we have no FPs of this genus. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality for underwater picture. Attractive light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa

Barbatia amygdalumtostum valves, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2022 at 06:37:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Right valve
Left valve

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Arcidae
Info This species has the common name "Burnt-almond Ark", the same is for the scientific name: amygdalum = almond, tostum = burnt, the species was originally placed in the genus Arca = Ark; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive work as usual. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Certainly a VI, but I don't find this shape special for FP. Or maybe that's because we've had hundreds of similar nominations before, that one looks a bit boring in comparison -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please give at least some links to the "hundreds of similar nominations before" as FPs, for I didn't find them --Llez (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, etc. See?

This is like a building, in my opinion. The fact that this building exists somewhere in the world does not necessary mean its architecture is incredible, and thus automatically an FP. We're here to select the best images in some categories. The building needs to be interesting in itself, special in its kind, having shapes particularly attractive, so that the "wow factor" is there. -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This are Bivalves, most of your links (with the exception of link 1 and 2, the right and the left valve of the same species in a nomination of a set) are gastropods, a completely different group of animals. Please remember: We have more than 80.000 known Mollusc species, why should only 2 or 3 worth to be a FP? If you argue in this way, please have in mind that we have "only" 70.000 vertebrate species (Fishes, Amphibs, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals). Following your arguments it would be enough to have 20 FPs of Vetrebrates. But please count the birds alone, you never opposed a nomination of a bird with this argument. Why not? The same is with the insects. How many butterflies do we have? More than five? I think so. How many landscapes, how many buildings, churches,... and so on. --Llez (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely wrong to pretend I never opposed a nomination of a bird with this argument. We can dig the archives to exhume these reviews if you want. Pigeons and chickens that were "not special enough" for FP, like this shell, have been declined.
The fact there are 80'000 town halls or theaters somewhere doesn't mean all of them should be promoted at FPC. Only the most interesting ones, IMO. Image guidelines: must have a "wow factor". Valued Images have different requirements, and all of these pictures could find a place there, with a right label. But here we need a bit of emotion.
It would be the same for a fish, a flower, a beetle, a microbe, or anything else: Banal shape = Ordinary subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Looks great, as usual, but I kind of agree with Basile, I also feel some kind of tiredness about shells, specially if their shape is kind of boring Poco a poco (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a beautiful shell to me, not so ordinary. Obviously, people can differ on that, and it's not as spectacular as some. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Basile. Also, I see here lots of incredibles photos of moving subjects taken in the wild which use better settings (not such a narrow aperture, stack focusing and all) and as a result are sharper than this. I'm not sure why we are this complacent with these shells, which surely are interesting, but not from a photographic point of view IMO. - Benh (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Arcidae

File:Buttery Meadow on Yelagin Island SPB.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2022 at 13:20:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I entirely miss the wow here, and most certainly it’s only me. So what exactly in this pic is supposed to be outstandingly special? --Kreuz schnabel 19:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The greenery is too dominant. 40% of the image is covered in boring grass. Thus the buildings seem anecdotal in this composition, and they're also partially hidden -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has little wow, and I also don't get the pattern (it's not only you @Kreuzschnabel: . - Benh (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay, it was a stupid experiment. I withdraw my nomination --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acanthite - Imiter mine, Jbel Saghro, Tinghir, Drâa-Tafilalet, Morocco.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2022 at 13:10:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by Ivar (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would strongly suggest adding this to articles and nominating it at en-wiki too. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating shape. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals

File:Paul Cézanne - Mont Sainte-Victoire and the Viaduct of the Arc River Valley (Metropolitan Museum of Art).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2022 at 16:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Paul Cézanne, uploaded by Crisco 1492, nominated by Yann (talk)
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfectly good reproduction, but I think it really pales in greatness, compared to the super-sharp extreme closeups we've been featuring that are by museums or the Google Art Project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan is right, but it still impresses me much; resolution and sharpness are sufficient to study the brushwork (that’s my personal resolution requirement for reproductions of this kind of paintings). --Aristeas (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support partially as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas; I'd say it's better than another digitization of a Cézanne landscape we have, View of Auvers-sur-Oise, which I wrote an article about (although, to be fair, the main reason I wrote the article about it was that it was stolen from the Ashmolean in 2000, and thus it has been impossible since then to get any better digitization of it). Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You take what you can get, but seeing that that reproduction is below the absolute minimum size for FPC, that seems like a very weak reason to support this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stata Center (05659).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2022 at 02:32:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Other
Info The Stata Center is a well-known Frank Gehry building at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When I visited, I took the usual pictures of the front facades, but wound up spending more time trying to capture other areas. This was taken from a second-floor balcony. Neither element is particularly striking on their own, but I like the juxtaposition of color, style, and light/shadow. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An exemplary detail of the building, well captured and beautiful, and an interesting composition thanks to the juxtaposition. --Aristeas (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Aristeas --Kritzolina (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 11:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull sky. This metallic roof is interesting, but the light uncompelling. I would need a blue hour or something special to find this view attractive -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I might ordinarily follow Basile on this, but here I think the dull sky actually helps us focus on the architecture and the patterns it makes. With a bright blue sky, particularly with the same clouds, the image might seem too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good and the items different but the result isn't extraordinary to me, I still one more ingredient that provides some wow here, sorry, Poco a poco (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not really convinced --Lupe (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 08:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petani padi.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2022 at 07:03:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Indonesia
Info created& uploaded by Imadedana - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The man from Gianyar (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Peaceful. Beautiful landscape under special clouds, nice reflection and attractive view. A shame for the blown highlights in the sky that could have been better managed with HDR / tripod -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Basile.--Ermell (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I saw the thumbnail, I was sure this was by Basile Morin. Imagine my surprise when it wasn't! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Tony --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also thought it was a Basile shot. Very nice mood - Benh (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Agriculture#Indonesia

File:Reflections of the Elbphilharmonie in the Kehrwiederfleet 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2022 at 09:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info The Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg has windows that are designed to create an illusion of waves. In this picture sun-reflections from those windows are again reflected on the water of the channel below the building. All by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the reflections don't look interesting to me --Lupe (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a nice idea but does not work at all without explanation. If you’d find a viewpoint to get the building into the frame, that might work as a picture. --Kreuz schnabel 06:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This works well to me purely as a composition, and the file description provides sufficient explanation to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something completely different, like non-objective art. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original nomination, but anecdotal motif, in my view. This chaotic pattern, lost in a flat surface, seems rather banal in its form. Technically, some parts of the luminous squares are burned out, with blue chromatic aberrations around. The building is not visible, so no link is explicit. Like a focus on an insignificant detail, or an ordinary phenomena captured, overall I feel there's nothing special out of there. Unbalanced composition with hazardous framing, and at full resolution the texture has not the homogeneous charm of this aspect for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though the discussion seems to be already decided, I want to give this picture some love. Because although the counter-arguments are plausible, I personally like this picture very much; obviously it is a matter of taste. Technically, the CAs could easily be removed; the fact that the highlights are broken out is not a bad thing in my opinion, since they are strong reflections that simply have to be 100% white. The decisive question here is whether the composition appeals to you or not. It has been called chaotic; that is not wrong, but a bit austere – one can very well sense the underlying window grid. I am reminded of some of Paul Klee’s abstract paintings, which also live from the fact that a grid is (apparently randomly) only partially filled with little squares of colour; and indeed the value of this painting lies in this, in the abstract composition that combines chance and order. --Aristeas (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that's an apt comparison. And it won't surprise you that I love Klee's works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:PuckMagazine27Apr1904.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2022 at 15:51:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A 1904 political cartoon from Puck magazine depicting the Democrats as germs under a microscope.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine and newspaper illustrations in color
Info created by Puck - uploaded by PDMagazineCoverUploading - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading -- PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vivid, well-drawn political cartoon from the early 20th century that also provides insight into popular perceptions of science at the time. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is great but could use a bit of digital restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The brown tint of the margin at the right indicates a discoloration of the paper, but I don't think a crop would be a good idea. Digital mask? Concerning such restorations, I'm always a bit reluctant to alter historical works. There are also crease marks at the left, but removing them may impact some valuable indications about the state of conservation of this document. Look at this FP for example, damages are part of it. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem, as the first version of the photo will remain viewable after any restoration is made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting historical cartoon. Even without digital improvement, this work is at the FP level IMHO. -- IamMM (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll Support, too, but if someone does a good digital restoration, we should do a delist and replace. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The man from Gianyar (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IIRC the Puck magazine was quite important in its time; so it is great to have good reproductions of covers from that magazine. --Aristeas (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine and newspaper illustrations in color

File:RAI GT26 Simin Dasht.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2022 at 13:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Iran
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated b Ivar (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful landscape composition. I know the point of it is to photograph a train in the landscape, but this would be just as much an FP without the train, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wowing landscape and composition, but tenchnically not a FP in my eyes because there are too much artefacts in the sky. --Milseburg (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support While technical quality at the pixel level could be better, this is a 75 MP image and it doesn't make sense to judge it according to the same standards as a 20 MP image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive landscape. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional view enhanced with this train -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth pinging David Gubler and check if he could share a less compressed version of the photo? - Benh (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Benh, sadly I don't have anything with less compression I could upload. I still have the original RAWs and could re-stitch them but that's not a quick or easy process, and is not exactly high on my priority list at the moment... --Kabelleger (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Kabelleger: Just in case you trust me enough to share 16-bit TIFF versions of the source images, I'm confident I can do that very quickly. It's already good (as always with u), but the compression is noticeable. - Benh (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Benh: Thanks, but even that isn't so simple. Never mind, I've re-done the photo, do you think it's better now? --Kabelleger (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks marginally better (but that's because it wasn't that bad to begin with). So fine with me :) Thanks a lot for acting so fast. - Benh (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just finding out the filesize has largely increased. From my experience, there may be a better tradeoff (like 90/100 if you use Lightroom). - Benh (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Train is too insignificant in the image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. I don't see this as a train picture at all. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've taken the liberty to change the gallery though, --A.Savin 11:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like the shape of the clouds is reflected on the ground. -- Wolf im Wald 04:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive landscape panorama. (Thanks to A.Savin for changing the gallery link!) --Aristeas (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Iran

File:Schloss Hohenschwangau 2021.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2022 at 17:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info 215 megapixel stitching of Hohenschwangau Castle at Schwangau, Bavaria, Germany. I took 46 pictures with a focal length of 300mm and stitched them. All by me, Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 17:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the blue sky – The man from Gianyar (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible detailing. --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very high resolution --Lupe (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I´m of the same opinion with Alex Florstein and Lupe -- Je-str (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would support this one also with “normal” resolution, of course; perspective, colours and light make this a FP for me. --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a quality... -- -donald- (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany

File:Apteeker Melchior - 1 - Autor Robert Lang - 2960.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2022 at 03:27:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Robert Lang - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Photo from the film Melchior the Apothecary. Titular character Melchior Wakenstede, who solves crimes in medieval Tallinn. Kruusamägi (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very dark. Also, noisy picture. Indistinct silhouette and the action is not striking enough, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting image, though it's too dark for my tastes unfortunately. The man from Gianyar (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had some suspicion that it might be considered a bit dark, but considering the film as a murder mystery, then this kind of "dark" approach still seemed like a way to go. But is there something in this category that catches the eye? We don't have much of that kind of content in Commons, so I'm unsure what might seem enough unique to people here. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the photos from that film are very interesting and it is great that you have transferred them to Commons. And indeed, while the images alltogether are impressive, it is difficult to select some of them as FP candidates – maybe just due to the fact that they are indeed stills from a movie. Nevertheless there are at least some very nice portrait-like shots among them, e.g. this one – one has to accept the raindrops (?) in the background and the bottom left corner is a bit unfortunate, but the facial expression is good, as are light and colours. And there are probably more good candidates … --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was also thinking maybe for a this. But I'm struggling to select one or two images that stand out from the rest. But at the same time, it would be good to show the filmmakers, that images like those are appreciated in here. It was also shot as a trilogy to cut costs and therefore it might be possible to get some more interesting images. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 07:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruant zizi.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 08:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Emberizidae (Buntings)
Info Male Cirl bunting (Emberiza cirlus), island of Noirmoutier, France. All by me -- Clément Bardot (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Clément Bardot (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This too dark, difficult to judge the quality until exposure is corrected. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. I made a correction about it --Clément Bardot (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks, but still too dark Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oppose too dark and distracting background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cluttered background is distracting, and the bird not distinct enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bird is distinct enough to my eyes, with the background blurred but still visible, and given that it's mostly on both sides of the bird, rather than just behind it, the composition works for me. And the bird is sharp and pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the slightly dark mood. -- Wolf im Wald 04:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek. --Cayambe (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. -- Karelj (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek. --Lupe (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Wolf im Wald. --Aristeas (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crab-eating macaque (Macaca fascicularis) Phang Nga.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2022 at 11:54:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Classified as IUCN Vulnerable, but are quite common around human habitation. They seldom eat crabs. 5 FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose feet cut off. --Kreuz schnabel 14:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the feet is cut off – The man from Gianyar (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Yes, I agree that is annoying. I was too concentrated on the expression. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forest in K6rvemaa 0036.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2022 at 14:19:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Estonia
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get it. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and beautiful --Kritzolina (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The scenery becomes interesting by the snow and the ice crystals on the branches. An intriguing, natural and at the same time slightly abstract structure. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, it's an interesting phenomenon, but I'm not captivated by the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, not outstanding for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles: "Huh?" Looks like the results of accidentally hitting the shutter, which can sometimes be interesting and useful but almost never make it to FP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess I get the idea, and I think it could work in principle. But it would need a stronger composition that makes better use of the few structural elements that are available. --El Grafo (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starlings on a birdhouse (92039).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2022 at 19:50:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Sturnidae_(Starlings)
Info European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) on an old birdhouse. Obviously not a "species identification" style bird photo. I just like the weathered bird house and its lighting on dark sky. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite the bird hotel. I like the lighting and the grey sky as well --Lupe (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light IMO. Simple composition and living place -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The man from Gianyar (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lupe and Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but Question can somebody explain the mesh behind the entries? Looks like it's just fakes for decoration, not actually for birds to live in? --El Grafo (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Sturnidae_(Starlings)

File:Клумба в парке Сокольники 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2022 at 15:54:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants
Info created by Ulaisaeva - uploaded by Ulaisaeva - nominated by Ulaisaeva -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots of noise and blur.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose lovely flower and a pretty good shot of it, but I don't think it's quite up to the level we've come to expect for flowers at FP. Obviously we don't want all of our FPs to be studio shots, but there also needs to be some additional "wow factor" to make up for busy backgrounds. I hope you'll nominate something again in the future, though! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Overexposed, red channel is blown – that’s where the blueish tone comes from. Not an outstanding composition or resolution either. --Kreuz schnabel 11:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Oversaturated, perhaps in an effort to compensate for the highlights on the flower; that has also led to posterization. WB seems off in addition. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laufenstraße - Stehlings - Rurstraße - Monschau 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2022 at 06:59:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The building on the left seems cut off, much more sky than the lower part (IMHO the lower part is more interesting). --Wilfredor (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you think of a crop as I propose in the annotation? --Llez (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the crop is better --Wilfredor (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cropped as suggested --Llez (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well done technically but IMO does not have enough wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO this photo captures the fascinating topography very well. --Aristeas (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GRDN711. Quite good documentation and nice and sharp, but a perfectly good but not exceptional composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition with the stream left and right of the house and the ruin on the hill in the background well visible --Lupe (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this cylindrical (? in any case not rectilinear) projection just doesn't work for me, as it makes the buildings look curved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts, the top of the red building looks particularly twisted. --El Grafo (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon Z 5 with Nikkor 50mm f1.8S, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2022 at 08:28:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Front view with Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 S
Rear view with opened memory card compartment

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm a bit sad to oppose despite what seems like valiant effort. I don't think products photo works with short focal (and thus converging lines). And the lighting could be softer. It's good otherwise, so a bit of a shame. - Benh (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks good to me, but please clone out stray bits of dirt from the white portions of the photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek:

Done --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have to agree with Benh, the perspective distortion due to short distance somehow ruins an otherwise excellent effort. In the front view, it makes the lens look too huge and the body smallish. Compare with this one showing no converging lines. Maybe this could be fixed by software but needs to be done IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 16:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo is simply advertising photomanipulation, I guess. My photos - focus stacked only. --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not "my photo" ;-) it’s from the official Nikon image database. I didn’t intend to advertise anything, and it wasn’t even meant as a counternomination, it was just to show that the proportions of the lens (yes, I know, it’s a different one) and the body can be shown in a much more balanced way. There is no manipulation needed, just a bit more distance. Sorry if it came across as an insult. You might have noticed that I said these pictures are otherwise excellent. --Kreuz schnabel 21:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreuzschnabel: no, it's okay, it's not an insult. But the official photo is too perfect and "inanimate" to me. My photos are not perfect geometrically, but alive. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuzschnabel, your link is to a computer generated rendering, not an actual photo. -- Colin (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of that. I am talking about perspective, not perfection on surface cleanness. The rendering has been done from a more distant (maybe infinite) viewpoint, showing the lens and body at their respective sizes. The photo nominated does not. I just wanted to give an example this is not necessarily so. Whether or not one may consider this a drawback is a matter of taste of course, and as far as I’m concerned, I do. --Kreuz schnabel 12:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maybe because I'm not much of a photographer and don't necessarily go by conventions in photography, I like these photos and find them impressive enough to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree that a longer photo length than 50mm equivalent would be more appealing, proportion wise, in the first photo, I think claims it is "ruined" are exaggerated. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While it's good executed it's at the end of the day a common subject with good (but not extraordinary) sharpness and no additional pluses (like lighting). I'm not wowed but still nice. --Poco a poco (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question But I'm wondering ... was this a genuinely white background or did you just cut it out? If the latter, great job doing that, but why not a transparent background instead? Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: thanks for your vote! Yes, I cut out the background. I've been cutting out backgrounds in Photoshop since 2001. :-) And, yes, we have the version with transparent background (for special needs). --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see how cut-out images like this can be among our best. I don't see them as 'live' images. For the set, I would prefer symmetry in PoV - here the angle is different. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, nothing special for FP nomination, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Submissions should be judged against the standards of their genre. This is clearly an attempt in straight, online shop style product photography. That's not art or nature documentary, it's technical. Some editing to gain a plain white background is exactly what you would expect here. For me, it ticks all the relevant boxes: a dust-free, well-lit subject shot from useful angles, sharp where it needs to be. And if you think there's no "wow" in that, maybe try getting it right yourself - you might be surprised. --El Grafo (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: thank you so much! Very kind and useful words! --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The amount of effort that was put into perfecting the photo is amazing. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Optical_devices

File:Himmelsleiter (Polemonium boreale) Blüte stacking-20220612-RM-173703.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2022 at 20:42:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Polemoniaceae
InfoSky ladder (Polemonium boreale) flower stacking. Focus stack of 12 images. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pop-up effect. Very good light and nice background. Complementary colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Je-str (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is really well done -- Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Polemoniaceae

File:AWACS CENTCOM 12FEB21.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2022 at 07:04:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Military_jet_aircraft
Info created by SSgt Trevor McBride - uploaded by Balon Greyjoy - nominated by Balon Greyjoy -- Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are lots of dustspots, location is missing. --A.Savin 11:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The description text, provided by the USAF, says this is in the Centcom command area ... i.e., the Middle East mostly, which makes sense given the ground below. Given how politically sensitive operations there are (consider that Centcom's HQ is in Florida because none of the countries in the area have yet been willing to host the US military on their soil to the extent it would have to be for the command to be in-theater), I can well understand if Sgt. McBride was under orders to be no more specific about where the image was than that (a lot of those countries want the military support very much but do not want the public flak they'd take for admitting they were letting the USAF operate in their skies to the extent it probably does). Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not excellent with all those dust spots in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the other hand, isn’t it featurable to have dust spots in the sky with no sky at all? (sncr) --Kreuz schnabel 11:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great subject but has some issues Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Alright image, but the dust spots – The man from Gianyar (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin StMatthew Tiergarten asv2021-11 img2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2022 at 12:47:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info Evening Blue hour view of the St. Matthew's Church by Friedrich August Stüler, next to Potsdamer Platz, Berlin --- all by me --A.Savin 12:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (leaning toward oppose) Sorry, but that tree in front of it kills it, and that's an edge case where I wouldn't make it straight (vertical wise) as the bell tower has weird proportions like this. - Benh (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice but not an FP because of the tree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done -- Wolf im Wald 04:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice light at blue hour, though the architecture is unexceptional and the distorsions are important. Like Benh and Ikan, I find the tree rather distracting because its branches obstruct the subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tree is unfortunately a bit too distracting --Lupe (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see the tree rather as a kind of juxtaposition to the bell tower – nature vs. art, with their different structures – and therefore not as a problem. --Aristeas (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. The tree might have been distracting if it had been daylight and it was in leaf, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The tree is a bit of an annoyance and I agree with Benh about the verticals. Then there's the construction site on the left, the unsharp tip of the tower, and the moon trying to Pac-Man the corner of roof. Neither of these are a deal-breaker on their own, but over-all it just doesn't really come together as a great image for me. --El Grafo (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others opponents, tree distracting in front of picture. -- Karelj (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coral (Turbinaria reniformis), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-28, DD 132.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2022 at 07:16:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Phylum_:_Cnidaria
Info Yellow scroll coral (Turbinaria reniformis), Ras Muhammad National Park, Egypt. This species of colonial stony coral is native to the Indo-Pacific region (including the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Indian Ocean and the central Indo-Pacific). This coral, rated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as being "vulnerable", has the corallites (skeletal cups in which the polyps sit of 1.5 to 2 mm (0.06 to 0.08 in) in diameter) widely separated and are only on the upper side of the plates. T. reniformis is gonochoristic, with colonies being either male or female. Breeding takes place synchronously with all the colonies in an area liberating their gametes into the sea about a week after the full moon in November. Note: we have no FPs of this species, genus, family, order and class. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a good QI, and maybe the specie is remarkable in some way (in which case it would be a better fit for VI), but I'm unconvinced it stands out photographywise. - Benh (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, to me one of the nicest shots I've ever taken underwater. Apart from your oppose it's a bit surprising to me that the moray image (4th moray shot I nominate to FPC) got much more support than this shot. This look reminds me to a rose in a garden. I can also say, that this species is not often and I also believe that the quality is pretty good for underwater. --Poco a poco (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't remember having seen lots of morays, so I'm fine with it. To me the subject is centered in quite a bland way, and lit in a flat way. I was quite surprised to see that this coral can actually be much more "3D" than hinted here. Maybe a lower vantage point of view would have given it more justice? And I trust you the quality is good for underwater. Hence my QI suggestion ;) Anyhow, just one opinion amongst others. - Benh (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benh: I have other variants in my portfolio :) Here and here you get more 3D feeling but you'll agree with me that the shape of this coral is more pleasent. --Poco a poco (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- overall, but just not enough for FP for me. - Benh (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a weird blue triangle in the top left corner you might want to get rid of somehow. --El Grafo (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, fixed, thank you Poco a poco (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Phylum_:_Cnidaria

File:Tarian Telek.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2022 at 08:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info Tarian Telek, a Balinese dance performed once every fifteen days. Created by Imadedana - uploaded by Imadedana - nominated by The man from Gianyar -- The man from Gianyar (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The man from Gianyar (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image has a lot of charm --Kritzolina (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Distracting faces in the background but overall the main subject is predominant and well frozen -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no idea if this pose is an integral part of the dance, but, even if it is, the hands should be in focus. Also background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 13:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina and Basile. Have taken the liberty to change the gallery link: all other photos of dancers are in the ‘Events’ section, so we should use that section for this photo, too. --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Basile Morin Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Events

File:Waterloopbos. Onderzoek afsluiting van zeegaten Deltawerken M995 002.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2022 at 15:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Others
Info Waterloopbos. Research closure of seas Delta Works M995. Part of the project.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for technical issues mainly, sorry. The harsh light is causing numerous blown glaring areas here, and there are strange lines around some of the edges (maybe oversharpened). As for composition, there’s somehow too much stuffed into the frame. For a clearer subject, I would choose a landscape crop here (suggestion added on nomination page). I think you wanted to include the water reflection but that does not work here, the water surface is way too busy to give a clear image. --Kreuz schnabel 16:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Various improvements plus crop. Thanks for your suggestions.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing special for nomination, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only 2,536 × 1,902 pixels. Blown highlights. Harsh light and the subject is not blowing me away -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Третьяковская галерея Люстра.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2022 at 15:29:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Lamps
Info created by User:Ulaisaeva - uploaded by User:Ulaisaeva - nominated by Ulaisaeva -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ulaisaeva (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the light really yellow? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info photo without filters and without processing -- Ulaisaeva

Oppose That may be the problem then. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, nothing special for me. --A.Savin 11:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deserves to be a QI, but for FP, it's noisier than ideal, not that sharp, and I'd like more room at the bottom. So yes, a good motif and a good photo, but not exceptional to my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historic Quincy Schoolhouse-5261.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2022 at 02:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty, sharp and crisp, beautiful light and colours. Your photo makes this old schoolhouse shine. --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above plus awesome sky --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp image and clear skies – The man from Gianyar (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition works. Nice clouds, and very peaceful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The type of subject isn't really anything special, but the actual picture execution itself is great. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support To be honest I was skeptikal as I first saw it because of what Urban says and because of the tree, but looking close at the tree it is rather a plus than a minus Poco a poco (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. NightWolf1223 (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 07:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States

File:Konrad Mägi TKM 0027M.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2022 at 21:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Konrad Mägi/Tartu Art Museum - uploaded & nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Konrad Mägi (1878–1925) in one of the best known artist from Estonia. He is know for his landscape paintings and use of colors.
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction of a representative work by an interesting painter. Resolution etc. are not as impressive as in the Google Art photos, but show the structure of the painting’s surface and the brushwork. --Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is a neat painting – The man from Gianyar (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- IamMM (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's really nice but I've seen things like it before. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 07:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes

File:Danmark O, Fohn Fjord, Renodde.70°N 26°W (76566707).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2022 at 11:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greenland
Info created by Rita Willaert, Flickr - uploaded by russavia - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice scenery! At first I thought the resolution is a bit low, but then I saw that the picture is 17 years old. -- Wolf im Wald 17:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least some of us make allowances for quality for 17-year-old QIC nominees, but I'm not sure how much we should do that on FPC. This is an amazing image, but it feels small and I'm not sure the quality, although great for 2005, is overwhelming enough for the size. If I were voting purely on composition, though, I'd have no doubt in supporting. It's definitely worth some thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's 17 years old, but it's a great shot. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent even if it is old. At the time, things could hardly have been better.--Ermell (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No question, but it still feels small to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ermell -- IamMM (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so sharp, not wild on the PoV. Resolution of its time. Dust spots need attention. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support So gorgeous to me. Because of the sky, good use of a relatively wide angle, and a topic which is less accessible than average. - Benh (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is not really the best (size and noise) but the sky lighting are extraordinary. I agree with Charles, though, there is at least one dust spot, maybe more, but as I guess that the author will not fix them for us, I'd do so if nobody is faster than me. Poco a poco (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC) PD: Done (dust spot removed along with a very very slight denoising)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much, Poco a poco! --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Greenland

File:Il Spir panorama 20210614.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2022 at 07:12:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Il spir is a viewing platform over the Rhine gorge (Ruinaulta) in the Swiss canton of Grisons. There is one other FP of Ruinaulta, but with a different view. --Domob (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The stitched sky is not consistent. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the feedback -- I see what you mean. Unfortunately I'm not sure what/if I can do about this; individual spots and things like that are easy to retouch, but for wide areas of sky it usually just becomes worse if I try that. --Domob (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't know the technology/process, but if this is a common problem with a stitched sky, would it not be better to use fewer images? The frames are less than 2000 pixels wide which seems strange. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, there are a thing or two you can do to mitigate : 1. ensure you are in manual mode and that all source photos are taken with same exposure (and focus, but that's not the topic here) ; 2. Process them exactly the same way ; 3. Your stitching software probably has a "exposure optimisation feature" to mitigate exposure differences ; 4. Last resort, brighten the sky on that source photo where sky which is darker before stitching. If you do 1, 2 and 3, you should never have to resort to 4. but we're all human and can make mistakes in the rush of the moment. - Benh (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Charles and Benh! I always do 1, 2 and 3, but will take a closer look today again at the raw frames to see if I find any specific flaw that I can correct (or maybe as Charles suggests tweak the included/excluded frames and/or masks). --Domob (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've now uploaded a slightly tweaked revision, where I tried to improve the "worst offender" in terms of sky (on the left side of the image slightly above the mountains). I also tried a few different other things with the raw frames, but unfortunately wasn't able to produce anything overall better. --Domob (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That might be a cruel vote, but 1. that patch of darker sky is mostly gone, but there are still seams in the sky 2. a busier sky might have helped composition wise. 3. the cut off river bending is a deal breaker. - Benh (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the feedback, I can definitely see your points (although I personally don't see them as deal breakers, otherwise I would not have nominated the image). Unfortunately for 2 and 3 in particular, there's nothing I can do about it obviously; that's just how the weather on the day was, and how the view from the platform looks like (but that's not an excuse of course, your points are valid). --Domob (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Beautiful but nothing special. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh's 3. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Set of serving ladles on stainless kitchen wall.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2022 at 21:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by Marc-Lautenbacher -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Bad reflection, bad cropped. You should nominate your images to quality images first. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

- … or either have them discussed on Commons:Photography critiques. --Kreuz schnabel 20:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gold coin of the Kushan empire, king Vasudeva I.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2022 at 18:15:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Money & Seals
Info created by Cleveland Museum of Art, uploaded and nominated by Yann -- Yann (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Coin of Kushan empire, King Vasudeva I, 142 CE 2.2 cm (7/8 in.)
Support -- Yann (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support slow to load on my computer for some reason but nice. - Benh (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, beautiful coins. --Aristeas (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support There is a bit of dust but overall good quality and motif Poco a poco (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Money & Seals

File:Morena del Mediterráneo (Muraena helena), Regga, Gozo, Malta, 2021-08-23, DD 14.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2022 at 13:13:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Muraenidae_(Moray_Eels)
Info Mediterranean moray (Muraena helena), Regga, Gozo, Malta. Mediterranean moray or Roman eel (Muraena helena) is a fish of the moray eel family. It has a long eel-like body and is found in coastal waters of the eastern Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. It prefers rocky bottoms and lives in depths of from 5 to 80 meters (16.5 to 264 feet). It is a solitary and territorial species. This moray spends most of the day in cavities and clefts between rocks and is more active at night. It hunts fish, crayfish and cephalopods, but also feeds on dead animals. A bite with its long and sharp-pointed teeth can be dangerous to humans also due to the mildly toxic slime of its skin. Note: we have no FPs of this species. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. I really admire all your underwater photography! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sharp face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intriguing apparition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- per others but it's a little dark. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Muraenidae_(Moray_Eels)

File:Vincent van Gogh - Starry Night - Google Art Project.jpg, not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2022 at 05:48:21

Info Too dark, ~~second version of Google Art Project~~ alternative version (by Paris 16) has better lighting. (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- IamMM (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For now. This is maybe my favorite painting. And you are right that the new version has better exposure. But I don't know what went wrong with the shadows which are darker that the current FP. Details are lost in the process. I have the feeling that we could pull out more details from the current FP which some slight curve adjustments. - Benh (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and btw, it looks like this is not a new scan by Google Art Project but just an alternate processing from the same source by Paris 16. I personally was misled by the wording. - Benh (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I changed the wording so as not to mislead. -- IamMM (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose And I think the version by Paris 16 needs some work to make it very clear this is a significant deviation from the Google Art Project version by a Commoner, not a faithful reproduction of an actual artwork hanging somewhere. I see no reason to support this. See Musée d'Orsay for comparison. You might like the brighter one but it doesn't have much Educational Value. The clue, about "too dark" is the word "night". -- Colin (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per Colin's very persuasive comparison. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a connection between the current FP exposure and the "night". In The Starry Night, which has similar conditions, the night is also depicted but with much better exposure. There are two images in the museum link that Colin put, the current FP image and another version with better light. -- IamMM (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's very persuasive indeed. I first thought the current FP is underexposed and agreed with IamMM, but this is like photographing an underexposed image. If the source material is already underexposed, there's no reason to fix it. Even more in that case when it would supposedly not be faithful to the actual painting. Maybe I'll go back to Orsay museum someday but I think we can safely assume the exposure from the museum's and GAP's versions is correct. - Benh (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image also belongs to the Orsay Museum, why not assume this to be true instead of the dark version? The darker version in the museum site also has better light than the current FP, IMO. There is no doubt that GAP is very valuable, but in this nomination I realized that you can not always trust its accuracy. -- IamMM (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are also right. believe I tried to chose my wording to imply that the real painting could be brighter, but I'm not in front of it so... Also, usual exposure rules of night shots don't apply here. What now looks almost certain is that Paris 16's version is too bright. The shadows are also too dark, with details that can't be recovered (and that is my main reason for opposing the replace, otherwise I would be more neutral). - Benh (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically nominated this version for replacement because it was derived from the current FP. Among the other few options, I suggest you see File:Starry Night Over the Rhone.jpg (by CFCF). -- IamMM (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The brighter photo by the museum is still quite a bit darker and of a different color than the nominated photo. I haven't been to the Orsay in years, so I don't remember how the painting looks well enough to judge. I'll cross out my vote. But I think it's too much to ask us to judge how accurate the photos are. What happened to the former regular here who lived in Paris and nominated some great photos? It would be nice to hear his take, but he hasn't been here for some time. Is there anyone reading who's been to the Orsay recently enough to judge these photos confidently? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you are talking about @Jebulon: who isn't living in Paris anymore. But I would definitely trust his input. - Benh (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IamMM: I wouldn't rely on File:Starry_Night_Over_the_Rhone.jpg when the version of CFCF simply came on top of the previous one and (s)he didn't even bother updating the source image in the Summary. Where does that version come from exactly? - Benh (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to what is written at the top of CFCF user page, it is unlikely that you will find an answer to this question. Except for the overly bright image of Paris 16, I did not find any other suitable alternative. -- IamMM (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I was thinking of Jebulon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. Indeed, I don't live in Paris anymore, as you can read on my user´s page. But I´m still with you !--Jebulon (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the original because it's the original, and this one seems kind of artificial Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments. Continuing this nomination does not seem to be anything but a waste of users' time. -- IamMM (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /--A.Savin 10:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coconuts - single and cracked open.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2022 at 05:18:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might well merit passing, but I don't like it as much as the others in this series, because I think the DoF is too short to show much in the way of details on the far wall of the open half. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: dof is not shallow, everything is in focus (both fruits are in the same focal plane). White inner flesh of a coconut reflects the light and therefore less detail is visible. I played with different light settings and this was the best result I could get. --Ivar (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's something that's really much clearer in person? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is one of my top favorites of all pictures on Commons. Really well executed! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:Poster for Gilbert and Clay's Ages Ago at the Royal Gallery of Illustration.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2022 at 19:19:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by Stannard & Son - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The man from Gianyar (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support I think the tweak in the levels made it look way better. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, IamMM, The man from Gianyar, Agnes Monkelbaan, Aristeas, Llez, Urban Versis 32, and Daniel Case: I do hate to do this, but the levels were annoying me, so I did a tweak. My apologies. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I like it a lot more now! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1 --Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera

File:The Great Orion Nebula in Narrowband.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2022 at 06:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info In terms of resolution, this photo is not as good as NASA/ESA works, but it should be kept in mind that this image was taken by a Commons user and with equipment in the price class of ordinary cameras. created and uploaded by Astrofalls - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've seen some great astronomy photos by Wikimedians, but I think most of those were bigger than this. This one isn't very big. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Especially for 2019, but it seems set to pass, anyway. I doubt this is outstanding compared to other astronomy photos we've been featuring, but I'm reluctant to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support not the biggest, but shows different information (narrowband), and looks pretty sharp. Ticks all the checkboxes to me - Benh (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Benh (weak beause of the size). --Aristeas (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per nom. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating capture. The technical shortcomings are secondary, imo. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Aristeas, anyhow, fascinating Poco a poco (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Nebulae

File:Jessica Meir official portrait in an EMU (B&W).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2022 at 16:02:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by NASA/Josh Valcarcel - uploaded by Ras67 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not a typical NASA portrait. -- Andrei (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Expressive portrait. --Ras67 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We can debate about many other portraits, but when you see one like this, you're reminded of what a Featured Picture really is. No-brainer for FP, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously. --Aristeas (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. Very good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ras67. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support No-brainer – The man from Gianyar (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong Poco a poco (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women

File:Light trails near Paris, 27 May 2022.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2022 at 05:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
Info created by Pierre Blaché - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Good idea but there is a little bit of each to see: Light trails and city, a lot of soundproof wall and trees and buildings that cover a lot. Also not very sharp for an Excellent. -- Je-str (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Like it very much, but the quality is not perfect. Not sharp enough, and the lights partly overblown. -- -donald- (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. Forgiving the slight quality shortcomings. Tomer T (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it too, but not the obstracting and blurry tree/bushes right in the middle --Lupe (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This sort of view would be unexceptional if it were of Los Angeles, but I've never seen Paris this way. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support With the Eiffel Tower in the background, this is a yes for me. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking again and again at it, I think it deserves the star, especially thanks to Daniel’s point – the photo avoids the usual Paris clichés, but still shows some of the city’s charm. --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas --El Grafo (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a pretty sight, but Oppose per Lupe. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Eiffel Tower is in fact a minus for me because for its significance it's kind of distracting from the main subject, the result is to me unbalanced, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a good point and I was also hesitant at first for this and similar reasons. In the meantime, however, I personally think that this photo shows precisely the tension that is Paris: a famous centre full of culture and lifestyle, but where housing and living are extremly expensive, and endless suburbs with ever-decreasing standards all the way out. From these suburbs (here, a still quite prosperous one can be seen in the foreground), the gaze then wistfully wanders to the glorified centre, whose lights shine in the distance and where many of the suburban residents work, but without ever being able to afford to live in the centre or enjoy its attractions to the full. (At least that’s what I’ve been told by friends who live in Paris themselves.) So I accept the divided theme of this photo and think it is indicative of this city. Just my 50 cent/centimes, --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Aristeas -- Karelj (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case, never seen this side of Paris; also disagree with Poco, the Eiffel Tower in the corner is what emphasised for me that this indeed is Paris. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France

Soldier Canopus.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2022 at 09:14:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Info all by User:Fedaro -- fedaro (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely impressive, but the left crop is troubling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes the crop and the stacking. ~~But the photographer had the foresight to take this at 4 in the morning in 2025!~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)¨[reply]
Info Yes, the metadata of the camera is wrong, as for the date, thanks, I already corrected it, but the time is correct, I wake up to take macro photos at 4:00 am.--fedaro (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The left crop... — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. Sorry, that’s a no-go. --Kreuz schnabel 13:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, the left crop is unacceptable for FP. Otherwise a very good shot, indeed. --Cayambe (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image needs to be recategorised: the category:Canopus is for an astronomical object. Also: the ant needs to be identified at the species level. Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. --Peulle (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the crop on the left is not good, it spoils the composition, but we haven't had extreme macro shots of this quality by a Commonist for a long time, congrats for that! I'm looking forward seeing your next works. Could you describe a little bit what equipment you used (lens, setting, guide, lighting) and the amount of frames you stacked together? Poco a poco (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it weren't for the left crop... --SHB2000 (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloemknop van een Berenklauw (Heracleum) 12-06-2022. (d.j.b 02.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2022 at 15:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Apiaceae (Carrot family)
Info Flower bud of a Heracleum (plant). Focus stack of 18 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The split background doesn't improve the image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can we get a short desc in English? — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, I did it myself Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — I like it, but it has some issues. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. I don't understand the issues. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The spider web is a little annoying, which is why I'm not supporting. But there aren't any serious issues in the actual image itself, which is why I'm not opposing. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can choose the background for this type of shot, I am surprised at the one chosen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Answer: In this case, I didn't have much choice because the hogweed just happened to be here. The size of the flower bud, the color and pattern of the bud, The position of the leaf on top of the bud and the position of the sun this was the best position.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The background is OK with me and the spider web was OK, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support In the original size the background is OK for me. --IamMM (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The spider web even adds some “reality feeling” to it. --Aristeas (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Quality is good, as usual, but the background and, above all, the subject itself (I don't find that bud near to beautiful) make me oppose, sorry, Poco a poco (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral you can change the background with the different height of a tripod (I do it regularly). --Ivar (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Poco a poco --Lupe (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and Ivar. And the plants bar is pretty high here so I think we can be picky. - Benh (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Split background and ordinary light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and Ivar. -- Karelj (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black-winged Stilt, Pitt Town Lagoon.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2022 at 14:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Himantopus
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great. Maybe a little bit too much noise reduction. -- Wolf im Wald 18:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Let’s use right the genus for the gallery link, as there is already a subsection for Himantopus. --Aristeas (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bird is angled in such a way that it probably took off right after the picture was taken. I like it. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is a bit lower that we are used to in JJ shots but still deserves the star Poco a poco (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Need to change file name Ivar/JJ Harrison before this can be promoted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pending file name change. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Too late. --A.Savin 22:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Himantopus

File:Henry Espinoza Panta smashing a wave at Lobitos.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2022 at 14:24:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual_water_sports
Info created by Freddy Sinarahua - uploaded by Freddy Sinarahua - nominated by User:Cbrescia -- Cbrescia (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cbrescia (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is exciting, so I'm leaning toward supporting, but I want to hear from any of you knowledgeable photographers on what you think of the shutter speed. The result is a bit grainy. I think that's OK in an action shot like this, but I would defer to others' expertise on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna call myself a knowledgeable photographer, but I do know about shutter speeds and exposure times. For an action shot, as far as I know, anything from 1/2000 to 1/4000 is fine. This picture is a 1/4000. Check out https://www.nickdalephotography.com/blog/shutter-speeds-for-action-shots, it gives you more info on action shot speeds. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK. Thanks for your input. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great shot, and as above, shutter speed is great. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect shot for me, the noise can hardly be avoided here for the high speed needed. --Kreuz schnabel 06:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. The rising diagonal of the wave completes the picture perfectly. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fun shot Poco a poco (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, never seen such a fun and thrilling shot like this on Commons before. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this, this is a FP! --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Individual_water_sports

File:NATO Days Ostrava 2021 - para.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2022 at 13:11:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Good~~ Special light and interesting subject, but the image is probably oversharpened because there's a white halo visible around the paragliders. Also vignetting at the corners, especially the lower ones. Perhaps a square format would work better -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC) review updated -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Basile except for the lighting, I think it’s unfortunate, the two persons being entirely in shadow. --Kreuz schnabel 11:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having the flag placed right there in the hole in the clouds is a nice touch, but per Kreuzschnabel. --El Grafo (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting, but too dark (shadow) --Lupe (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just feels too random for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzshnabel Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plac Zbawiciela Warsaw 2022 aerial.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2022 at 11:25:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Poland
Info created by Emptywords - uploaded by Emptywords - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please add an english description --Lupe (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Support This works for me, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good aerial view angle — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The orientation and framing seem a bit too arbitrary to my tastes. And that's a no go for me on that highly symmetrical subject. - Benh (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Benh, the image is btw tilted in ccw direction Poco a poco (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ambitious but a little too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:River Play.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2022 at 18:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Others
Info created and uploaded by Raykolorz, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't have yet a FP of lovers. -- Yann (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we? Find that a mite hard to believe, but it's a strong image so Support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support changed vote --Lupe (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 21:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Not to be a killjoy, but is Category:Fun really a relevant photographic category, or should it be deleted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support Due to the hair, the background seems to have been manipulated. -- IamMM (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You have sharp eyes. I see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my support because background was probably replaced. --Ivar (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background does not disturb anyone ? --Clément Bardot (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbs me. Love the topic but the background was poorly processed, resulting in an unnatural result. --Tiouraren (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't look at hair, the postprocessing is poor. --Ivar (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artifical background of some sort. @Yann: , you should declare this in your nomination description. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good subject, but poor processing and artificial background per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Urban Versis 32. -- Wolf im Wald 14:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure why author hopelessly tried to blur the background and foreground. Trying to mimic these portrait taken with wide aperture telelenses? - Benh (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I didn't notice the issue with the background. Yann (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frankfurter Römer 2019.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2022 at 14:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info All by me -- Wolf im Wald 14:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is best at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Ikan. May seem “just good” in the thumbnail, but it’s impressive when seen at full screen size, and the details of the façade are reproduced in all their beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's detailed, but the topic, light, framing is fairly standard in my opinion. I think we have here a fine example of QI (all QI should be this good, but that's not the case on Commons) and not FP. Sorry. - Benh (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the corner-to-corner sharp 35 MP resolution elevates it from a QI to an FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. -- Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh, too, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Lupe (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. -- Karelj (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany

File:Lake Helen in June 2022-6022.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2022 at 02:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#California
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure how to rate this photo. Very nice scenery, but almost too oversharpened and overprocessed. -- -donald- (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a very beautiful scenery, but I also ask myself if something went wrong with the sharpening – could you please just check the sharpening settings? --Aristeas (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I uploaded a new version. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very beautiful scenery and clouds, but the lake seems to be chopped off at the two sides. Would prefer a wider panorama. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the left, the crop leves room beyond the lake's shore. On the right, no matter what you do photographically, you won't see more of the lake, as it is obscured by trees. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC) P.S. I'll move the file after the nomination period to something like "Clouds are moving in near Lake Helen, Lassen Volcanic National Park", as the current title seems to be misleading[reply]

Support I especially like the patterns on the ice/snow --Kritzolina (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like wider crops on either side, too, I think, but this composition works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The overall impression is best revealed in full-screen mode. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King and IMHO the lighting or quality are not compensating it, sorry Frank, Poco a poco (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's very well done technically, but it doesn't really stand out so much from our many other pictures of snowy mountain landscapes. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United_States#California

File:LuxuriesVersusLifeboatsPuckMagazine1912.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2022 at 23:54:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color
Info created by Puck [Udo Keppler] - uploaded by PDMagazineCoverUploading [cropped; original uploaded by Fæ in 2018] - nominated by PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cropped slightly to eliminate the image background.
Support -- Despite the crease down the middle, I think this is artistically and historically evocative enough to warrant FP status. It certainly immediately jumped out at me when I was going through Keppler's cartoons! Will support delisting & replacing if someone can get rid of the crease without compromising the rest of the image. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per PDMagazineCoverUploading. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction of an impressive illustration with historical value. I remember this image being used in one of my schoolbooks as an illustration of contemporary reactions on the sinking of RMS Titanic; and it is indeed indicative and revealing. --Aristeas (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support partially as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and interesting. --Yann (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You mention a crease but not the tears that result in loss. I want to see a digital restoration of this great print. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: While I'd be willing to, I'd like to see it in use on at least one article first. I don't tend to do lengthy restorations that aren't going to be used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It's a lot of work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, IMHO this print would fit very well into the article about the sinking of RMS Titanic, either in the Aftermath section or into the cultural legacy section. The same applies to non-English Wikipedia articles about the ship, given that they have reached a certain length and include aftermath/legacy/reception sections. --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek and Aristeas: Certainly agree it can fit, but I do like to give things like this a little time to settle into articles before restoring them. If it lands in a couple and sticks, nothing stopping - presuming PDMagazineCoverUploading doesn't mind - a delist and replace. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -sasha- (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Magazine_and_newspaper_illustrations_in_color

File:Apteeker Melchior - 1 - Autor Robert Lang - 4717.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2022 at 18:59:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Robert Lang, uploaded by Kruusamägi, nominated Yann (talk)
Support This is a great portrait. -- Yann (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shadow or whatever bottom right and why landscape crop? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To give room to the direction of sight. This is the standard in professional portrait photography. Yann (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the shadow per Charlesjsharp bothers me as well. While this is certainly a good portrait in terms of QI, it’s not that exceptionally perfect in my view, for distractive background in the first place. --Kreuz schnabel 09:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could do without that bottom right shadow, but it does not irritate me, and to call the background distracting seems a bit exaggerated to me. The light was managed very well here, it clearly emphasizes the head and the facial expression and makes the background fade in importance. --Aristeas (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great photo except the shadow... Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Much better image than the previous nom, though the shadow distracts a little – The man from Gianyar (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per The man from Gianyar Poco a poco (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait and a handsome guy. :) UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Leonhard Euler.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2022 at 10:39:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by Jakob Emanuel Handmann - uploaded by Wars - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC) In favour of the alternative version.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support until proven it's north FP worthy. First, there's too much IQ not to support. Next, it looks soft, but judging by the bits of dust here and there, which are sharp, I guess this is as good as it gets. Speaking of that, you might want to nominate that edit instead. It has these hairs/dusts cloned out. - Benh (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both of these are impressive reproductions of a pastel to me. It's not really clear to me why I'd pick one over the other, so I'm supporting both. == Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Comment This is an edited version by Benh.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support either, but it's not edited by me. - Benh (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer this version – Both versions look a bit soft at the first glance, but the detail is there. I guess that the softness is partially due to the technique (pastel on paper seems to look always a bit soft) and partially due to not applying much sharpening in post-processing (which is a good thing: you can always sharpen a photo in post, but never remove that sharpening again). --Aristeas (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gallery link changed. The People/Portrait#Men gallery page is used for portrait photographs only; this picture (pastel on paper) fits better into the Non-photographic media/People gallery. --Aristeas (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/People#Paintings

The chosen alternative is: File:Leonhard_Euler_-_edit1.jpg

File:Narcisses à bouquet (Narcissus tazetta).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2022 at 11:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Amaryllidaceae
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 11:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 11:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the two flowers in the foreground, but the background distracts me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan Kekek Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is too distracting – The man from Gianyar (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Padma Bridge, November2021(2).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2022 at 13:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by Nahian Bin Shafiq – uploaded by Nahian Bin Shafiq – nominated by Mehediabedin -- Mehediabedin (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mehediabedin (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor quality and not a Quality Image, either, sorry. Very rarely, cellphone pics have been featured, but this looks like a typical cellphone pic in that most of it is extremely noisy with artifacts and unsharp at full size. Very nice composition, though, and I'd love to see a photo by Nahian that's taken with a good camera. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. Nevertheless I really like the thumbnail! -- Wolf im Wald 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek and Der Wolf im Wald. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perfect composition, and I like the blueish-monochrome colours here. If only it weren’t for quality. Yes, we’re talking about 48 megapixels but the issues are clearly visible even at 50% view (= downscaled to 12 meagpixels). Next time you’re there, please make sure to have a better camera with you – your photographic skills clearly deserve one! --Kreuz schnabel 16:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately not everyone whose photographic skills deserve a better camera can afford or even lend one - especially in countries like Bangladesh, where photographic equipment is even more expensive than in European countries while the average income is a lot lower. But I agree with you, that it would be wonderful if the photographer could take more images with better equipment and bring them here. --Kritzolina (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunatly, the quality is just not there for an FP. NightWolf1223 (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, the poor quality makes it unworthy for an FP. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per poor quality noted here by others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peces payaso (Amphiprion bicinctus) en una anémona magnífica (Heteractis magnifica), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-27, DD 35.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2022 at 09:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Pomacentridae_(Clownfish_and_Damselfish)
Info Red Sea clownfishes (Amphiprion bicinctus) in a magnificent sea anemone (Heteractis magnifica). This clownfish species is found in the Western Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, Socotra and the Chagos archipelago. The fish's body is yellow-orange to dark brown. Males grow to a length of 10 centimetres (3.9 in), and females grow to a length of 14 centimetres (5.5 in). Clownfish and sea anemone form together one of the most known symbiotic mutualism. The sea anemone protects the clownfish from predators, as well as providing food through the scraps left from the anemone's meals and occasional dead anemone tentacles. In return, the clownfish defends the anemone from its predators, and parasites and are unaffected by the stinging tentacles of the host anemone. In a group of clownfish, there is a strict dominance hierarchy. The largest and most aggressive fish is female and is found at the top. Clownfish are sequential hermaphrodites, meaning that they develop into males first, and when they mature, they become females. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support You don't see underwater shots of this amazing quality too much. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Urban Versis 32, I've been improving my skills and equipment in the last years but the big jump has been the area, the Red Sea is a paradise for underwater photography. I just hope that when I upload images from other areas afterwards (we need also fauna from different places) you all are not disappointed because the quality is lower (the water in the Mediterranean Sea or in the Atlantic Ocean is not that clean) or the subjects not so interesting. In fact, in some cases you find similar species in the Red Sea like you do in the Mediterranean, they look similar, but the latter are colorful instead of grey :) This and this is an example of what I mean, same here and here. --Poco a poco (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -sasha- (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharpness for underwater picture. Fine composition and educative content -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Pomacentridae_(Clownfish_and_Damselfish)

File:Ponts couverts et cathédrale (Strasbourg) (3).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2022 at 07:50:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Sorry, quality is rather poor at pixel level, it’s slightly overexposed, and the entire image is strongly tilted clockwise. The view is fine but needs a better camera. --Kreuz schnabel 11:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nom — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose missing the tower on the right - Benh (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 14:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jungfer im Grünen (Nigella damascena) Samenkapseln-20220613-RM-175240.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2022 at 21:37:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Ranunculaceae
Info Nigella damascena (fruit) stacking. Focus stack of 10 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and very sharp focus stack! -- Wolf im Wald 21:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wolf im Wald. I like it a lot. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 08:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! I love both the graceful flower and the funny fruit of Nigella damascena, thank you for giving us such a good photo of it. --Aristeas (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp! --SHB2000 (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cbrescia (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cbrescia (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Interesting and crispy, on the other hand I find the background distracting Poco a poco (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks otherworldly. I find the background blur an excellently dynamic contrast with the crispy foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Ranunculaceae

File:ZSSK 362 Štrba - Štrba zastávka.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2022 at 05:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't believe I'm opposing a Kabelleger's photo, but though perfectly timed as usual, this one is not among the best of his work. The lighting is dull and composition less dynamic than usual, with mostly horizontal lines. - Benh (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Benh. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What do you mean, "per nom"? The nominator didn’t actually oppose :) --Kreuz schnabel 17:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad, I meant to put "per Benh". I do the "per nom" thing a lot here accidentally as I used to vote at AfD on Wikipedia. Sorry for the mistake. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]