Commons:Kandidater til utmerkede bilder

Dette er kandidater til å bli utmerkede bilder. For et arkiv over tidligere nominerte bilder, se loggen. Det finnes også en kronologisk liste over utmerkede bilder.

Nominering[edit]

Om du tror at du har funnet eller laga et veldig bra bilde, legg det til i seksjonen for nominasjoner, øverst i lista, ved hjelp av denne lenka (hjelp). Du trenger ikke å ha en konto – selv anonyme brukere kan nominere bilder.

Bildet som nomineres må ha en god beskrivelse og en god lisens.

Avstemningsregler[edit]

Avstemninga pågår i 9 dager; resultatet blir fastsatt den 10. dagen.
Dersom et bilde ikke har fått noen positive stemmer fra andre enn den som nominerte innen 5 dager, kan bildet fjernes fra lista.
Nominasjoner fra anonyme brukere er tillat.
Bidrag til diskusjoner fra anonyme brukere er tillat.
Stemmer fra anonyme brukere gjelder ikke.
En nominasjon gjelder ikke som en stemme – den som nominerer har også stemmerett.
Den som nominerer et bilde kan når som helst fjerne nominasjonen.

En kandidat blir et utmerka bilde dersom følgende krav møtes:

Korrekt lisens (selvsagt)
Minst fem stemmer for
Et stemmeforhold på 2:1 (dobbelt så mange ja-stemmer som nei)
To ulike versjoner av samme bilde kan ikke bli utmerka; kun det med høyest antall stemmer blir valgt.

Stemming kan gjøres med malene {{support}} eller {{oppose}}, nøytralitet angis med {{neutral}}.

Kandidater[edit]

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Paudorf Waldweg am Eichberg-4927.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2024 at 20:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower Austria
Info Another beautiful forest scene with crepuscular rays shining through trees. I know I nominated one superficially similar last month but this one has a very different composition and is by a different photographer in a different part of the world. created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support May be a bit corny, but excellent execution. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cmao20, could you link the other nominee? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, here, but as I say, different photographer, different country, just maybe similar style. Cmao20 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not that similar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Thi (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice effect -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oudtshoorn (ZA), Straußenfarm "La Plume", Afrikanischer Strauß -- 2024 -- 2625.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2024 at 17:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Struthionidae_(Ostriches)
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 17:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 17:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 20:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry. I really like the idea here and there is a lot this photo does well but I don't think the ostrich is fully sharp, and this combines with the visible fence in the background to just push this into oppose territory for me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not in focus, but the composition wouldn't work if it was. Must be better opportunities on an ostrich farm. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Firefighter outside of Bolé Ethiopian restaurant May 2020.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2024 at 14:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info A firefighter stands outside of the smoldering Ethiopian restaurant Bolé Express in St. Paul, Minnesota on May 28, 2020. Created by Hungryogrephotos - uploaded and nominated by Gobonobo -- gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo was taken in right place and right time, firefighter's face shows interesting emotions, but the image has multiple problems. Composition is the most severe IMO, including cut off feet of the firefighter, partly cut off police officer, cut off part of firefighting car, looks like that the crop was rather random. The verticals are not vertical. The sky is blown out. Midtones are rather noisy. --LexKurochkin (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the expression on the firefighter's face, but per above, the image is clearly tilted even in thumbnail size and the crop on the right is kind of messy. There is potential here though. Cmao20 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: I'd be interested in working on composition if there is potential. Cropping and rotation would be fairly simple, but I have no experience dealing with noisy midtones or blown out skies. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 22:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there's not much you can do about the problems LexKurochkin mentions unless you have access to the RAW file. There isn't any point trying to recover detail in the highlights when it's just not there. Cropping and rotation would at the very least improve this image considerably and make it much more useful for visitors to Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kit Kat.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2024 at 12:22:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info Kit Kats at a supermarket in Colatina, Espírito Santo, Brazil. Created, uploaded and nominated by ★ -- ★ 12:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was wowed when I looked at this because I've never seen so many Kit Kats in my life (Note: not taken at a Japanese market). -- ★ 12:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we have any possible problems with copyright in uploading pictures where the KitKat logo features so prominently? Or does the logo fail to meet the threshold of originality? Cmao20 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know considering that there's the Kit Kat category. ★ 14:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is too simple to have a copyright. Multiple public domain logos don't create a copyright. IMO the issue is the opposite: is there any ethic issue advertising this product? Yann (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, no, it's a nice composition. But besides, didn't that issue disappear from the art world when Warhol's Campbell's soup cans were accepted as art, not just commercial art? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice photo. I don't know whether it's below COM:TOO for all the relevant countries. Anyone who thinks it probably is not should feel free to start a deletion request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the photo, anyway. It could be sharper but I don't think more sharpness would add that much in this case. Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though a descriptive filename would be nice (should be done once this nom has concluded). --SHB2000 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just "Kit Kat" is enough for easy-search purposes, IMO as the author. ★ 21:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, since chocolate isn't the only thing called Kit Kat, you need to specify the name of your photo a bit better. I always associate Kit Kat with the nightclub in Cabaret, since we rarely see these chocolate bars here in Sweden. We have Kexchoklad instead. ;-) --Cart (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Neither the subject nor the composition are intresting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the arousal of interest is subjective ;) BTW, the Brazilian issue? ★ 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tribu Laarim, Kimotong, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-23, DD 15.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 21:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info Kids of the Laarim tribe walking around their village in Kimotong, South Sudan. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and colours. Cmao20 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Yann (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, sensitive photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Question concerning personality rights - did the parents of these children sign an agreement that this image can be published? --Kritzolina (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the best of your South Sudan images, but the outstanding composition is what pulls me in. Wolverine XI 11:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 11:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but the missing feet are an issue. Just a few steps more... Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chestnut-eared Laughingthrush 0A2A1831.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 18:49:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Leiothrichidae_(Laughingthrushes)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this would need a crop for FP. JJ Harrison? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nah this compo works. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The photographer should be given the opportunity of whether he wants to stick with with the unbalanced image. I would be surprised. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a crop roughly along the lines of the note I have suggested would improve this picture, but regardless, FP as it is to me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another crop suggested with image note. Still acceptable composition in my opinion, because the branch is quite nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't find a crop necessary. There's lead room in the direction the bird is facing. In addition, the branches are in large measure sharp, so at least arguably part of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile --Ermell (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 11:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but agree wtih Cmao20 and Basile that a tighter crop would be beneficial - less tree, more bird. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bales of PET bottles closeup.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 17:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Containers
Info created by Grendelkhan - uploaded by Grendelkhan - nominated by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- grendel|khan 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This image is technically poor and, more importantly, ethically wrong. Its crop is awkward, and its composition is lacking. You cannot feature an image of plastic bottles. This tool kills millions of animals each year; they are omnipresent, and I can't bear them. To say I'm disappointed is a huge understatement. Wikimedia Commons is a large project, and we cannot feature images that encourage global destruction. Wolverine XI 21:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is nothing ethically wrong with this image at all, I disagree with the above vote on that score. It should absolutely be possible to feature a picture of something that causes environmental destruction. Featuring something doesn't mean that we approve of it. It means that the photograph is good enough to provoke emotions in us, which might be curiosity, or wonder, or - just as easily - horror. A picture illustrating how much damage mankind is causing to the environment is absolutely worthy of FP if otherwise good quality and well composed. It might inspire people to become more interested in environmental protection.

That said, I do agree with the above vote that the composition/crop of this image is not outstanding and that this precludes it from FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011, my dog choked on plastic and died. As a child, I was devastated. That is the fundamental reason I believe plastic bottles are unethical; I have seen plastics on beaches, in suburban areas in all of the nations I have visited, and even in the most remote locations. So, if I follow your logic, a picture of, say, individuals robbing from a bank will discourage theft? No, it won't. Humans speak and speak and speak, but they do not act. I have done my part, and I would like to encourage you to do yours. @Cmao20: you might want to reconsider your statement. Wolverine XI 11:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about mosquitoes? Are they allowed or not? I remember them biting my cousin in 2009. Maybe time to update our eligibility rules for some topics?

-- Basile Morin (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine, I'm sincerely sorry for your loss. However, my brother was hit by a car in front of me in 1970, and I don't oppose car nominations on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, mosquitos are not an issue; they do not harm the environment. It's also difficult to update what has been ingrained in your brain for so long. Ikan, wait, you can still recall events from the 1970s. Wow, I am impressed. I've never lived during the decade, but I imagine it was fantastic. Anyways, thanks for your condolences. I'd also add that we all handle stressful situations in different ways, and this is just how I handle things, I suppose. Wolverine XI 19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in 1965. The 70s had some excellent music, but it was a horrible decade for New York City, which almost went bankrupt during the Fiscal Crisis and was dangerous, scary, violent and dirty, though affordable. I'll add that I also couldn't vote on an FPC nomination for a very good photo of a heroic equestrian statue of Khmelnitsky that truly glorifies that Jew-murderer, but I abstained while stating why I was too biased to vote yea or nay and didn't oppose for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting texture and educational picture. We had similar subjects promoted FP in the past, like a truck in a recycling center, for example. Unfortunately not the best technical quality here -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, important picture, and the idea that it's immoral to photograph subjects that show the ills of society is abhorrent to me, because it suggests to me that the moral thing is to ignore them, and ignoring them is the best way to ensure that they continue, unchallenged. Consider nominating in an appropriate scope in COM:VIC if there isn't already a VI in that scope and this is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the picture is about PET bottles recycling. So, it is ethical and respectful attempt to avoid ill and ugly wasting natural resources and minimizing ecology damage. But I agree with you about the principle. We should show ugly, ill, unpleasant things if we want to solve the problems. LexKurochkin (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, these are among the very few plastic bottles that are being recycled at least once. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, screw plastic bottles and single-use plastics that have destroyed our oceans, but this image is a perfect showcase of why they suck and why their production deserves to die in vein (and having done several beach cleanups, I can attest that the problem is only getting worse). But, I'm not a fond of the crop so I will too oppose, but agree with Ikan Kekek that this would be more appropriate for COM:VIC. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it at Commons:Valued image candidates/Bales of PET bottles closeup.jpg. Thank you for the suggestion. grendel|khan 20:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macropus rufogriseus with joey in pouch leaning down.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 16:56:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Macropodidae (Macropods)
Info created by grendel|khan - uploaded by grendel|khan - nominated by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 16:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- grendel|khan 16:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2017 quality definition and processing. Camera has limited quality you could have achieved. Harsh light. PoV too high. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles + zoo photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree with the above comments but keep trying, this isn't that far from FP! I think the main problems are that the sharpness at full size is not as good as our best wildlife photos and that the light is quite harsh. But this image is a solid QI and useful for the project. I wonder whether the sharpness could be improved if you go back to the RAW file and tone down the in-camera noise reduction. Cmao20 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like others said, not quite, but it's a good effort and deserves the QI label. I'd like to encourage you to keep on trying for FPs of animals. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the encouragement; I'll try to focus on animal pictures taken outside of zoos, pending QI approval as a sort of first-pass filter. grendel|khan 20:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Souamaâ, Tizi Ouzou, Grande Kabylie, Algeria.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 16:06:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by Rabah Boualia - uploaded by Rabah Boualia - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I like this composition but I think the colours are oversaturated and the blown highlights in the clouds are quite disturbing this time. I appreciate the work you are doing to find possible FPs from Algeria though. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,@Cmao20 for your feedback. I really appreciate it. Riad Salih (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this has FP potential for sure. If there is a RAW file, it might be possible to redevelop it to the acceptable technical level. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Cosmonaut Unfortunately, the user is no longer active. I tried to make some adjustments to the image by reducing the saturation based on the reviews from @SHB2000 and @Cmao20 regarding the lighting. Riad Salih (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated colors. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Riad Salih (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pt18-176 Strandsediment.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 10:41:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Others
Info created and uploaded by Lusi Lindwurm, nominated by Yann
Info Beach sediment forming small braided rivers in the surf zone with dark minerals differentiated by their specific weight, Northern Algarve, Portugal.
Support -- Yann (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was a cave painting --Wilfredor (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful at full page, but I wish it were somewhat sharper, and I also wish we had some sense of scale. Did I miss something that indicates scale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Corner sharpness is not so good but overall scientifically interesting enough for FP and high resolution Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 15:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meiræ 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mütsik.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 07:28:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Water flea from the ceriodaphnia family. Ceriodaphnia is a genus of the Daphniidae

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Daphniidae
Info created by Janeklass - uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Janeklass (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a description above. Yann (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this little creature is a member of the Ceriodaphnia genus, it belongs to the Daphniidae family, right? Then please use Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Daphniidae as gallery link (just as I have corrected this above) – and also for any other photos of any Daphniidae. Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Identified by genus and quite interesting. I have another request, though: Could you please state in the file description what degree of magnification we are seeing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magnification in photomicrography is actually a very complex concept. People may not understand it. When I say that the magnification is 10x, you have to understand what 10x is about. This is related to the size of the camera sensor and requires special calculations to measure it. But in the end, this information does not give anything to the viewer, because it is not understood. It's easier to tell how big the water flea itself is, but I usually don't measure them. Janeklass (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still feel that it's helpful, but I think this photo is worth supporting, in any case. The other one shouldn't be an FP without the categorization being fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simocephalus3.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 07:20:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Simocephalus sp. are 3-4 mm in length, round animals that are covered in a bivalve carapace

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Daphniidae
Info created by Janeklass - uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Janeklass (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a description above. Yann (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this photos shows some Simocephalus species, it belongs to the Daphniidae family, right? Then please use Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Daphniidae as gallery link (just as I have corrected this above) – and also for any other photos of any Daphniidae. Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, please correct the red-linked categorization. We need blue links. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now on this basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support but please do try to get the gallery right so as to save others work in fixing your nomination. Regardless, the photo is superb. Cmao20 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to follow it up in the future Janeklass (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piazza della Libertà - San Marino - 2024 02 13 - GT 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2024 at 22:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info The Public Palace is the heart of San Marino’s political life and history, and it is here that the installation ceremony of the Captains Regent takes place every 6 months: on April 1 and October 1, every year. The Statua della Libertà, or Statue of Liberty, is positioned in the middle of Piazza Della Libertà, San Marino's major official plaza, which also houses the Parliament. Created, uploaded, nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very detailed large image. However, harsh contract, centred element in the composition, right building cut, and no wow --Wilfredor (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for judging my photo. Waiting for a warmer light in this place is not convenient because you would have this result as well as the sun against the lens. Terragio67 (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the explain Wilfredor (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to me. If pictures of monuments with strong light and shadows were good for de Chirico, I don't see why they can't be good in the art of photography, too, and I don't find this light overly harsh by any means. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vertical orientation is useful for example in encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. There must be more than one way to take good photographs of buildings; sometimes strong light and shadows work very well. (And thank you for the hint to de Chirico, one of my favourite painters ;–). – Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 11:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually quite like the light conditions here. Cmao20 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malcolm X NYWTS 2a.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2024 at 17:00:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1960-1969
Info created by Ed Ford, uploaded by Durova, nominated by Yann
Support Good historical picture of a notable personality. FP on English WP. -- Yann (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Famous photo, deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 11:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a lack of sharpness, noise and the photo is overexposed, and it is also not in color. Of course, these criticisms do not apply to a photo from 60 years ago. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 20:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barrancas del Paraná-restored.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 18:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Giuseppe Agujari - uploaded by Isha - restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 18:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 18:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice painting but is the sharpness really there for FP? Especially at only 7.5 megapixels. Good image but I feel like we have better painting digitisations. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments. --Thi (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Salmon River6.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 17:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#New Brunswick
Info: Upper Salmon River shrouded in mist; second nomination. The first one nearly passed; redeveloped to address the common criticism of the colours being too dull. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I did last time. Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't anything to look at. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't what? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't SEE anything to look at. There is nothing interesting to look at. A very dull scene or a dull day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 00:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is fine, but dull light and bland colors. You could have the same clouds with sunny parts somewhere. Gray landscape, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support again. There are some gray, foggy days and landscapes that are beautiful and give me a feeling of peace. I still remember visiting the temple complex in Besakih, on the slopes of Gunung Agung in Bali, in fog with a light, misty rain in 1976. This is a more purely natural landscape, but it has at one remove (because I'm not experiencing it in person) some of the same feeling to me. That's in addition to what I find a very satisfying composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice moody atmosphere. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, not extraordinary in my eyes Poco a poco (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, exactly. – Aristeas (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Temperate support There is a lot to look at with a mysterious feel and quiet contemplative atmosphere. With regard to emptiness and void and some Zen quality you can almost say: what is not there can be more important than what is there. Canada’s nature and geological features remind of magnificent mountain ranges in Siberia, particularly Altai and Ergaki/Sayan ranges, and to a certain extent even the Caucasus Mountains. Not sure if this photograph is exceptional enough, but it’s not bad at all, quiet and secluded, and I’d vote for it. --Argenberg (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me atmospheric.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, not extraordinary, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's a fine line between overcast and atmospheric, and this is sadly too much of the former IMO, sorry. BigDom (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light, no "wow" for me. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machhapuchhre or Fishtail Mountain 6,993 m (22,943 ft)- IMG 5246.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 08:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Bijay Chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay Chaurasia - nominated by Bijay Chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Problems with sky top left and right. Seems oversaturated or something too. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the blown highlights on the mountain and the clouds. It's just what they'd look like in bright sunlight Cmao20 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's the dark blue sky top left and the light blue top right that isn't right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something about the direction in which the sunlight is shining that makes you sure it's not right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it had been processed badly, it's the sun and cloud mist or glare or whatever that ruins the right hand side of the image. 10:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the clarification, Charles (and please sign your post). It's not ruined to me but an excellent photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 20:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful photo that I would have liked to have taken myself.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famberhorst. – Aristeas (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lenzuola di seta.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 06:28:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Tuscany
Info created and uploaded by Pamela Doretti - nominated by SHB2000 --SHB2000 (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo also won 2nd place in WLE-IT 2023. While I'm not fond of the blown-out sun, the wow takes it for me. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed. Yann (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The composition had huge potential but presumably was taken with a phone/low quality camera (no EXIF) as there is little definition, noise and CA. No idea if the original could be reworked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose presumably not going to be reworked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: refined the gallery to Tuscany. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Painterly and impressive scene. Quality is OK. – Aristeas (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think it's a phone camera. It has too much detail at full size for that. There's noise but I think the wow of the subject is enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting webs, unfortunately Overprocessed image without metadata (like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... by the same author). Unrealistic landscape in my view, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...agree and too much noise, tilted. Poco a poco (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The noise is not too disturbing. A bit like all the Instagram eyecatchers but not so bad.--Ermell (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support An unusual scene, we shouldn't criticize the noise and other aspects for limited sensors, because it would basically be using the fallacy of why the photographer didn't take the photo with another camera, are we evaluating cameras or photographs? --Wilfredor (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 20:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breil-Brigels in Graubünden 15-09-2022. (actm.) 24.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 05:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons (Graubünden)
Info Breil-Brigels, Panorama road between Waltensburg / Vuorz and Breil/Brigels, Canton of Grisons, Switzerland. Carved out passage.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 15:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The other side of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breil-Brigels in Graubünden. 23-09-2022. (actm.) 02.jpg with a more appealing vanishing point. But still not a truck track :-) Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we really need a second FP? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major differences in my opinion: 1) format horizontal vs vertical, 2) color of the road, sunny vs shadowy, 3) angle of view of the rock, 4) taken at different moments of the day, i.e. morning vs afternoon. In my opinion, it would comply with the set rule number 4 "A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints" -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Вакутин камень.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 01:48:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Volga Federal District
Info Vakutin stone is a geological natural monument. The 100-meter-high gray stone stands on the right bank of the Irgina River, which in this place makes a steep 180-degree loop. / created by Dendaris - uploaded by Dendaris - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Vignetting? Overprocessed? ★ 02:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. But even if I do, it's no more than any other:) JukoFF (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Seems oversaturated to me. It's a bit noisy but I can forgive that as part of the compromises necessary to capture this scene. Cmao20 (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per OP and Cmao20. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over-processed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed with weird sky, and probably artificial vignetting -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, lack of perspective (looking at the sides makes me dizzy) correction Poco a poco (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy. Also, poor categorization, missing coords --A.Savin 13:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Оса полист.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 01:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created by Shapomacro - uploaded by Shapomacro - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oversharpened, but still good Cmao20 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure whether this is FP anymore owing to Ermell's point about bad use of the clone stamp tool, it's quite noticeable. Cmao20 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell, I don't know. This is an impressive closeup, but if a cloning tool was used on the compound eyes, I'm not really in a position to judge that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Thi (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be great if not so overprocessed. And I would have rotated the image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, looks overprocessed Poco a poco (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clone stamping not good. The eyes look strange and per others.--Ermell (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell, the green parts of the eyes are not well done at full size, and also per my comment above -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Entombment of Christ-Caravaggio (c.1602-3).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 20:15:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info Caravaggio, The Entombment of Christ - uploaded by Masur - nominated by --Thi
Support --Thi (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 23:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Colleagues, how do we determine why one or another medieval painting might get status and another? The question is rhetorical, I have another favorite painting of this painter:) JukoFF (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I will support if it is a work by a reasonably well-known artist (i.e. notable enough to make their work important) that has at least some aesthetic appeal to me and if the quality of the reproduction is good. In this case the painting has a Wikipedia article so its notability is clear. Cmao20 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, but I'm not sure that the presence of a Wikipedia article should influence the choice, in the case of choosing other digital images the presence of a Wikipedia article in 9 cases out of 10 plays no role at all. Why does it matter in this case? JukoFF (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's not essential. For the artist to have a WP article is probably enough for me. I think our job re. artworks on Commons FP is to build a library of high-quality digitisations of artwork that might plausibly be considered great or valuable. Cmao20 (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think our job re. artworks on Commons FP is to build a library of high-quality digitisations of artwork. I can't see the point. The version seems oversaturated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maisons à Bougival, automne, par Camille Pissarro, Getty Museum, edited.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 20:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info Camille Pissarro, Houses at Bougival, 1870 - uploaded by Yann - nominated by --Thi
Support --Thi (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photographly. ★ 23:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question This look pretty accurate, but is it is right for us to add light and contrast to an image like this? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, please comment on this, and thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with other copies, i.e. [1]. Yann (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not answer the question? I'm not saying the result is bad, I'm asking whether Wikipedia/Commons should be fiddling around with other's images. Why not find an accurate reproduction in the first place? Unless Yann is looking at the original, his edits are just guess-work. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably did see the original at the Getty Museum, but it's long enough ago that I couldn't say exactly how bright and contrasty it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fatima BW 2018-10-07 11-13-53.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 19:22:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the people help the photo. As a matter of fact, the "I'M NOT SARCASTIC" shirt distracts me too much from the really good compositional idea you had in terms of the architecture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. Really sorry but it would have been better at a moment with fewer people in the foreground, I get how hard that might be but it's just too distracting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support although it is clear that 2 millimeters decide ) JukoFF (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I caught a moment when there were relatively few people in the picture. But I still don't understand why humans in photos are disturbing. Especially at a place of pilgrimage that thousands of people visit every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthold Werner (talk • contribs) 11:22, 22 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Because here they distract. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Berthold, you didn't get my point about the text on that shirt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, on the one hand I would love to see this place without all the people in the foreground. On the other hand the people with their mundane clothes etc. provide an interesting contrast to the gigantic modern architecture of the foreground and the classic church in the background. So while this is not a perfect photo of the site, it is IMHO an impressive document of today’s pilgrimage and pilgrims in Fatima. – Aristeas (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 01:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are pictures where people contribute to the composition but it isn't the case here and there is no much of what I'd expect in a Fatima shot here Poco a poco (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The people. Wolverine XI 21:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea but agree with others that the people distract here, also think the large letters in the foreground distract too, and it's not quite centred (although it may be the case that the monument is not quite aligned with the church in real life). BigDom (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sebkha D'Oran.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 14:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by Terki Hassaine Samir - uploaded by Terki Hassaine Samir - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question How likely is it that there would be a golden hour at 9am in that region? --Wilfredor (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wilfredor The light of the sunrise creates this effect by adjusting the white balance on the camera. This method is called the Chinese ink style in photography, and it's challenging to combine all the elements to achieve this result. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is 9am sunrise? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp The answer is quite obvious, isn't it? Riad Salih (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the question. Sunrise was at about 8 o'clock (as far as I can work out) so my question was to whether the colours are natural or enhanced in post-processing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp Natural colors. RAW is also available if you want. This place is called Sebkha. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 23:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photograph. -- Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for take the time to answer --Wilfredor (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Havelock Island, Sandy lagoon, Andaman Islands.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 11:39:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info Tropical beach in Havelock Island (Swaraj Dweep), Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andaman Sea, Indian Ocean. All by -- Argenberg (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Argenberg (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer the tree slightly further away. It dominates the composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and interesting. Do we already have FPs from these islands? Yann (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any except this one: File:Escenius midas (Midas blenny).jpg. And I have a few images more from the South Andaman Islands that I think might be good FP candidates. --Argenberg (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 16:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely FP potential of a dead tree in a paradisiac white sand beach and turquoise water, but here I mostly only see the dead tree. The compo doesn't work for me, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to me. Artist's choice to have the tree dominate the photo, no problem to my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Artist's choice, I agree. We don't have to like it though. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you surely don't. I agree with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without the dead tree it would be one of thousands beautiful and boring dream beach photos. The tree makes the photo. – Aristeas (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Shadow in the foreground, tight crop at the left. Also per Poco. Not the best composition, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is beautiful, and I agree with Aristeas about the dead tree --LexKurochkin (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hibiscus Rising sculpture from above. LEEDS 2023. 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 09:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
Info created by Octovision Media - uploaded by Lajmmoore - nominated by Lajmmoore -- Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this image was uploaded to Commons as part of a paid project, see WPːGLAM/Leeds2023 -- Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is my first FP nomination, so am learning the ropes, thank you for your time and patience Lajmmoore (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding support as nominator Lajmmoore (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support For your first nomination it's a very good one. Colourful and with amazing light. I wish that the top left corner didn't have that big ugly triangular shadow but there's nothing that could have been done except wait for a different time of day, which might have produced a worse result overall. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Commons rules say you can’t upload someone else’s work. What is the situation here Lajmmoore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

They do not. You can upload someone else's work if it's in the public domain or has a suitable Creative Commons Copyleft license on it and you credit your source. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Ikan Kekek, that was my understanding of the guidance @Charlesjsharp Lajmmoore (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This tutorial must be wrong then... Ikan Kekek. It states no promotional photos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "By default, you can’t upload someone else’s work"? Yes, that's the default. However, doing so is allowed in cases like the ones I outline, and for example, loads and loads of properly licensed photos have been uploaded from sites like Flickr. If you think this photo is purely promotional, I'm not sure why, but again, that's a default for images that are purely promotional and lack educational value. Look at "However, there are some exceptions" on that page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the artwork doesn't have artistic value but the nominator made it clear that this image was uploaded to Commons as part of a paid project. Octoviison media is not the photographer, just a production company employed by Leeds to promote the city. We have no information on copyright though I guess the photographer assigned his rights to the production company. Don't we need to know who took the photo? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Charlesjsharp - Octovision Media is a drone photographer based in Hull, who assigned their images to Leeds 2023 (Leeds Culture Trust) and gave permission for this image and a couple of others to be released under an open license. They are not a "production company employed by Leeds to promote the city". Secondly, again, I looked carefully at the guidelines here and I could not see where it precludes nominations from paid projects, indeed there are examples from other paid projects like this that have already been Featured on Commons. This one was voted for with support by a number of people, including yourself. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Octovision Media is a corporate entity, not a photographer. It employs photographers/drone operators. And we can assume they were paid to take the promotional photo. The image I supported is sharing culture. Not the same as pushing the merits of Leeds as a city. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No promotion please Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Charlesjsharp it's good to have open disucssion. 1) This is is a cultural project, part of a Wikimedian-in-Residence project to share Leeds' cultural heritage - like hundreds of other GLAM partnerships. 2) I don't think it matters that they were originally paid for the image, what matters for Commons is that it is now available in the public domain, which it is - this isn't precluded anywhere. If it was all the hundreds of historic photos taken in professional studios (that are now in the public domain) would be disallowed because at the time a photographer was paid for them by the sitters. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let’s look at this in a more relaxed way. Do we have a sharp distinction between selfless contributions and promotion? I don’t think so. There is plenty of promotional material on Commons user pages as well as on file pages. Just look at all the links to personal websites, assorted photography projects, wildlife parks and reserves, etc. Some users even have their websites included in the ‘Author’ or ‘Source’ parameters on Commons, even if they upload their files directly … This is all common(s) practice. Now what is worse with this photo? It does not cry “Buy x!” or “Come to y!” or “Vote for z!”. It does not even say “NN is a great photographer!”. It just documents an interesting work of art and can be used for many things. So why shouldn’t we welcome this photo? – Aristeas (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 16:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the photo; I hope the legal questions will be sorted. – Aristeas (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered Support: It's a cool sculpture and the ideal view of it. The only thing that tempers my support is that the areas of dirt and vegetation below are not the ideal background, which would be a more undifferentiated one such as all stones. However, it's the background that was there, and the subject is interesting enough to make the photo worth featuring, anyway, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WLE - 2022 - Parque nacional de Ordesa y Monte Perdido - 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 15:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain#Aragon
Info The leading lines, the sense of movement in the water, the mist and the autumn colours all make this a strong candidate to me. created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The trees are all leaning out, the technical quality is so-so and I wonder why a square crop was chosen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: perspective looks fine to me, but the square crop is odd indeed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually really like the square crop, it places the blurry water in the corner so that it leads the eye gently through the frame. But I do take Charles’s criticisms about the technical quality. Still FP to me but let’s see how the votes go. Cmao20 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 21:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the leaning trees most disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular to me. The way the trees are shown seems like a minor issue in context to this viewer. It's just a shame User:Moahim has no contributions since last year and is unlikely to see any of this discussion and choose how to address it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is one of these users who tends to show up when Wiki Loves Earth is happening, but doesn't really log in otherwise. Totally reasonable of course. Cmao20 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, on an all-volunteer site! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dramatic. – Aristeas (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Ermell Poco a poco (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Großer Blaupfeil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 15:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
Info Sven Damerow at his best, more than 45 megapixels of sharp focus-stacked dragonfly. There may be some minor stacking errors but so far I have only found one and it is barely noticeable at all. created by Sven Damerow - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 22:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high level of detail and nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm pretty sure that's the greatest dragonfly picture I've ever seen! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote. This is pretty close but I can see a couple more stacking errors in that one particularly round the head. So I think this one wins. Cmao20 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Thi (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. – Aristeas (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BigDom (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)

File:Imperial Hall, Residenz Munich, Germany.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 13:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created by -- Wilfredor (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 23:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced compo. Too much of the floor, and in relation too few of the ceiling -- at least the painting should not have been cut. --A.Savin 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the equal parts of the ceiling and the floor --Llez (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurasian sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus nisus) male.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 13:07:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Accipiter
Info A lunchtime visitor to our garden, enjoying his pigeon. Two current FPs, one feeding. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb quality, and the contextualised surroundings, while not very nice, make this image interesting and informative. Cmao20 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really great to have an eye like yours to watch, capture, and bring these wild action scenes here. Could you expand a bit the description on the file page, so that we understand better what's happening? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could someone explain to me what happened here please? --Wilfredor (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sparrowhawk grabbed a pigeon and brought it to ground, killing it and eating it in front of our kitchen window. Photo taken though a closed glass door. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, could you add date and time of the shoot in the exif. Thanks Wilfredor (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to update camera clock. Shows Australian time!. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you, I had a similar problem in Europe, there is no easy way to do this Wilfredor (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless of course cameras are able to connect to satellites. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent action shot. There's noise on and around the bird's tail feathers; I leave it to your discretion whether to do anything about that or leave it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, new version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent shot! You do a great work in showcasing birdlife from around the world, but it's great to see a bit of an insight into your home area (Oxfordshire?). --SHB2000 (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support and props to your window cleaner. BigDom (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent shot and great educational educational value. --Gyrostat (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm inclined to oppose due to feather arrangement. Wolverine XI 21:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sparrowhawk or the pigeon, please. What are you meaning by arrangement? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, Quebec, Canada 22.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 01:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Québec
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 11:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like more sky and 3x2 or something more panoramic. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about this one ? Wilfredor (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still too much foreground for my taste. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good foreground. – Aristeas (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks to having a strong tripod I was able to place it in the middle of the river. Wilfredor (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niagara River at Niagara Glen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 23:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
Info: autumn colours at Niagara Gorge; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty and peaceful. I had no idea there was such a rural part of the Niagara River. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the composition is not so exciting, in my view. Too much water, unspectacular sky, insignificant foreground. Vegetation is okay, slightly colorful, but not extremely special. Overall no wow, because something like a ship, an animal or an island is missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have liked more sky, more panoramic crop, less foreground water, no rock and a brighter day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the colours and the mood but the composition leaves something to be desired for me. I think it'd be better if the rock was placed at a third, rather than just awkwardly off at the edge of the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Basile Poco a poco (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 23:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kunst-Raststätte Illertal-Ost 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 09:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
Info The only art rest area in Germany was designed by the Austrian architect Herbert Maierhofer. The design costs amounted to almost a quarter of the total construction costs. The curved outer walls were made of expanded clay blocks with integrated thermal insulation made of rigid polystyrene foam. The three towers were each manufactured as a complete component in plastic and transported and assembled by helicopter; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funky subject and good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy, in my opinion. Harsh light with black shadows at the lower right corner. Fun architecture but not breathtaking. Distracting industrial lamp post and red umbrellas. The deer sculpture in the center is a bit simple and badly lit. Overall cluttered composition, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many distracting elements. Perhaps a drone picture would capture the architecture in a best way. --Thi (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, that lamp in the foreground on the right kills the composition Poco a poco (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloemknoppen van een gewone dotterbloem (Caltha palustris subsp. palustris). 17-03-2024. (d.j.b.).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 05:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info Flower buds in development of a Caltha palustris hanging above a ditch. Focus stack of 20 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing background and distracting yellow shape. The right border is gray and a bit awkward. Quality image but not up to FP for a somewhat easy subject, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. FYI: The background is the water in the ditch where the plant is overhanging. The yellow spot is a flower of the same plant that hangs a little further over the ditch. The right side is shaded by another plant.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Shade over the water seems unlikely, so probably the side of a blurred plant in the foreground? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Basile and there are unhelpful bright highlights. It is not very sharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but that big yellow blob in the background is just too distracting for me. The image quality is good but the background is somewhere short of outstanding Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I concur with Cmao20 Poco a poco (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is definitely a high-quality image of the buds, so it is very much a QI, but I agree that the yellow blob makes it a sub-optimal composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support appraising pro and contra. – Aristeas (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ganado, Imehejek, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-21, DD 10.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 18:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
Info Cattle herd going through a street before sunset in Imehejek, South Sudan. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing composition!, congrats Diego I love very much your work. Maybe some noise because oversharpening?, but FP for sure to me --Wilfredor (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denoised, thank you for your feedback, Wilfredo :) Poco a poco (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much dust covering the background. JukoFF (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, that's IMHO what makes this shot, together with the golden hour, so interesting. Poco a poco (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JukoFF: would you reconsider your vote? --Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why, I'm always consistent in my decisions) Yes and it's nice for you to get so many positive votes! JukoFF (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, as you wish, I felt that I had to double check --Poco a poco (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, two of your votes against in my nominations, after my response. Be a man!!! JukoFF (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of revenge votes? stop the bullshit! I've 11 oppose votes in FPC noms right now, two are in FPC you nominated, my god. What can I do if they are not convincing? And I'm not alone there. This is of no relevance here. If you want me to elaborate my votes, I can do it, if you ask me there to do so. Poco a poco (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains. After my negative vote. Your two negative votes on my nominations, in the span of 2 minutes :) We should be above personal grudges, that's not why we are here, think about it!!! JukoFF (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly ridiculous accusation. Poco cast four other oppose votes on other nominations within the same 15-minute span as the two negative votes on your nominations. (One of them is my nomination.) Is he apparently feuding with all these people too as well as you? No evidence of 'personal grudges' here at all, timestamps clearly indicate someone just going through the list of current nominations and reviewing them objectively (he cast two support votes too). I think an apology is owed for the false accusation and the passive-aggressive tone. Cmao20 (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cmao20 that you are not mad at me for opposing any of your noms and for your accurate response here. For the record, the statement "The fact remains. After my negative vote. Your two negative votes on my nominations, in the span of 2 minutes :) " is misleading. I opposed those 2 nominations 4 days and a half after JukoFF opposed here. So, nobody can speak here about an overreaction after getting pissed off or something like that --Poco a poco (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Strange oppose. The dust is essential for the composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Wilfredor. Yann (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and different to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of the best FP candidates in my opinion. Great mood, nice light, mystical dust and natural environment -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning photo, everything has been said really Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood thanks to the light and the dust in the background. – Aristeas (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much prefer this to the river version, great shot. BigDom (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kruger National Park (ZA), Elefant -- 2024 -- 0649.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 16:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Elephantidae_(Elephants)
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not up there with current FPs in composition of technical excellence. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like this is technically as good or better than some elephant FPs, but it's also of a type of behavior we don't appear to have an FP of (correct me if I'm wrong). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. But I much prefer this image of an elephant covering herself in sand whilst standing out in the sun protecting her sleeping baby. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Composition; especially foreground. Poor lighting from behind. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One "oppose" should be enough. See above. ;-) --XRay 💬 13:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The light is not very good. From the shadows, it seems that the midday sun comes from in front. Probably not the best angle of view, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that the light could be better but the high sharpness on the elephant makes it FP to me Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I that dustbathing? to me it looks like water. A shame that the arch of water coming out of the trunk. And yes, the ligthing isn't good, Poco a poco (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's water and sand (mud). --XRay 💬 19:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacaré do pantanal.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 12:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Alligatoridae (Alligators and Caimans)
Info Yacare caiman (Caiman yacare) during feeding, Pantanal Matogrossense National Park, Brazil. Located on the border of the states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, the park has an area of 135,606 hectares (335,090 acres). It is in the Pantanal biome. Created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by ★ -- ★ 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not very high resolution but I think there're strong mitigating reasons here… (BTW, it reminds me of Snowmanstudios' works). -- ★ 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted? -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but still FP. ★ 16:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the previous version before this correction of the tilt made at 20:02 -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is a nice shot, but it is quite tilted, quite small and has oversaturated colours. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I admit I was a bit hesitant to give this picture an upvote, fearing someone might comment about a "Brazilian friends group". However, I decided to cast those fears aside because, frankly, the photo is outstanding. I believe the size is perfectly appropriate given the rarity of images of this style and from this region. The composition truly deserves recognition. As for the colors, could they be considered too saturated? Personally, I don’t think so. To me, they are simply the reflection of a diverse and rich nature. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Yann (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: did you use Topaz to upscale it? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I "rollbacked" it. To add sharpness to the photos I do an upscaling with Topaz and then a downsize to return it to its original size, I just forgot the last stage, I already returned it to its original size, thanks for letting me know Wilfredor (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent to me - look at that eye! The photographer hasn't contributed since 2017, so we can't expect them to address the degree of saturation or tilt, but I'd be happy to see an alt if anyone would like to make one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose reso is quite low -- Ivar (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Oversaturated colors and low resolution, only 2,244 × 1,496 pixels -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Charles, it's obviously an impressive capture but it's only 3 megapixels and seems likely to be downsampled. Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles Poco a poco (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guaita Fortress - San Marino - 2024 02 13 - GT 01 ver2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2024 at 17:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#San_Marino
Info This panorama of the San Marino (City) is the result of the fusion of 60 photographs. Above you can see the Guaita Fortress and its famous feather. The whole panorama is breathtaking even if the background is slightly foggy: During the winters, especially in the months of February and March, it is possible to see advection fogs on the Adriatic Sea, which tend to invade the mainland for several kilometers from the coast. This phenomenon indicates the imminent arrival of spring. Created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does not work for me, the colours are too dull probably due to the harsh light when the sun is near it's zenith. PierreSelim (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose midday light conditions. -- Ivar (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great resolution. --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Harsh light but mitigated by amazing resolution and detail and great motif Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Área de Proteção Ambiental Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Thomas-Fuhrmann (16) (cropped).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 13:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Phallaceae
Info Clathrus chrysomycelinus in the Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Environmental Protection Area, São Paulo state, Brazil. It is a species of fungus in the stinkhorn family, found in South America. Created and initially uploaded by Snowmanstudios - cropped and nominated by ★ -- ★ 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cropped it just because the foreground was a bit distracting and the original crop in general a bit unbalanced. Picturesque fungus. -- ★ 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the fungus supposed to be grey or white? The whole photo seems very underexposed. BigDom (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it needs more brightness Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brightness added. ★ 09:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting fungus --Poco a poco (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and very strange topic --Wilfredor (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco². --SHB2000 (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionStar thanks for nominating my image, cropping the image this way is much better, yes! thank you. Snowmanstudios (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice. Can halos be removed from 'top' edge please @Snowmanstudios: . Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Halos not removed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per others. I think this is quite small. Adding information about the size of the fungus would increase the already substantial educational value of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I request to change the meaningless file name. It should be related to what is shown in the image, i.e. Clathrus chrysomycelinus --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should do it Wilfredor (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fjerning av utmerket-status[edit]

Etterhvert hender det at statusen for utmerka bilder endres. Bilder som tidligere var bra nok, vil kanskje ikke lenger bli ansett som det. Her listes bilder som du ikke lenger synes fortjener å være det. Da trengs to tredels majoritet (og minst fem stemmer) som er enig i å fjerne statusen fra bildet. Dersom ikke to tredeler av stemmene er enig i å fjerne statusen, blir den beholdt. Her stemmer man med {{keep}} (behold bildet som utmerka) eller {{delist}} (bildet fortjener ikke lenger å være utmerka). Når du nominerer et bilde her, ta med lenka til den opprinnelige nominasjonen (den finnes under Lenker på bildets beskrivelsesside. Bruk denne lenka for å legge til en fjerningskandidat.

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Paudorf Waldweg am Eichberg-4927.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2024 at 20:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower Austria
Info Another beautiful forest scene with crepuscular rays shining through trees. I know I nominated one superficially similar last month but this one has a very different composition and is by a different photographer in a different part of the world. created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support May be a bit corny, but excellent execution. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cmao20, could you link the other nominee? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, here, but as I say, different photographer, different country, just maybe similar style. Cmao20 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not that similar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Thi (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice effect -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oudtshoorn (ZA), Straußenfarm "La Plume", Afrikanischer Strauß -- 2024 -- 2625.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2024 at 17:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Struthionidae_(Ostriches)
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 17:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 17:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 20:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry. I really like the idea here and there is a lot this photo does well but I don't think the ostrich is fully sharp, and this combines with the visible fence in the background to just push this into oppose territory for me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not in focus, but the composition wouldn't work if it was. Must be better opportunities on an ostrich farm. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Firefighter outside of Bolé Ethiopian restaurant May 2020.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2024 at 14:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info A firefighter stands outside of the smoldering Ethiopian restaurant Bolé Express in St. Paul, Minnesota on May 28, 2020. Created by Hungryogrephotos - uploaded and nominated by Gobonobo -- gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo was taken in right place and right time, firefighter's face shows interesting emotions, but the image has multiple problems. Composition is the most severe IMO, including cut off feet of the firefighter, partly cut off police officer, cut off part of firefighting car, looks like that the crop was rather random. The verticals are not vertical. The sky is blown out. Midtones are rather noisy. --LexKurochkin (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the expression on the firefighter's face, but per above, the image is clearly tilted even in thumbnail size and the crop on the right is kind of messy. There is potential here though. Cmao20 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20: I'd be interested in working on composition if there is potential. Cropping and rotation would be fairly simple, but I have no experience dealing with noisy midtones or blown out skies. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 22:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there's not much you can do about the problems LexKurochkin mentions unless you have access to the RAW file. There isn't any point trying to recover detail in the highlights when it's just not there. Cropping and rotation would at the very least improve this image considerably and make it much more useful for visitors to Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kit Kat.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2024 at 12:22:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info Kit Kats at a supermarket in Colatina, Espírito Santo, Brazil. Created, uploaded and nominated by ★ -- ★ 12:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was wowed when I looked at this because I've never seen so many Kit Kats in my life (Note: not taken at a Japanese market). -- ★ 12:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we have any possible problems with copyright in uploading pictures where the KitKat logo features so prominently? Or does the logo fail to meet the threshold of originality? Cmao20 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know considering that there's the Kit Kat category. ★ 14:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is too simple to have a copyright. Multiple public domain logos don't create a copyright. IMO the issue is the opposite: is there any ethic issue advertising this product? Yann (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, no, it's a nice composition. But besides, didn't that issue disappear from the art world when Warhol's Campbell's soup cans were accepted as art, not just commercial art? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice photo. I don't know whether it's below COM:TOO for all the relevant countries. Anyone who thinks it probably is not should feel free to start a deletion request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the photo, anyway. It could be sharper but I don't think more sharpness would add that much in this case. Cmao20 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though a descriptive filename would be nice (should be done once this nom has concluded). --SHB2000 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just "Kit Kat" is enough for easy-search purposes, IMO as the author. ★ 21:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, since chocolate isn't the only thing called Kit Kat, you need to specify the name of your photo a bit better. I always associate Kit Kat with the nightclub in Cabaret, since we rarely see these chocolate bars here in Sweden. We have Kexchoklad instead. ;-) --Cart (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Neither the subject nor the composition are intresting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the arousal of interest is subjective ;) BTW, the Brazilian issue? ★ 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tribu Laarim, Kimotong, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-23, DD 15.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 21:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info Kids of the Laarim tribe walking around their village in Kimotong, South Sudan. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and colours. Cmao20 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Yann (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, sensitive photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Question concerning personality rights - did the parents of these children sign an agreement that this image can be published? --Kritzolina (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the best of your South Sudan images, but the outstanding composition is what pulls me in. Wolverine XI 11:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 11:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but the missing feet are an issue. Just a few steps more... Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chestnut-eared Laughingthrush 0A2A1831.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 18:49:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Leiothrichidae_(Laughingthrushes)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this would need a crop for FP. JJ Harrison? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nah this compo works. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The photographer should be given the opportunity of whether he wants to stick with with the unbalanced image. I would be surprised. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a crop roughly along the lines of the note I have suggested would improve this picture, but regardless, FP as it is to me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another crop suggested with image note. Still acceptable composition in my opinion, because the branch is quite nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't find a crop necessary. There's lead room in the direction the bird is facing. In addition, the branches are in large measure sharp, so at least arguably part of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile --Ermell (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 11:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but agree wtih Cmao20 and Basile that a tighter crop would be beneficial - less tree, more bird. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bales of PET bottles closeup.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 17:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Containers
Info created by Grendelkhan - uploaded by Grendelkhan - nominated by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- grendel|khan 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This image is technically poor and, more importantly, ethically wrong. Its crop is awkward, and its composition is lacking. You cannot feature an image of plastic bottles. This tool kills millions of animals each year; they are omnipresent, and I can't bear them. To say I'm disappointed is a huge understatement. Wikimedia Commons is a large project, and we cannot feature images that encourage global destruction. Wolverine XI 21:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is nothing ethically wrong with this image at all, I disagree with the above vote on that score. It should absolutely be possible to feature a picture of something that causes environmental destruction. Featuring something doesn't mean that we approve of it. It means that the photograph is good enough to provoke emotions in us, which might be curiosity, or wonder, or - just as easily - horror. A picture illustrating how much damage mankind is causing to the environment is absolutely worthy of FP if otherwise good quality and well composed. It might inspire people to become more interested in environmental protection.

That said, I do agree with the above vote that the composition/crop of this image is not outstanding and that this precludes it from FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011, my dog choked on plastic and died. As a child, I was devastated. That is the fundamental reason I believe plastic bottles are unethical; I have seen plastics on beaches, in suburban areas in all of the nations I have visited, and even in the most remote locations. So, if I follow your logic, a picture of, say, individuals robbing from a bank will discourage theft? No, it won't. Humans speak and speak and speak, but they do not act. I have done my part, and I would like to encourage you to do yours. @Cmao20: you might want to reconsider your statement. Wolverine XI 11:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about mosquitoes? Are they allowed or not? I remember them biting my cousin in 2009. Maybe time to update our eligibility rules for some topics?

-- Basile Morin (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine, I'm sincerely sorry for your loss. However, my brother was hit by a car in front of me in 1970, and I don't oppose car nominations on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, mosquitos are not an issue; they do not harm the environment. It's also difficult to update what has been ingrained in your brain for so long. Ikan, wait, you can still recall events from the 1970s. Wow, I am impressed. I've never lived during the decade, but I imagine it was fantastic. Anyways, thanks for your condolences. I'd also add that we all handle stressful situations in different ways, and this is just how I handle things, I suppose. Wolverine XI 19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in 1965. The 70s had some excellent music, but it was a horrible decade for New York City, which almost went bankrupt during the Fiscal Crisis and was dangerous, scary, violent and dirty, though affordable. I'll add that I also couldn't vote on an FPC nomination for a very good photo of a heroic equestrian statue of Khmelnitsky that truly glorifies that Jew-murderer, but I abstained while stating why I was too biased to vote yea or nay and didn't oppose for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting texture and educational picture. We had similar subjects promoted FP in the past, like a truck in a recycling center, for example. Unfortunately not the best technical quality here -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, important picture, and the idea that it's immoral to photograph subjects that show the ills of society is abhorrent to me, because it suggests to me that the moral thing is to ignore them, and ignoring them is the best way to ensure that they continue, unchallenged. Consider nominating in an appropriate scope in COM:VIC if there isn't already a VI in that scope and this is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the picture is about PET bottles recycling. So, it is ethical and respectful attempt to avoid ill and ugly wasting natural resources and minimizing ecology damage. But I agree with you about the principle. We should show ugly, ill, unpleasant things if we want to solve the problems. LexKurochkin (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, these are among the very few plastic bottles that are being recycled at least once. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, screw plastic bottles and single-use plastics that have destroyed our oceans, but this image is a perfect showcase of why they suck and why their production deserves to die in vein (and having done several beach cleanups, I can attest that the problem is only getting worse). But, I'm not a fond of the crop so I will too oppose, but agree with Ikan Kekek that this would be more appropriate for COM:VIC. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it at Commons:Valued image candidates/Bales of PET bottles closeup.jpg. Thank you for the suggestion. grendel|khan 20:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macropus rufogriseus with joey in pouch leaning down.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 16:56:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Macropodidae (Macropods)
Info created by grendel|khan - uploaded by grendel|khan - nominated by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 16:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- grendel|khan 16:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2017 quality definition and processing. Camera has limited quality you could have achieved. Harsh light. PoV too high. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles + zoo photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree with the above comments but keep trying, this isn't that far from FP! I think the main problems are that the sharpness at full size is not as good as our best wildlife photos and that the light is quite harsh. But this image is a solid QI and useful for the project. I wonder whether the sharpness could be improved if you go back to the RAW file and tone down the in-camera noise reduction. Cmao20 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like others said, not quite, but it's a good effort and deserves the QI label. I'd like to encourage you to keep on trying for FPs of animals. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the encouragement; I'll try to focus on animal pictures taken outside of zoos, pending QI approval as a sort of first-pass filter. grendel|khan 20:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Souamaâ, Tizi Ouzou, Grande Kabylie, Algeria.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 16:06:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by Rabah Boualia - uploaded by Rabah Boualia - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I like this composition but I think the colours are oversaturated and the blown highlights in the clouds are quite disturbing this time. I appreciate the work you are doing to find possible FPs from Algeria though. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,@Cmao20 for your feedback. I really appreciate it. Riad Salih (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this has FP potential for sure. If there is a RAW file, it might be possible to redevelop it to the acceptable technical level. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Cosmonaut Unfortunately, the user is no longer active. I tried to make some adjustments to the image by reducing the saturation based on the reviews from @SHB2000 and @Cmao20 regarding the lighting. Riad Salih (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated colors. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Riad Salih (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pt18-176 Strandsediment.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 10:41:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Others
Info created and uploaded by Lusi Lindwurm, nominated by Yann
Info Beach sediment forming small braided rivers in the surf zone with dark minerals differentiated by their specific weight, Northern Algarve, Portugal.
Support -- Yann (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was a cave painting --Wilfredor (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful at full page, but I wish it were somewhat sharper, and I also wish we had some sense of scale. Did I miss something that indicates scale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Corner sharpness is not so good but overall scientifically interesting enough for FP and high resolution Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 15:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Meiræ 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mütsik.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 07:28:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Daphniidae
Info created by Janeklass - uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Janeklass (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a description above. Yann (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this little creature is a member of the Ceriodaphnia genus, it belongs to the Daphniidae family, right? Then please use Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Daphniidae as gallery link (just as I have corrected this above) – and also for any other photos of any Daphniidae. Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Identified by genus and quite interesting. I have another request, though: Could you please state in the file description what degree of magnification we are seeing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magnification in photomicrography is actually a very complex concept. People may not understand it. When I say that the magnification is 10x, you have to understand what 10x is about. This is related to the size of the camera sensor and requires special calculations to measure it. But in the end, this information does not give anything to the viewer, because it is not understood. It's easier to tell how big the water flea itself is, but I usually don't measure them. Janeklass (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still feel that it's helpful, but I think this photo is worth supporting, in any case. The other one shouldn't be an FP without the categorization being fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simocephalus3.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2024 at 07:20:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Daphniidae
Info created by Janeklass - uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Janeklass (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a description above. Yann (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this photos shows some Simocephalus species, it belongs to the Daphniidae family, right? Then please use Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Daphniidae as gallery link (just as I have corrected this above) – and also for any other photos of any Daphniidae. Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, please correct the red-linked categorization. We need blue links. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now on this basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support but please do try to get the gallery right so as to save others work in fixing your nomination. Regardless, the photo is superb. Cmao20 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to follow it up in the future Janeklass (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piazza della Libertà - San Marino - 2024 02 13 - GT 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2024 at 22:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info The Public Palace is the heart of San Marino’s political life and history, and it is here that the installation ceremony of the Captains Regent takes place every 6 months: on April 1 and October 1, every year. The Statua della Libertà, or Statue of Liberty, is positioned in the middle of Piazza Della Libertà, San Marino's major official plaza, which also houses the Parliament. Created, uploaded, nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very detailed large image. However, harsh contract, centred element in the composition, right building cut, and no wow --Wilfredor (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for judging my photo. Waiting for a warmer light in this place is not convenient because you would have this result as well as the sun against the lens. Terragio67 (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the explain Wilfredor (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to me. If pictures of monuments with strong light and shadows were good for de Chirico, I don't see why they can't be good in the art of photography, too, and I don't find this light overly harsh by any means. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vertical orientation is useful for example in encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. There must be more than one way to take good photographs of buildings; sometimes strong light and shadows work very well. (And thank you for the hint to de Chirico, one of my favourite painters ;–). – Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 11:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually quite like the light conditions here. Cmao20 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malcolm X NYWTS 2a.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2024 at 17:00:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1960-1969
Info created by Ed Ford, uploaded by Durova, nominated by Yann
Support Good historical picture of a notable personality. FP on English WP. -- Yann (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Famous photo, deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 11:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a lack of sharpness, noise and the photo is overexposed, and it is also not in color. Of course, these criticisms do not apply to a photo from 60 years ago. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 20:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barrancas del Paraná-restored.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 18:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Giuseppe Agujari - uploaded by Isha - restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 18:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 18:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice painting but is the sharpness really there for FP? Especially at only 7.5 megapixels. Good image but I feel like we have better painting digitisations. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20 -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments. --Thi (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Salmon River6.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 17:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#New Brunswick
Info: Upper Salmon River shrouded in mist; second nomination. The first one nearly passed; redeveloped to address the common criticism of the colours being too dull. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I did last time. Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't anything to look at. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't what? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't SEE anything to look at. There is nothing interesting to look at. A very dull scene or a dull day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 00:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is fine, but dull light and bland colors. You could have the same clouds with sunny parts somewhere. Gray landscape, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support again. There are some gray, foggy days and landscapes that are beautiful and give me a feeling of peace. I still remember visiting the temple complex in Besakih, on the slopes of Gunung Agung in Bali, in fog with a light, misty rain in 1976. This is a more purely natural landscape, but it has at one remove (because I'm not experiencing it in person) some of the same feeling to me. That's in addition to what I find a very satisfying composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice moody atmosphere. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, not extraordinary in my eyes Poco a poco (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, exactly. – Aristeas (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Temperate support There is a lot to look at with a mysterious feel and quiet contemplative atmosphere. With regard to emptiness and void and some Zen quality you can almost say: what is not there can be more important than what is there. Canada’s nature and geological features remind of magnificent mountain ranges in Siberia, particularly Altai and Ergaki/Sayan ranges, and to a certain extent even the Caucasus Mountains. Not sure if this photograph is exceptional enough, but it’s not bad at all, quiet and secluded, and I’d vote for it. --Argenberg (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me atmospheric.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, not extraordinary, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's a fine line between overcast and atmospheric, and this is sadly too much of the former IMO, sorry. BigDom (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light, no "wow" for me. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machhapuchhre or Fishtail Mountain 6,993 m (22,943 ft)- IMG 5246.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 08:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info created by Bijay Chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay Chaurasia - nominated by Bijay Chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Problems with sky top left and right. Seems oversaturated or something too. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the blown highlights on the mountain and the clouds. It's just what they'd look like in bright sunlight Cmao20 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's the dark blue sky top left and the light blue top right that isn't right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something about the direction in which the sunlight is shining that makes you sure it's not right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it had been processed badly, it's the sun and cloud mist or glare or whatever that ruins the right hand side of the image. 10:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the clarification, Charles (and please sign your post). It's not ruined to me but an excellent photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 20:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful photo that I would have liked to have taken myself.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famberhorst. – Aristeas (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lenzuola di seta.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 06:28:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Tuscany
Info created and uploaded by Pamela Doretti - nominated by SHB2000 --SHB2000 (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo also won 2nd place in WLE-IT 2023. While I'm not fond of the blown-out sun, the wow takes it for me. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed. Yann (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The composition had huge potential but presumably was taken with a phone/low quality camera (no EXIF) as there is little definition, noise and CA. No idea if the original could be reworked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose presumably not going to be reworked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: refined the gallery to Tuscany. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Painterly and impressive scene. Quality is OK. – Aristeas (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think it's a phone camera. It has too much detail at full size for that. There's noise but I think the wow of the subject is enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting webs, unfortunately Overprocessed image without metadata (like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... by the same author). Unrealistic landscape in my view, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...agree and too much noise, tilted. Poco a poco (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The noise is not too disturbing. A bit like all the Instagram eyecatchers but not so bad.--Ermell (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support An unusual scene, we shouldn't criticize the noise and other aspects for limited sensors, because it would basically be using the fallacy of why the photographer didn't take the photo with another camera, are we evaluating cameras or photographs? --Wilfredor (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 20:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breil-Brigels in Graubünden 15-09-2022. (actm.) 24.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 05:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons (Graubünden)
Info Breil-Brigels, Panorama road between Waltensburg / Vuorz and Breil/Brigels, Canton of Grisons, Switzerland. Carved out passage.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 15:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The other side of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breil-Brigels in Graubünden. 23-09-2022. (actm.) 02.jpg with a more appealing vanishing point. But still not a truck track :-) Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we really need a second FP? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major differences in my opinion: 1) format horizontal vs vertical, 2) color of the road, sunny vs shadowy, 3) angle of view of the rock, 4) taken at different moments of the day, i.e. morning vs afternoon. In my opinion, it would comply with the set rule number 4 "A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints" -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Вакутин камень.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 01:48:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Volga Federal District
Info Vakutin stone is a geological natural monument. The 100-meter-high gray stone stands on the right bank of the Irgina River, which in this place makes a steep 180-degree loop. / created by Dendaris - uploaded by Dendaris - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Vignetting? Overprocessed? ★ 02:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. But even if I do, it's no more than any other:) JukoFF (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Seems oversaturated to me. It's a bit noisy but I can forgive that as part of the compromises necessary to capture this scene. Cmao20 (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per OP and Cmao20. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over-processed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed with weird sky, and probably artificial vignetting -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, lack of perspective (looking at the sides makes me dizzy) correction Poco a poco (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy. Also, poor categorization, missing coords --A.Savin 13:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Оса полист.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 01:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created by Shapomacro - uploaded by Shapomacro - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oversharpened, but still good Cmao20 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure whether this is FP anymore owing to Ermell's point about bad use of the clone stamp tool, it's quite noticeable. Cmao20 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell, I don't know. This is an impressive closeup, but if a cloning tool was used on the compound eyes, I'm not really in a position to judge that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Thi (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be great if not so overprocessed. And I would have rotated the image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, looks overprocessed Poco a poco (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clone stamping not good. The eyes look strange and per others.--Ermell (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell, the green parts of the eyes are not well done at full size, and also per my comment above -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Entombment of Christ-Caravaggio (c.1602-3).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 20:15:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info Caravaggio, The Entombment of Christ - uploaded by Masur - nominated by --Thi
Support --Thi (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 23:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Colleagues, how do we determine why one or another medieval painting might get status and another? The question is rhetorical, I have another favorite painting of this painter:) JukoFF (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I will support if it is a work by a reasonably well-known artist (i.e. notable enough to make their work important) that has at least some aesthetic appeal to me and if the quality of the reproduction is good. In this case the painting has a Wikipedia article so its notability is clear. Cmao20 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, but I'm not sure that the presence of a Wikipedia article should influence the choice, in the case of choosing other digital images the presence of a Wikipedia article in 9 cases out of 10 plays no role at all. Why does it matter in this case? JukoFF (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's not essential. For the artist to have a WP article is probably enough for me. I think our job re. artworks on Commons FP is to build a library of high-quality digitisations of artwork that might plausibly be considered great or valuable. Cmao20 (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think our job re. artworks on Commons FP is to build a library of high-quality digitisations of artwork. I can't see the point. The version seems oversaturated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maisons à Bougival, automne, par Camille Pissarro, Getty Museum, edited.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 20:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info Camille Pissarro, Houses at Bougival, 1870 - uploaded by Yann - nominated by --Thi
Support --Thi (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photographly. ★ 23:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question This look pretty accurate, but is it is right for us to add light and contrast to an image like this? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, please comment on this, and thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with other copies, i.e. [2]. Yann (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not answer the question? I'm not saying the result is bad, I'm asking whether Wikipedia/Commons should be fiddling around with other's images. Why not find an accurate reproduction in the first place? Unless Yann is looking at the original, his edits are just guess-work. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably did see the original at the Getty Museum, but it's long enough ago that I couldn't say exactly how bright and contrasty it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fatima BW 2018-10-07 11-13-53.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 19:22:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the people help the photo. As a matter of fact, the "I'M NOT SARCASTIC" shirt distracts me too much from the really good compositional idea you had in terms of the architecture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. Really sorry but it would have been better at a moment with fewer people in the foreground, I get how hard that might be but it's just too distracting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support although it is clear that 2 millimeters decide ) JukoFF (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I caught a moment when there were relatively few people in the picture. But I still don't understand why humans in photos are disturbing. Especially at a place of pilgrimage that thousands of people visit every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthold Werner (talk • contribs) 11:22, 22 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Because here they distract. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Berthold, you didn't get my point about the text on that shirt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, on the one hand I would love to see this place without all the people in the foreground. On the other hand the people with their mundane clothes etc. provide an interesting contrast to the gigantic modern architecture of the foreground and the classic church in the background. So while this is not a perfect photo of the site, it is IMHO an impressive document of today’s pilgrimage and pilgrims in Fatima. – Aristeas (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 01:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are pictures where people contribute to the composition but it isn't the case here and there is no much of what I'd expect in a Fatima shot here Poco a poco (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The people. Wolverine XI 21:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea but agree with others that the people distract here, also think the large letters in the foreground distract too, and it's not quite centred (although it may be the case that the monument is not quite aligned with the church in real life). BigDom (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sebkha D'Oran.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 14:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by Terki Hassaine Samir - uploaded by Terki Hassaine Samir - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question How likely is it that there would be a golden hour at 9am in that region? --Wilfredor (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wilfredor The light of the sunrise creates this effect by adjusting the white balance on the camera. This method is called the Chinese ink style in photography, and it's challenging to combine all the elements to achieve this result. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is 9am sunrise? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp The answer is quite obvious, isn't it? Riad Salih (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the question. Sunrise was at about 8 o'clock (as far as I can work out) so my question was to whether the colours are natural or enhanced in post-processing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp Natural colors. RAW is also available if you want. This place is called Sebkha. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 23:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photograph. -- Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for take the time to answer --Wilfredor (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meiræ 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Havelock Island, Sandy lagoon, Andaman Islands.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 11:39:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info Tropical beach in Havelock Island (Swaraj Dweep), Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andaman Sea, Indian Ocean. All by -- Argenberg (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Argenberg (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer the tree slightly further away. It dominates the composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and interesting. Do we already have FPs from these islands? Yann (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any except this one: File:Escenius midas (Midas blenny).jpg. And I have a few images more from the South Andaman Islands that I think might be good FP candidates. --Argenberg (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 16:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely FP potential of a dead tree in a paradisiac white sand beach and turquoise water, but here I mostly only see the dead tree. The compo doesn't work for me, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to me. Artist's choice to have the tree dominate the photo, no problem to my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Artist's choice, I agree. We don't have to like it though. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you surely don't. I agree with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without the dead tree it would be one of thousands beautiful and boring dream beach photos. The tree makes the photo. – Aristeas (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Shadow in the foreground, tight crop at the left. Also per Poco. Not the best composition, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is beautiful, and I agree with Aristeas about the dead tree --LexKurochkin (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hibiscus Rising sculpture from above. LEEDS 2023. 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 09:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
Info created by Octovision Media - uploaded by Lajmmoore - nominated by Lajmmoore -- Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this image was uploaded to Commons as part of a paid project, see WPːGLAM/Leeds2023 -- Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is my first FP nomination, so am learning the ropes, thank you for your time and patience Lajmmoore (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding support as nominator Lajmmoore (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support For your first nomination it's a very good one. Colourful and with amazing light. I wish that the top left corner didn't have that big ugly triangular shadow but there's nothing that could have been done except wait for a different time of day, which might have produced a worse result overall. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Commons rules say you can’t upload someone else’s work. What is the situation here Lajmmoore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

They do not. You can upload someone else's work if it's in the public domain or has a suitable Creative Commons Copyleft license on it and you credit your source. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Ikan Kekek, that was my understanding of the guidance @Charlesjsharp Lajmmoore (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This tutorial must be wrong then... Ikan Kekek. It states no promotional photos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "By default, you can’t upload someone else’s work"? Yes, that's the default. However, doing so is allowed in cases like the ones I outline, and for example, loads and loads of properly licensed photos have been uploaded from sites like Flickr. If you think this photo is purely promotional, I'm not sure why, but again, that's a default for images that are purely promotional and lack educational value. Look at "However, there are some exceptions" on that page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the artwork doesn't have artistic value but the nominator made it clear that this image was uploaded to Commons as part of a paid project. Octoviison media is not the photographer, just a production company employed by Leeds to promote the city. We have no information on copyright though I guess the photographer assigned his rights to the production company. Don't we need to know who took the photo? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Charlesjsharp - Octovision Media is a drone photographer based in Hull, who assigned their images to Leeds 2023 (Leeds Culture Trust) and gave permission for this image and a couple of others to be released under an open license. They are not a "production company employed by Leeds to promote the city". Secondly, again, I looked carefully at the guidelines here and I could not see where it precludes nominations from paid projects, indeed there are examples from other paid projects like this that have already been Featured on Commons. This one was voted for with support by a number of people, including yourself. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Octovision Media is a corporate entity, not a photographer. It employs photographers/drone operators. And we can assume they were paid to take the promotional photo. The image I supported is sharing culture. Not the same as pushing the merits of Leeds as a city. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No promotion please Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Charlesjsharp it's good to have open disucssion. 1) This is is a cultural project, part of a Wikimedian-in-Residence project to share Leeds' cultural heritage - like hundreds of other GLAM partnerships. 2) I don't think it matters that they were originally paid for the image, what matters for Commons is that it is now available in the public domain, which it is - this isn't precluded anywhere. If it was all the hundreds of historic photos taken in professional studios (that are now in the public domain) would be disallowed because at the time a photographer was paid for them by the sitters. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let’s look at this in a more relaxed way. Do we have a sharp distinction between selfless contributions and promotion? I don’t think so. There is plenty of promotional material on Commons user pages as well as on file pages. Just look at all the links to personal websites, assorted photography projects, wildlife parks and reserves, etc. Some users even have their websites included in the ‘Author’ or ‘Source’ parameters on Commons, even if they upload their files directly … This is all common(s) practice. Now what is worse with this photo? It does not cry “Buy x!” or “Come to y!” or “Vote for z!”. It does not even say “NN is a great photographer!”. It just documents an interesting work of art and can be used for many things. So why shouldn’t we welcome this photo? – Aristeas (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 16:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the photo; I hope the legal questions will be sorted. – Aristeas (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered Support: It's a cool sculpture and the ideal view of it. The only thing that tempers my support is that the areas of dirt and vegetation below are not the ideal background, which would be a more undifferentiated one such as all stones. However, it's the background that was there, and the subject is interesting enough to make the photo worth featuring, anyway, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WLE - 2022 - Parque nacional de Ordesa y Monte Perdido - 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 15:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain#Aragon
Info The leading lines, the sense of movement in the water, the mist and the autumn colours all make this a strong candidate to me. created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The trees are all leaning out, the technical quality is so-so and I wonder why a square crop was chosen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: perspective looks fine to me, but the square crop is odd indeed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually really like the square crop, it places the blurry water in the corner so that it leads the eye gently through the frame. But I do take Charles’s criticisms about the technical quality. Still FP to me but let’s see how the votes go. Cmao20 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 21:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the leaning trees most disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular to me. The way the trees are shown seems like a minor issue in context to this viewer. It's just a shame User:Moahim has no contributions since last year and is unlikely to see any of this discussion and choose how to address it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is one of these users who tends to show up when Wiki Loves Earth is happening, but doesn't really log in otherwise. Totally reasonable of course. Cmao20 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, on an all-volunteer site! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dramatic. – Aristeas (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Ermell Poco a poco (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Großer Blaupfeil.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 15:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
Info Sven Damerow at his best, more than 45 megapixels of sharp focus-stacked dragonfly. There may be some minor stacking errors but so far I have only found one and it is barely noticeable at all. created by Sven Damerow - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 22:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high level of detail and nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm pretty sure that's the greatest dragonfly picture I've ever seen! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote. This is pretty close but I can see a couple more stacking errors in that one particularly round the head. So I think this one wins. Cmao20 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Thi (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. – Aristeas (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BigDom (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)

File:Imperial Hall, Residenz Munich, Germany.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 13:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created by -- Wilfredor (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 23:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced compo. Too much of the floor, and in relation too few of the ceiling -- at least the painting should not have been cut. --A.Savin 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the equal parts of the ceiling and the floor --Llez (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurasian sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus nisus) male.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 13:07:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Accipiter
Info A lunchtime visitor to our garden, enjoying his pigeon. Two current FPs, one feeding. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb quality, and the contextualised surroundings, while not very nice, make this image interesting and informative. Cmao20 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really great to have an eye like yours to watch, capture, and bring these wild action scenes here. Could you expand a bit the description on the file page, so that we understand better what's happening? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could someone explain to me what happened here please? --Wilfredor (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sparrowhawk grabbed a pigeon and brought it to ground, killing it and eating it in front of our kitchen window. Photo taken though a closed glass door. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, could you add date and time of the shoot in the exif. Thanks Wilfredor (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to update camera clock. Shows Australian time!. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you, I had a similar problem in Europe, there is no easy way to do this Wilfredor (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless of course cameras are able to connect to satellites. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent action shot. There's noise on and around the bird's tail feathers; I leave it to your discretion whether to do anything about that or leave it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, new version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent shot! You do a great work in showcasing birdlife from around the world, but it's great to see a bit of an insight into your home area (Oxfordshire?). --SHB2000 (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support and props to your window cleaner. BigDom (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent shot and great educational educational value. --Gyrostat (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm inclined to oppose due to feather arrangement. Wolverine XI 21:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sparrowhawk or the pigeon, please. What are you meaning by arrangement? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, Quebec, Canada 22.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 01:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Québec
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 11:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like more sky and 3x2 or something more panoramic. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about this one ? Wilfredor (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still too much foreground for my taste. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good foreground. – Aristeas (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks to having a strong tripod I was able to place it in the middle of the river. Wilfredor (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niagara River at Niagara Glen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 23:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
Info: autumn colours at Niagara Gorge; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty and peaceful. I had no idea there was such a rural part of the Niagara River. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the composition is not so exciting, in my view. Too much water, unspectacular sky, insignificant foreground. Vegetation is okay, slightly colorful, but not extremely special. Overall no wow, because something like a ship, an animal or an island is missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have liked more sky, more panoramic crop, less foreground water, no rock and a brighter day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the colours and the mood but the composition leaves something to be desired for me. I think it'd be better if the rock was placed at a third, rather than just awkwardly off at the edge of the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Basile Poco a poco (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 23:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kunst-Raststätte Illertal-Ost 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 09:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
Info The only art rest area in Germany was designed by the Austrian architect Herbert Maierhofer. The design costs amounted to almost a quarter of the total construction costs. The curved outer walls were made of expanded clay blocks with integrated thermal insulation made of rigid polystyrene foam. The three towers were each manufactured as a complete component in plastic and transported and assembled by helicopter; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funky subject and good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy, in my opinion. Harsh light with black shadows at the lower right corner. Fun architecture but not breathtaking. Distracting industrial lamp post and red umbrellas. The deer sculpture in the center is a bit simple and badly lit. Overall cluttered composition, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many distracting elements. Perhaps a drone picture would capture the architecture in a best way. --Thi (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, that lamp in the foreground on the right kills the composition Poco a poco (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloemknoppen van een gewone dotterbloem (Caltha palustris subsp. palustris). 17-03-2024. (d.j.b.).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 05:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info Flower buds in development of a Caltha palustris hanging above a ditch. Focus stack of 20 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing background and distracting yellow shape. The right border is gray and a bit awkward. Quality image but not up to FP for a somewhat easy subject, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. FYI: The background is the water in the ditch where the plant is overhanging. The yellow spot is a flower of the same plant that hangs a little further over the ditch. The right side is shaded by another plant.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Shade over the water seems unlikely, so probably the side of a blurred plant in the foreground? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Basile and there are unhelpful bright highlights. It is not very sharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but that big yellow blob in the background is just too distracting for me. The image quality is good but the background is somewhere short of outstanding Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I concur with Cmao20 Poco a poco (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is definitely a high-quality image of the buds, so it is very much a QI, but I agree that the yellow blob makes it a sub-optimal composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support appraising pro and contra. – Aristeas (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ganado, Imehejek, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-21, DD 10.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 18:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
Info Cattle herd going through a street before sunset in Imehejek, South Sudan. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing composition!, congrats Diego I love very much your work. Maybe some noise because oversharpening?, but FP for sure to me --Wilfredor (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denoised, thank you for your feedback, Wilfredo :) Poco a poco (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ★ 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much dust covering the background. JukoFF (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, that's IMHO what makes this shot, together with the golden hour, so interesting. Poco a poco (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JukoFF: would you reconsider your vote? --Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why, I'm always consistent in my decisions) Yes and it's nice for you to get so many positive votes! JukoFF (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, as you wish, I felt that I had to double check --Poco a poco (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, two of your votes against in my nominations, after my response. Be a man!!! JukoFF (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of revenge votes? stop the bullshit! I've 11 oppose votes in FPC noms right now, two are in FPC you nominated, my god. What can I do if they are not convincing? And I'm not alone there. This is of no relevance here. If you want me to elaborate my votes, I can do it, if you ask me there to do so. Poco a poco (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains. After my negative vote. Your two negative votes on my nominations, in the span of 2 minutes :) We should be above personal grudges, that's not why we are here, think about it!!! JukoFF (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly ridiculous accusation. Poco cast four other oppose votes on other nominations within the same 15-minute span as the two negative votes on your nominations. (One of them is my nomination.) Is he apparently feuding with all these people too as well as you? No evidence of 'personal grudges' here at all, timestamps clearly indicate someone just going through the list of current nominations and reviewing them objectively (he cast two support votes too). I think an apology is owed for the false accusation and the passive-aggressive tone. Cmao20 (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cmao20 that you are not mad at me for opposing any of your noms and for your accurate response here. For the record, the statement "The fact remains. After my negative vote. Your two negative votes on my nominations, in the span of 2 minutes :) " is misleading. I opposed those 2 nominations 4 days and a half after JukoFF opposed here. So, nobody can speak here about an overreaction after getting pissed off or something like that --Poco a poco (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Strange oppose. The dust is essential for the composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Wilfredor. Yann (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and different to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of the best FP candidates in my opinion. Great mood, nice light, mystical dust and natural environment -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning photo, everything has been said really Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood thanks to the light and the dust in the background. – Aristeas (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much prefer this to the river version, great shot. BigDom (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kruger National Park (ZA), Elefant -- 2024 -- 0649.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 16:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Elephantidae_(Elephants)
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not up there with current FPs in composition of technical excellence. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like this is technically as good or better than some elephant FPs, but it's also of a type of behavior we don't appear to have an FP of (correct me if I'm wrong). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. But I much prefer this image of an elephant covering herself in sand whilst standing out in the sun protecting her sleeping baby. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Composition; especially foreground. Poor lighting from behind. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One "oppose" should be enough. See above. ;-) --XRay 💬 13:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The light is not very good. From the shadows, it seems that the midday sun comes from in front. Probably not the best angle of view, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that the light could be better but the high sharpness on the elephant makes it FP to me Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I that dustbathing? to me it looks like water. A shame that the arch of water coming out of the trunk. And yes, the ligthing isn't good, Poco a poco (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's water and sand (mud). --XRay 💬 19:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacaré do pantanal.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 12:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Alligatoridae (Alligators and Caimans)
Info Yacare caiman (Caiman yacare) during feeding, Pantanal Matogrossense National Park, Brazil. Located on the border of the states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, the park has an area of 135,606 hectares (335,090 acres). It is in the Pantanal biome. Created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by ★ -- ★ 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not very high resolution but I think there're strong mitigating reasons here… (BTW, it reminds me of Snowmanstudios' works). -- ★ 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted? -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but still FP. ★ 16:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the previous version before this correction of the tilt made at 20:02 -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is a nice shot, but it is quite tilted, quite small and has oversaturated colours. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I admit I was a bit hesitant to give this picture an upvote, fearing someone might comment about a "Brazilian friends group". However, I decided to cast those fears aside because, frankly, the photo is outstanding. I believe the size is perfectly appropriate given the rarity of images of this style and from this region. The composition truly deserves recognition. As for the colors, could they be considered too saturated? Personally, I don’t think so. To me, they are simply the reflection of a diverse and rich nature. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Yann (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: did you use Topaz to upscale it? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I "rollbacked" it. To add sharpness to the photos I do an upscaling with Topaz and then a downsize to return it to its original size, I just forgot the last stage, I already returned it to its original size, thanks for letting me know Wilfredor (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent to me - look at that eye! The photographer hasn't contributed since 2017, so we can't expect them to address the degree of saturation or tilt, but I'd be happy to see an alt if anyone would like to make one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose reso is quite low -- Ivar (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Oversaturated colors and low resolution, only 2,244 × 1,496 pixels -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Charles, it's obviously an impressive capture but it's only 3 megapixels and seems likely to be downsampled. Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles Poco a poco (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guaita Fortress - San Marino - 2024 02 13 - GT 01 ver2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2024 at 17:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#San_Marino
Info This panorama of the San Marino (City) is the result of the fusion of 60 photographs. Above you can see the Guaita Fortress and its famous feather. The whole panorama is breathtaking even if the background is slightly foggy: During the winters, especially in the months of February and March, it is possible to see advection fogs on the Adriatic Sea, which tend to invade the mainland for several kilometers from the coast. This phenomenon indicates the imminent arrival of spring. Created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ★ 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does not work for me, the colours are too dull probably due to the harsh light when the sun is near it's zenith. PierreSelim (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose midday light conditions. -- Ivar (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great resolution. --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Harsh light but mitigated by amazing resolution and detail and great motif Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Área de Proteção Ambiental Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Thomas-Fuhrmann (16) (cropped).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 13:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Phallaceae
Info Clathrus chrysomycelinus in the Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Environmental Protection Area, São Paulo state, Brazil. It is a species of fungus in the stinkhorn family, found in South America. Created and initially uploaded by Snowmanstudios - cropped and nominated by ★ -- ★ 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cropped it just because the foreground was a bit distracting and the original crop in general a bit unbalanced. Picturesque fungus. -- ★ 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the fungus supposed to be grey or white? The whole photo seems very underexposed. BigDom (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it needs more brightness Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brightness added. ★ 09:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting fungus --Poco a poco (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and very strange topic --Wilfredor (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco². --SHB2000 (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionStar thanks for nominating my image, cropping the image this way is much better, yes! thank you. Snowmanstudios (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice. Can halos be removed from 'top' edge please @Snowmanstudios: . Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Halos not removed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per others. I think this is quite small. Adding information about the size of the fungus would increase the already substantial educational value of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I request to change the meaningless file name. It should be related to what is shown in the image, i.e. Clathrus chrysomycelinus --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should do it Wilfredor (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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