Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates:
Featured picture candidates ![]() Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new usersAdding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
|
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 14:18:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Tyrannidae#Genus : Pyrrhomyias
Info No FPs of this genus. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Gallery fixed. It's great that you added the genus section, you just missed one of the 'Family' step in the code here on the nom. --Cart (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Aaaaaww... fluffball. Artistic compo too. --Cart (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 14:25:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Eumastacidae (Monkey grasshoppers)
Info No FPs of this family of grasshoppers. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice! Looks like creatures dreamed up in a Japanese toy factory. --Cart (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support These look like out of some sci-fi movie. Yann (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hyles dahlii
Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 11:23:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Male dorsal
-
Male ventral
-
Female dorsal
-
Female ventral
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Sphingidae (Hawk Moths)
Info Hyles dahlii mounted specimen male and female created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus – nominated by Olivier LPB -- Olivier LPB (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Olivier LPB (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 05:50:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#North Macedonia
Info created by Деан Лазаревски – uploaded by Деан Лазаревски – nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 05:30:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Electronics
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Interesting motif, but imo the composition will look more balanced with the phone box a bit centered. Slight more crop on the left. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 06:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Done I've uploaded a cropped version.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 05:14:59 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/In their habitats#Mammals
Info created, uploaded and nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 May 2025 at 21:51:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Central_Federal_District
Info A striking photo and an interesting site with some cultural importance. Created by Alexander Novikov – uploaded by Alexander Novikov – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support interesting landscape, dramatic sky. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 May 2025 at 10:12:13 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#India
Info The juxtaposition of the flowering plants in the foreground with the stark white cathedral appeals to me. There are no FPs of church exteriors in India. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I agree. This is a very nice composition. Cmao20 (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 May 2025 at 09:55:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridges, Peafowl, Pheasants, Quail, Turkeys)
Info created by Rohit14400 – uploaded by Rohit14400 – nominated by Rohit14400 -- thewanderersthirdeye (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- thewanderersthirdeye (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking symmetry. --Tagooty (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support light could have been better, but arguably better composed that both of the other two FPs. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- And both the other two FPs have already appeared on the main page. So this is a timely upgrade, and a delist for the smaller of the two older ones might be in order. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Beautiful and well composed but the image quality is no more than okay Cmao20 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment I agree with previous comments about the image's quality, but it's mostly color noise, normal noise, light and a tiny amount of sharpening, all very easy to fix. It's a beautiful photo, so thewanderersthirdeye, Tagooty, UnpetitproleX, Cmao20, if you want a version with these issues fix you got one here. Best, --Cart (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- @W.carter Thank you for fixing these issues. New version looks better to me. This is my first submission to the FP list. How should I proceed now? Should I withdraw the current nomination and submit a new one for the edited image? thewanderersthirdeye (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- thewanderersthirdeye, I forgot to say welcome to FPC. :-) I didn't realize you were new here. The easiest thing is to add it as an 'Alternative' to this nom. Because it's a reviewed QI, we can't simply upload the improved version over the old file per COM:OVERWRITE, that is otherwise an option for small changes. No need to withdraw and begin again. I will fix this for you, you can just look at my edits here on the nomination and remember how this is done for future references. You can also support the new alternative if you like, support both or strike the support for the original, it's up to you. --Cart (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Edited version with some of the issues corrected, see above. Also 'pinging' previous voters about this change: Tagooty, UnpetitproleX, Cmao20.
Support Beautiful bird. --Cart (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the improvements. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
The Bottle Imp
Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 21:06:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed#Book illustrations in black and white
Info created by William Hatherell – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Info This is the complete set of illustrations, from I think the second or third printing of the work with, notably, the caption for the second changed to be a more accurate line for what's seen compared to the first printing. Otherwise it's the same image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 21:02:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Cycling
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Sharp details and dynamic perspective, convincing depiction of sporting exertion in natural surroundings. Excellent work, well captured. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin, and might I also add, a good-looking man. A personality rights warning should probably be added though. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin Cmao20 (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 12:10:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail_vehicles#United_Kingdom
Info Another Scottish railway. I really liked the sign in this one, and felt that it elevated the composition to something really special. created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I agree about the sign, it's like having text in the image while not having added any text. Good way to dodge the image guidelines. ;-) --Cart (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the composition with the mountain on the left. "Usual" Kabelleger quality. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 06:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The hut is the cherry on the cake. --Yann (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Coconut lorikeet
Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 06:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
Three Coconut lorikeet are sleeping
-
Three Coconut lorikeet wake up
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Neutral The 'sleeping' is a clear FP for me, but in the 'awake' photo the middle bird didn't cooperate. I'll wait for some comments from other bird photographers, but perhaps you should break this up and do separate noms. The 'awake' photo is timestamped before the 'sleeping', so are they really waking up or were they falling asleep or simply preening. --Cart (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- No, they were indeed waking up, W.carter — or possibly startled. These two images are the final frames from a longer sequence, and I selected the ones with the highest overall quality for nomination, see: https://ibb.co/LdvKt78c
- As for the "awake" photo: you're right, the eye of the middle bird could be a bit sharper. Still, I think the contrast between the sleeping and the alert states is what gives the composition its unique appeal. I'm also curious to hear what other (bird) photographers think — perhaps a separate nomination would be worth considering. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- also additional funny picture: only one out of the three loris shortly startled, see: File:Allfarblori-Vogelpark-Marlow-2025-03.jpg --Tuxyso (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but I don't think the image on the right is an FP, due to the slight motion blur on the middle bird. The left, on the other hand, is sharp and crisp.--Peulle (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 06:25:42 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Ciconiidae (Storks)
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Gallery fixed on both nominations. Please, it would be great if you could learn to add the section to your noms too, instead of relying on us other to go searching and do it for you. --Cart (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- W.carter, Thank you for your help. I did make a serious effort to find a suitable gallery, but unfortunately the page Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds isn't working correctly — as you can see in this screenshot: https://ibb.co/rGvp6B9f. I also tried clicking on "Other Birds," but instead of reaching the correct section where "Other Birds" begin, I was redirected back to the top of gallary page and not the beginning of the stork's gallery as the preview image might suggest. Additionally, the page lacks a proper table of contents, so I have to guess the anchor links based on the section headings. That’s why I wasn’t able to add the gallery myself. I really appreciate your assistance! Tuxyso (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- The photos used for the galleries are selected from one of the orders/families or genus on that page. Having a stork as representative for 'Birds' in general does not mean that the photo goes directly to the stork section, any more than say the image of the Golden Gate bridge for 'Bridges' at Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications going specifically to 'San Fransisco'. When you are on the right bird page, you just go to the 'Table of contents' on the upper left and select the appropriate section. --Cart (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I will remember for the next time, thanks! Tuxyso (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Also the section headings are the anchors. When designing these pages, we can't rely on all users knowing about such sophisticated things as anchors. It needs to be as simple as just copying the section heading. Also, introducing {{Anchor}} in the galleries would confuse the FPCBot no end. It would place photos in the wrong section. Or we would have to do all the sorting and tasks done by the FPCBot by hand, and I don't think anyone here wants to go back to those dark days. Aristeas, with some help from me is just in the process of cleaning up the galleries and making the code for FPCBot better (see his talk page), so that there will be no more photos in wrong sections. --Cart (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I will remember for the next time, thanks! Tuxyso (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to Cart for the help. If I may add this: the little box for the table of contents (TOC) at the top of the gallery pages is empty (as shown in your screenshot) because after some changes to the default “skin” of Wiki pages in 2022 the TOC is displayed in bigger style at the left of every page now (the exact location and format depend on the “Appearance > Skin” settings in your preferences). If this big TOC is not visible, there is some confusion or conflict between the “skin” settings and the browser which you are using right now; this would be annoying, but AFAIK it would not be related to the gallery pages but would be a general technical problem. – Aristeas (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- The photos used for the galleries are selected from one of the orders/families or genus on that page. Having a stork as representative for 'Birds' in general does not mean that the photo goes directly to the stork section, any more than say the image of the Golden Gate bridge for 'Bridges' at Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications going specifically to 'San Fransisco'. When you are on the right bird page, you just go to the 'Table of contents' on the upper left and select the appropriate section. --Cart (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- W.carter, Thank you for your help. I did make a serious effort to find a suitable gallery, but unfortunately the page Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds isn't working correctly — as you can see in this screenshot: https://ibb.co/rGvp6B9f. I also tried clicking on "Other Birds," but instead of reaching the correct section where "Other Birds" begin, I was redirected back to the top of gallary page and not the beginning of the stork's gallery as the preview image might suggest. Additionally, the page lacks a proper table of contents, so I have to guess the anchor links based on the section headings. That’s why I wasn’t able to add the gallery myself. I really appreciate your assistance! Tuxyso (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Weaksupport for now. Looking at the reflection, this is a little bit tilted, but I'm sure you can correct that. Very nice otherwise. --Cart (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)- Thanks so much for your thorough review! I've corrected the tilt — I'd really appreciate it if you could take another look, W.carter. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Perfect. Thank you for fixing this. :-) --Cart (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your thorough review! I've corrected the tilt — I'd really appreciate it if you could take another look, W.carter. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice composition and light Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I like how the backlight emphasizes the bird’s outline, and the mirror image is very nice. – Aristeas (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 04:26:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Seed pod of a Telekia speciosa Focus stack of 20 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellently handled, you've come a long way since the first time I explained focus stacking to you. :-) --Cart (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your vote. I still have your explanation of 21 July 2019 in my possession. another remark: I think the new category Asterales is not activated yet.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hint: the link (category) works now, I have applied a little tweak. – Aristeas (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 10:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent. I would be tempted to crop a tiny bit off the bottom so the lines finish in the left corner. Cmao20 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. – Aristeas (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Superb focus stacking bringing out minute details. --Tagooty (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I like compo and subject, i think background on left isnt favorable, i would crop a bit, but s anyway. Small mistake anoted. Colors + --Mile (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Done Thanks for your vote. small error has been fixed.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support very nice --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support could be a featured set with File:Groot koeienoog (Telekia speciosa) 16-03-2025 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg Olivier LPB (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 21:03:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical devices
Info created by Henry Söderlund on Flickr – uploaded by Tm – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support High quality photo at high resolution. -- JayCubby (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the seeming simplicity. And the very small dashes of colour, that break the illusion of a black and white photo. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, the light is very good and the comp works, but as a studio photo, I'm not impressed by this. Naturally, not every object photo needs to be focus stacked, but the DoF is rather shallow and not very well placed. The bar for photos like this is very high on FPC. --Cart (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Cart. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I think what bothers me is that the lens is out of focus. I don't mind a shallow DoF too much but it feels like the wrong parts of this picture are in focus. I agree with Kriztolina's review, which nearly persuaded me to support. Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 19:24:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Liliaceae
Info all by Kritzolina – nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Stunning flower and bud, but the cut bud in the background is drawing attention away from the main subject. You don't happen to have another shot, taken a little higher and not cutting that bud? That way you get the 2-1-3 (1=main subject, 2=secondary subject, 3=background subject) compo that always works well with flowers, now it's at 2-1-2.84. --Cart (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review - unfortunately I don't have exactly the shot you describe. This would be perfect, I know. I have two similar shots, but I personally prefer this one, as one can see into the open flower. The other shots would be this one and this one. Kritzolina (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 19:03:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I don't know if others will think it has insufficient wow-factor but this interesting case study of a building being reclaimed by nature appeals to me. I enjoy the rich colours, the patterns cast by the shadows, and the branch that juts out to touch the roof of the old hut almost like the forest is claiming it as its own. Cmao20 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the interplay between light and shadow and the lost place look of the photo. Definetely enough wow-factor for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I'm a sucker for old derelict buildings, and with the color scheme on this, it could easily be a nice print on a wall. --Cart (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not a striking scene. The lighting spoils it for me. --Tagooty (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 16:18:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
Info created by US Navy, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
Info Admiral Chester Nimitz signs as Supreme Allied Commander during formal surrender ceremonies on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. September 2, 1945. Directly behind him are (left-to-right): General of the Army Douglas MacArthur; Admiral William Halsey, USN, and Rear Admiral Forrest Sherman, USN.
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support. Can be a featured picture just like the Japanese signature one. -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Moheen (keep talking) 15:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support historical value --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 13:58:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Objects
Info Just me, experimenting, again. We don't have many photos of camera flashes at the moment they fire (let alone mounted on a camera), so I gave it a try. See the description on the file page. I think the black & white works well here with this, my trusty old analogue film camera. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Arty. Black and white probably essential here else you'd probably get weird lens flares Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent. High informational value as well as high artistic value. --Kritzolina (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive, and very cleverly done (see description page). – Aristeas (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Visually striking shot of a rarely captured moment, combining technical clarity with aesthetic composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 10:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I really like how you always come up with something innovative and new. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support a well done image! --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 11:53:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Soldiers
Info Female soldier standing guard onboard mine countermeasures vessel M77 Ulvön, moored in Lysekil, Sweden. I know this is a small file, as you can see it's a crop from a larger photo. But since it's within the rules, I’m going to try it anyway, because I really like the "Accidental Renaissance" of it. The soldiers were kind enough and they gave me permission to take photos, but they were on the job, so I wasn’t going to pester them too much. The male soldier was stationary at the gangway, while the female was patrolling the deck. This was the only chance I had to photograph her in that position. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support It is a bit small but it's a fine portrait with a careful composition. I would find it interesting hanging in an art gallery, so it should probably be FP.Cmao20 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The different shapes of the surroundings (rectangles, sharp diagonal, round window) make this photo special and very apt for the portrait of a soldier. – Aristeas (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Cmao20 and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I've added a category (for the H&K G36). I would personally crop a few pixels at the top (but then again I like to crop things too tightly). JayCubby (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your reasoning, but those extra pixels above the dark angle are intentional to show that the peak is there and that the pattern doesn't continue further up. Thanks for the category, I'm no weapons expert. Although the notation is probably a bit redundant since there is only one weapon visible in the image. ;-) ) --Cart (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Low resolution, not exceptional for a posed image. --Tagooty (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 11:45:54 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Very scenic and beautiful view. The sky saturation looks a bit much but I'll take your word for it that it looked like this Cmao20 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful scenery and colours, high resolution. Hopefully, the WLE jury will appreciate this photo! – Aristeas (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support For once, the water really is this bent on the map and not just a product of the projection. I wouldn't mind if the 'Vibrancy' of the sky was tone down a bit, but its a lovely photo. --Cart (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- "The water really is bent" that's why it's called "Sickle Lake" ;) Plozessor (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yep, I saw that and suspected the name had to come from a similarity, I only went to the map to see just how "sickle-shaped" it was since I was curious. --Cart (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- "The water really is bent" that's why it's called "Sickle Lake" ;) Plozessor (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice motif, but the technique is inadequate for FP. There are stitching errors in the clouds (see notes), and some of the colors in the sky are strange and unbalanced. Too turquoise in the area of the right note and in the upper left area. --Milseburg (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Thank you very much for the hint, Milseburg - I completely overlooked those two stitching errors in the clouds. @Plozessor, would you mind removing them? If you're short on time, feel free to use my retouch attempt instead (SwissTransfer link) for an update, if the result looks okay to you. I also adjusted the blue tone a bit in the sky to make it feel more balanced. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Radomianin Ha, we did it at the same time! Now I can't decide whether to use your version or mine. What do you think of my update? Plozessor (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- What a funny coincidence! Thanks a lot for your edit - I personally think it looks really good. Much appreciated! Best regards and thanks again. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Milseburg Oops, I checked for stitching errors in the lake and background but not in the sky. Thx for spotting, I think I fixed all of the issues you mentioned. Please have another look! Plozessor (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support detailed. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 08:08:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info Picture of the main entrance of the village church in Sanitz (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany), taken on Easter Sunday this year. The church is built of fieldstone and brick; the shadow of the tree adds depth to the composition. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow, one of the few times here that I've seen a shadow enhance a photo. Well spotted and perfect timing! --Cart (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The bright blue door really 'pops' out of the plain wall Cmao20 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow – the portal is really beautiful, and the characteristic shadow of the tree makes this a special image. As Cart said. – Aristeas (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Cart, this is really special! --Kritzolina (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 10:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support nice motif and nice shadow play --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 08:03:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice composition and light Cmao20 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 18:14:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#France
Info English oak standing in the middle of a rapeseed field with the Jura Mountains background. Versonnex (Ain), France. Created, uploaded and nominated by ZarlokX -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I think its beter version. --Mile (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Like the previous nomination, it is overcategorised, though. As A.Savin says you need to read the guidelines and fix this. But the photo is great. Cmao20 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Done, I removed 3 overcategories. And thank you. ZarlokX (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wikisquack (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Convincing composition, beautiful interplay of the three colours (lush green, bright yellow, bluish background). – Aristeas (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Compelling overall composition and colors. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 10:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking colours and composition. --Tagooty (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not that overwhelmed. Light in sky are rather dull. --Milseburg (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 15:49:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Slovenia
Info Tractor John Deere 6320 with front and rear mower cutting grass. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool idea and really great composition! Cmao20 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 06:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting, appealing composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 10:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support bit shadowy in the bottom but overall good to me. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 11:50:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Ukraine
Info Top down view on castle in Zolochiv, Ukraine. Created, uploaded and nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry — nice composition, but the image lacks the level of sharpness we usually expect for a FP. --Moheen (keep talking) 13:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice view and light. Quality is just about okay for a drone photo Cmao20 (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wikisquack (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent overview of the castle, beautiful light from the side. – Aristeas (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Yellow should be decreased and highligths too. --Mile (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 18:03:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Alaska
Info Matanuska Glacier - Alaska. Сreated by Eric Kilby – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Neutral A beautiful place indeed, but the photo is a little too dark. I'd expect more white in the snow since this is a pristine place. Probably a bit too much clarity. --Cart (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Actually, this is ice, not snow, so it may not be completely white. --Yann (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Agree with Cart but the clarity doesn't bother me as much here because it doesn't look as oversaturated and it's just a more interesting/unique view than the other nomination Cmao20 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment The vignetting is distracting in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support A very special place, stunning shapes of the ice. – Aristeas (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Strong support very special indeed. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 18:03:49 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Alaska
Info Icebergs floating on Inner Lake George below Colony Glacier in Alaska. Сreated by Eric Kilby – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose This place and its light is very much like the fjords in my own backyard. This photo looks over-processed to me, too much clarity (a common mistake when editing arctic scenes) and saturation, especially in the blue spectrum. --Cart (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Beautiful composition but I agree that the colours and clarity look a bit too much and this makes me see it as a little clichéd, I'd prefer a more modest process of this image. Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Since I really like the nature in this photo, I had a go at it. Sure enough, by "reverse engineering" some of the edits I was happy to find a very nice landscape underneath it all. Thankfully, not much of the colors and details had been lost in the original processing. Since glacier ice can be very blue, the glacier and ice floes retained their color even after some desaturation. Юрий Д.К, if you want to use the edited version as an 'Alternative', you'll find it at File:Glassy Glacial Lake (54441988747), edited.jpg. I would support it. --Cart (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- I will support this version if someone adds it as an alt Cmao20 (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Agree that the editing has added a bit too much contrast/clarity, but nevertheless I cannot help to be impressed. Of course Cart’s version looks better to me, I would give full support to it if you could add it as an alternative version. – Aristeas (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
- Pinging Aristeas, Cmao20, Cart and ZarlokX. Alternative nomination is ready. Юрий Д.К 23:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support FP now Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support as I said above. – Aristeas (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per my comment above. --Cart (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 10:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you for the alternative, Cart - this one works much better. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support better --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
File:Fawn-breasted brilliant (Heliodoxa rubinoides aequatorialis) in flight Paz de Las Aves.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 11:59:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)
Info No FPs of this species. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Just wow Cmao20 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ERcheck (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Amazing moment, nice bckground. --Rbrechko (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Moheen (keep talking) 13:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Rbrechko. – Aristeas (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Great capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice composition and bokeh -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support great shot. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 12:10:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Capitonidae (New World Barbets)
Info One FP of a female. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Very high resolution and quality, good composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Eye-catching, fascinating colors, exemplary composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful colors and light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Moheen (keep talking) 15:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 11:06:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info Parapet of the organ gallery, parish church St. Genesius, Riedböhringen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany; created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment While this picture is very good and high quality, I fear it may fall into the 'low wow' category for me. Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Alright then, I'm in the minority Cmao20 (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support I think this is a beautiful image and section.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice pars pro toto: an unpretentious and tasteful painting, well photographed. – Aristeas (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support "Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance." – Coco Chanel --Cart (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support The delicate modesty brings out the beauty of the motif. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
File:Samarjit by Rudhra Varma.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 05:54:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info (c/u/n) -- Rudhra Varma (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rudhra Varma (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Quite a nice portrait. Maybe a little bit small but still pretty great Cmao20 (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- However, it is not currently categorised. Can you sort that out and add suitable cats? I know you're quite new to FPC but it shouldn't pass unless properly categorised. Cmao20 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice portrait and good-looking guy. I see that we have a couple of new photographers focusing on Indian actors. While we are thankful that these photographers are willing to donate good photos to Commons, I think we will have to take care of the categories since I doubt that sorting is their primary interest for participating. I have added categories to this photo. --Cart (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Good quality, natural posture -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Convincing, natural portrait. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 20:33:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Anthozoa
Info Sea anemone (Pachycerianthus delwynae), Anilao, Philippines. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Great underwater photography as usual (but did you forget to support your own image?) Cmao20 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Why not? I do like it, indeed :) Poco a poco (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support A bit dark, but nice compo. --Cart (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cart. I assume it was actually quite dark there? (If not, I would appreciate if you could try whether a brighter version looks better or not.) – Aristeas (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- It was a night dive (I forgot to update the time) and the anemone was quite big, so to get it fully on the picture with my 100mm lens I had to keep some distance so that the light was not strong anymore. I've brightened it a bit and uploaded a new version. Poco a poco (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, both for the explanation and the brightening! IMHO the photo is very good now – making it even brighter would be exaggerated given that it was taken during a night dive. – Aristeas (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Underexposed in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- I brightened it a bit more, I wouldn't go further Poco a poco (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support for the improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Support improved. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 20:32:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#France
Info Image of the Black Madonna in the basilica of Our Lady of the Daurade, Toulouse, France. The first church in this location was established in 410 when Emperor Honorius allowed the conversion of pagan temples to Christianity. The original building of Notre-Dame de la Daurade was a temple dedicated to Apollo. During the 5th or 6th century another church was erected, decorated with golden mosaics; the current name derives from the antique name, (“Deaurata”, gold). It became a Benedictine monastery during the 9th century. After a period of decline starting in the 15th century, the basilica was demolished in 1761 to make way for the construction of Toulouse's riverside quays. The buildings were restored and a new church built, but the monastery was closed during the French Revolution, becoming a tobacco factory. The basilica had housed the shrine of a Black Madonna. The original icon was stolen in the fifteenth century, and its first replacement was burned by Revolutionaries in 1799 on the Place du Capitole. The icon presented today is an 1807 copy of the fifteenth century Madonna. Blackened by the hosts of candles, the second Madonna has been known since the sixteenth century as Notre Dame La Noire. The current edifice was built during the 19th century. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I hope this is taken in the spirit of constructive criticism but I really am not convinced by your current processing algorithm. In this and your previous nomination, which you kindly corrected/improved at my request, the reprocessed version you have uploaded in 2025 has made the text on the signs in the church far less legible than it was in the original versions in the file history uploaded in 2022/2023. What is sharp and easily readable in the earlier versions is now blurry, smudged, and sometimes seems to contain characters that don't really even look like letters. It is obvious in this image if you zoom in to virtually any noticeboard, sign, or monument with lettering.Oppose for now
- I wonder whether your processing software is applying some form of AI-based sharpening or noise reduction without you being aware. AI is a huge fad at the moment, and I notice that photo processing software is often jumping on that bandwagon, adding AI-based features that are sold to us as a great improvement while they are actually quite dubious. AI is notoriously bad at handling text, and its sharpening algorithms often work by interpolating textures, which can easily smooth out details like text where precise rendering of individual pixels is important.
- I am keen to support this picture but on principle I won't support a version that's to my mind obviously worse than the 2023 version. I can see that the new version does have certain advantages - the altar is a little bit sharper - but for me these are far outweighed by the poor rendering of fine detail. One of the things I like about your church interiors is that, like David Iliff's and DXR's, they contain plenty of interesting detail to explore at full size. It would be a huge shame to lose this. Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, Cmao20, I addressed the issue. I hope this version looks much better. Poco a poco (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, that's what I want it to look like Cmao20 (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, Cmao20, I addressed the issue. I hope this version looks much better. Poco a poco (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Compo is not so good. I would avoid side painting and bilboards. Would crop just to main portal.--Mile (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- I also have uploaded an image of what you ask for, see here. But I prefer the wider view / compo of this candidate. Let's see what others say. Poco a poco (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 21:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive and beautiful. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support good enough to me. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 16:43:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Portraits
Info created by Hosseinronaghi – uploaded by Hosseinronaghi – nominated by محک -- Ταπυροι (گپ) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ταπυροι (گپ) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Dreamy and romantic photo, but unfortunately quite noisy (to some extent masked by the B&W) and the motion blur of the hand should not be present in a portrait photo session. --Cart (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
File:Tanguar haor, Bangladesh 01.jpg (delist)
Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 16:20:58
Info Undisclosed photomontage, please see the discussion. (Original nomination)
-- Yann (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Delist
- I trust others more experts about this. Yann (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Delist People were sceptical at the time. Definitely a photomontage. Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Happy to be proven wrong this time Cmao20 (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
--Thi (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Delist
Delist + delink from Wikipedia main NS articles. Especially per the bird in the tree + strange halo around the right man's head. Furthermore, I cannot judge a lot about the distances, but the sharpness of the birds definitely doesn't match the sharpness of the tree and humans. If the birds were in the same plane or beyond, they would be some monstrous human-eating ducks. — Draceane talkcontrib. 18:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Delist
Keep Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Yann: @Cmao20: @Thi: @Draceane: @UnpetitproleX: @W.carter: The uploader provided two images for the context, that looks credible to me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Delist and surprised at the 27 support to 0 oppose of original nom. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks to Abdulmominbd for providing evidence of the image’s authenticity. I understand that this discussion may have been uncomfortable but it is also essential given how often undisclosed manipulations do get featured at FPC.
- For me, the image though not a photomontage is still not FP—a significant part of the image is completely black, the saturation brush in the sky is way too obvious, the wetland i.e. the titular subject is cropped out. To me, the unedited actually looks better (even FP worthy with some editing). Perhaps it could have been edited differently? For now I am not striking my vote, will revisit this later. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- A side
Comment Looking at the author’s stream, I can see that many, if not most, of the shots are overedited, overprocessed, and extensively oversaturated. Yet many of them have Wiki Loves Earth winner badges, picture of the day stars, and featured awards. I wonder if encyclopedias actually need these kinds of images featured on their pages? I’m talking about a broader set of winners on Wiki Loves Earth. If you look at Wiki Loves Earth winner pages from many countries, many of the top entries there are overedited and oversaturated to the extent that they have nothing to do with realistic photography. There seems to be a competence/expertise issue among the judges. It’s like pop culture eating encyclopedia culture ;) To quote: “The primary driving forces behind popular culture, especially when speaking of Western popular cultures, are the mass media, mass appeal, marketing”. It’s probably fine to have pop culture, but it’s not OK to substitute encyclopedia work on summary of knowledge with pop culture or fantasy culture. --Argenberg (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- There is a constant stream of positive votes in the original nomination, and the only user who questioned the nomination with regard to editing was Charlesjsharp. This particular image, aside from being a photomontage, is actually OK tonality-wise. One could imagine taking a shot like this with a telephoto lens and minimal post-processing. --Argenberg (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you that the judging on Wiki Loves Earth and Wiki Loves Monuments is often poor. There are good pictures that win awards, but they are frequently beaten by low-quality, oversaturated, heavily processed, unrealistic slop. The judging here is much better, although as this picture shows, we can make mistakes. I don't know how judges for WLE and WLM are chosen. I was once approached to judge WLM Bangladesh, which was good fun, but that is my entire involvement with them. It would be good if these contests solicited the opinions of people who are more skilled photography critics from here, QIC, VIC and elsewhere. Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I cannot go into details (that would be rather impolite), but I can tell you from my own experience that often some other jury members don’t like it if one gets picky about details; they think that is boring nitpicking. – Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- This says a lot about the competence of such judges. It could be one of the dividing lines between the smartphone/pop/marketing culture mentioned above and the photography/encyclopedia culture. One aims to impress and manipulate, while the other tries to educate. And education is tough, much harder than marketing, because it takes more energy to build up new neural circuits and pathways in the brain. --Argenberg (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I cannot go into details (that would be rather impolite), but I can tell you from my own experience that often some other jury members don’t like it if one gets picky about details; they think that is boring nitpicking. – Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you that the judging on Wiki Loves Earth and Wiki Loves Monuments is often poor. There are good pictures that win awards, but they are frequently beaten by low-quality, oversaturated, heavily processed, unrealistic slop. The judging here is much better, although as this picture shows, we can make mistakes. I don't know how judges for WLE and WLM are chosen. I was once approached to judge WLM Bangladesh, which was good fun, but that is my entire involvement with them. It would be good if these contests solicited the opinions of people who are more skilled photography critics from here, QIC, VIC and elsewhere. Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- There is a constant stream of positive votes in the original nomination, and the only user who questioned the nomination with regard to editing was Charlesjsharp. This particular image, aside from being a photomontage, is actually OK tonality-wise. One could imagine taking a shot like this with a telephoto lens and minimal post-processing. --Argenberg (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Checked some of his FP nominess. I already repulsed one because of bad PS edit. Author (User:Abdulmominbd) can correct us, but so far i will oppose. --Mile (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Delist
Comment EXIF show it's original. Striked. --Mile (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Delist
Keep It's unfortunate that this was promoted, but at the time we were still a bit naive here at FPC. A montage was suspected, I remember more chatter about this in e-mails than on the FPC page, so it went undocumented. I know that people were checking if all the ducks were different, maybe a composite from one duck flying past and several exposures used. But it was before schablons popped up in every editing program, and we simply didn't know what to look for. Now we are more seasoned by AI and more wary. Shit happened, and now that we are wiser, it can be corrected. --Cart (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's natural to have doubts about anything that seems unusual, but as you know, reality can often be stranger than fiction. Back in 2017, while traveling in Tanguar Haor, I was on a boat capturing the men in silhouette light when by chance some birds flew into the frame. Whenever I shared this photo on my social media pages, people often assumed it was a montage or some sort of manipulation, much like you're doing now. To clear things up, I'm sharing the original files with you. Please have a look and let's settle this, as it's honestly a bit embarrassing for me. At the time, I was new to photography and used to shoot in JPEG to save space and also my editing skill was very poor. I have also included the photo taken just after the shot in question to help provide context. The files are downloadable, so feel free to inspect them thoroughly. Google Drive Link Abdulmominbd (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm very happy to be proved wrong in this. There is still some wonder in the world. Of course I apologize to you. --Cart (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
It’s a pity because this particular image is, as Argenberg stated, “aside from being a photomontage, […] actually OK tonality-wise”. I guess this also explains the broad consent in the original nomination. Many manipulated images are totally overdone and immediately look unrealistic; this one is better. I would love to see the original image before the montage. Maybe it would still be a FP, and with more right than this manipulated version. But we don’t have the choice. – Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Delist
- It's natural to have doubts about anything that seems unusual, but as you know, reality can often be stranger than fiction. Back in 2017, while traveling in Tanguar Haor, I was on a boat capturing the men in silhouette light when by chance some birds flew into the frame. Whenever I shared this photo on my social media pages, people often assumed it was a montage or some sort of manipulation, much like you're doing now. To clear things up, I'm sharing the original files with you. Please have a look and let's settle this, as it's honestly a bit embarrassing for me. At the time, I was new to photography and used to shoot in JPEG to save space and also my editing skill was very poor. I have also included the photo taken just after the shot in question to help provide context. The files are downloadable, so feel free to inspect them thoroughly. Google Drive Link Abdulmominbd (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for sharing the files, Abdulmominbd! I’m happy to learn that the photo is authentic. I will take a closer look tomorrow, but have striked my oppose vote. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep Just for the record: I can confirm that the metadata of the provided JPEG files look completely authentic. I can reproduce the look of the discussed image by ca. 1 minute of editing of the provided original JPEG (only removing CAs and reducing the sharpening applied by the camera would take longer). So I have to apologize to you, Abdulmominbd, and want to thank you again for sharing the original images for comparison. Congratulations to this great shot and I wish you always good light and many more wonderful photos! – Aristeas (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Good capture. But the image is quite heavily edited with newly introduced hues (yellow in the sky). This gives it a different, slightly surreal atmosphere. --Argenberg (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for sharing the files, Abdulmominbd! I’m happy to learn that the photo is authentic. I will take a closer look tomorrow, but have striked my oppose vote. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's natural to have doubts about anything that seems unusual, but as you know, reality can often be stranger than fiction. Back in 2017, while traveling in Tanguar Haor, I was on a boat capturing the men in silhouette light when by chance some birds flew into the frame. Whenever I shared this photo on my social media pages, people often assumed it was a montage or some sort of manipulation, much like you're doing now. To clear things up, I'm sharing the original files with you. Please have a look and let's settle this, as it's honestly a bit embarrassing for me. At the time, I was new to photography and used to shoot in JPEG to save space and also my editing skill was very poor. I have also included the photo taken just after the shot in question to help provide context. The files are downloadable, so feel free to inspect them thoroughly. Google Drive Link Abdulmominbd (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment Great, EXIF tell Ver.1.02 which is camera firmware, early one. Probably its all fine here, just edit was a bit strange. Birds have colors, some have CA - so "lens mistake". Abdulmominbd Thanx for showing up. So now is can this edit be FP or not. --Mile (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep obviously Юрий Д.К 21:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep Clearly overprocessed (yellow sky and what looks like mist) but not fake (genuine shot with real silhouettes of accurate proportions) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep Thank you, Abdulmominbd, for stepping forward with transparency and sharing the original files—it takes humility and integrity to do so, especially in such a charged discussion. It's a reminder that sometimes extraordinary moments do happen in real life, and scepticism, while healthy, must be open to evidence. This image may be imperfect from a technical or post-processing standpoint, but the authenticity you've demonstrated deserves appreciation. I hope this experience encourages continued dialogue grounded in both critical thinking and mutual respect. --Moheen (keep talking) 10:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep per consensus above. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep, satisfied with the explanation from the uploader.--Rocky Masum (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep My taste: the original shot was even better. Thanks for having show it to us. --Harlock81 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 06:57:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by AVRTisco – uploaded by AVRTisco – nominated by AVRTisco -- AVRTisco (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good quality and composition, the image stands out with its bold red monochrome styling. It demonstrates dramatic lighting, tonal depth and visual symmetry. It's rare to capture such a candid and visually striking portrait of a public figure. Taken during an event in Hyderabad. -- AVRTisco (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support AVRTisco (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hi and welcome to FPC. I've fixed the upright format of the photo and the gallery for you. Things are a little different from the Wikipedias here. You need to check that the link you make for the gallery actually goes to a section on a page, and select it more carefully. Also, the file is rather small for an original photo, any chance of getting a bigger upload, preferably with the Exif included? Good luck with your nom now. --Cart (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment an interesting portrait but small size. @AVRTisco: Bigger size available? --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @W.carter and @UnpetitproleX,
- Thank you both for your valuable feedback. Unfortunately, the higher-resolution version is no longer available—the raw image files were deleted, and I only have this version (I hope this will not effect the voting process). If it’s acceptable under Commons guidelines, I’m willing to upscale the image using Photoshop while preserving the original quality as much as possible. Please let me know your thoughts on whether that would be appropriate in this case. Thankyou -- AVRTisco (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Upscaling is not considered best practice on Commons. Seeing that no new information is actually being added by upscaling, it is merely interpolating pixels, then we take the line that upscaling just increases file size without preserving any new content and thus it should be done client-side if desired rather than being done by the uploader. Anyway, if this is the best version you have,
Weak support on the basis that the composition is really good but the size is a little on the low side. Cmao20 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Upscaling is not considered best practice on Commons. Seeing that no new information is actually being added by upscaling, it is merely interpolating pixels, then we take the line that upscaling just increases file size without preserving any new content and thus it should be done client-side if desired rather than being done by the uploader. Anyway, if this is the best version you have,
Support --Yann (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I don't mind the size, and the photo, colors and light are well managed. But sorry, for me the crop is too tight at the bottom and to the right, cutting off the shoe. I don't think this pose is the best for an FP portrait, even though I understand that it is meant to convey some sort of attitude and mood. It's more suited for GQ, Harper's Bazaar or something like that, as one in a series of photos in an article about the actor. As a stand-alone portrait, it doesn't work that well. --Cart (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Shoes cropped out unfortunately. Composition seems too tight -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 15:55:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian Federal District
Info Capes and cliffs of the north coast of Olkhon Island at sunset. Ancient Archean/Proterozoic deposits in the Baikal continental rift valley (BRZ), Lake Baikal. All by --Argenberg (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Argenberg (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely light and composition, although the corner sharpness could be better Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support The light is great, and together with the stark landscape and the stormy sky it provides an impressive view. – Aristeas (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 04:01:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Nectariniidae (Sunbirds and Spiderhunters)
Info created & uploaded by Ashraf747 – nominated by ROCKY -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Again it is a spectacular capture, but again the oversharpening and lack of detail on the bird give me pause Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- This photograph is not over sharpened and the purple sunbird male has plenty of details. Ashraf747 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- I can see very obvious sharpening haloes Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ashraf747 I see that the Sony ILCE-7RM4A can produce images at a maximum resolution of 9504 × 6336 pixels. It seems this file might have been downscaled from the original. If possible, could you please reupload the high-resolution version? High-res image is important for a FP nomination, as it allows for detailed evaluation, better usability across Wikimedia projects, and meets the technical quality standards expected for featured content. Thank you! -- Moheen (keep talking) 17:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- The image is not downsized. It's just cropped to make this composition. In wildlife or birding one cannot always go near the subject. So we make sure to keep a safe distance for not disturbing the birds or other animals. Hope you understand. Ashraf747 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Cmao20. The bird benchmark is set pretty high. JayCubby (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would be quite happy if I took this photo -- congratulations on the bird in flight on clean background! As others are explaining, the standard for this particular process involves looking at the image in full resolution, in which case it does show some oversharpening, especially in the wingtips. If you didn't sharpen it in post-processing, the camera is likely doing some sharpening itself (perhaps a setting you might want to change). But yes, I too have many shots I'm proud of but which don't meet the technical requirements to become a featured picture. Hope you'll continue to share your photos, though! — Rhododendrites talk | 01:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- The EXIF metadata suggests the image was taken in Raw (so no in-camera sharpening), but that two AI editors were used (Topaz Labs and DXO's). These are notorious for adding false feather detail with default parameters. Hopefully you can have another go at editing this wonderful image. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 00:50:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created and uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Nice view but the light is a bit pale and the composition, while pleasant, doesn't seem outstanding enough to compensate for me. Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Neutral
- Perhaps @Tagooty: can perform some edits to fix the light. The wide view with the dam on the left and the expansive reservoir it creates stood out to me, hence the nom. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Done @Cmao20: I've reduced exposure to bring out the colours. --Tagooty (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps @Tagooty: can perform some edits to fix the light. The wide view with the dam on the left and the expansive reservoir it creates stood out to me, hence the nom. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Weak support with these changes, thanks Cmao20 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support @UnpetitproleX: Thanks for the nomination. --Tagooty (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the varying and quite elegant curvature of the banks. – Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too hazy and dull light for wowing me. --Milseburg (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 20:08:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Icteridae_(Icterids)
Info Male brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). In the blackbird family, but unusual for that group, it's a brood parasite (they lay eggs in other species' nests). all by — Rhododendrites talk | 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Gorgeous plumage! --Cart (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 12:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 04:21:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Netherlands
Info The foundation stone of this church (National Monument) was laid on 23 May 1814. With some shifting back and forth, the church tower was placed properly between the two trees.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hello Agnes, I really like the composition etc., I just would suggest to remove the fragmentary twigs in the sky near to the right edge – please see the image notes on the nomination page. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Aristeas Thanks for your comment. I removed the branches. Sometimes it takes a while before the improvement is visible. Greetings from Friesland.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you very much, Agnes! – Aristeas (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Aristeas Thanks for your comment. I removed the branches. Sometimes it takes a while before the improvement is visible. Greetings from Friesland.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I think the sky could do with denoising but it's still great Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Done. Noise Reduction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support for the improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak support I'm not sure that trees are good in such condition. Also the sky is a bit noisy for me. --Rbrechko (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. The trees are already old and are pruned year after year in this special shape. You often see this in the Netherlands at old churches, mansions and at capital farms. So the trees are healthy. --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Rbrechko, the trees are fine. This is a way of pruning trees called Pollarding. It's often used up here in Sweden too. I creates a very special "look" for the trees. It is only done on trees that grow extremely vigorously and are hard to keep in check with other methods in parks, gardens, rows, etc. See also Daisugi. --Cart (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 15:51:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Soldiers
Info: created by Paolo Bovo, US Army – uploaded by ERcheck – nominated by User:ERcheck -- Thanks. ERcheck (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support: ERcheck (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hi and welcome to FPC. Before we begin evaluating this photo, it needs to have a name that is in line with Commons naming policy and not just a code from the military. If you would be so kind as to suggest a good name for the photo here, describing it so that anyone can understand it, I'll take care of the re-naming and fixing the nomination for you. You can write your suggestion in a reply below. Best, --Cart (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart - Thanks for the welcome and the assist. How about "Wet silk training - US Army paratrooper - Lake Garda, Italy - March 2025" ERcheck (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I'll fix this for you. Good luck with your nom now. --Cart (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart - Thanks for the welcome and the assist. How about "Wet silk training - US Army paratrooper - Lake Garda, Italy - March 2025" ERcheck (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment A great composition (even if I almost get a panic attack by looking at it! <gasp!>), almost like some alien birth scene from a SciFi movie. However, the photo is full of chromatic noise and artifacts (photos are always reviewed at 100%). I have mended most of that in this version. You are welcome to use it as you like, such as overwriting the nom photo with it. Your choice. --Cart (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart - I agree, it is rather scary. Reminds me of Frodo in Shelob's Lair (LOTR - Return of the King). Thanks for working on the photo. I've uploaded the "healed" version. Much appreciated! ERcheck (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Great and though-provoking photo of a rather strange situation. It brings on a lot of emotions like any good photo should. --Cart (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support A striking and almost surreal image that impresses both emotionally and aesthetically through its composition and material texture. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cart and Radomianin. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 20:50:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by unidentified 17th-century painter, uploaded by Zhuyifei1999, nominated by Yann
Support Gigapixels reproduction of a painting. -- Yann (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment If you have problems opening this large file, please use this link, it shows the painting large enough to see the details, brushstrokes and lint, without freezing your browser. --Cart (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Cart, thanks for warning me before I crashed my computer with that. It's a nice painting reproduced at a ridiculous resolution. Were we to feature this on the main page, can we link ZoomViewer straight away or add a note of its resolution? JayCubby (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- JayCubby, you need to ask the people in charge of the main page that. We've had very big images like this before there, and I don't think there is ever any warning. --Cart (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm the only one who clicks on images straight from MediaViewer. In any case, I feel it's worth noting that this is an exceedingly high-resolution reproduction, as that's part of the reason it's FP-worthy. Just a thought. JayCubby (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are other user who go straight to MediaViewer since it's in the setting options in your Preferences. --Cart (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm the only one who clicks on images straight from MediaViewer. In any case, I feel it's worth noting that this is an exceedingly high-resolution reproduction, as that's part of the reason it's FP-worthy. Just a thought. JayCubby (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- JayCubby, you need to ask the people in charge of the main page that. We've had very big images like this before there, and I don't think there is ever any warning. --Cart (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 12:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive reproduction of a portrait painting which is exemplary for its time; the huge resolution allows to study the finest details. It’s a pity that we do not have Exif/metadata or other comments as it would be interesting to see how this file has been created and edited. – Aristeas (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Aristeas: We have an encyclopedia with an article. ;o) Yann (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! It’s a pity that the article does not really explain much besides saying these pics are sooo big. It’s the same with Gigapxl Project, Gigapan, etc. – all articles with a strong advertising/fanboy smell and no technical details. Such articles do not reflect any credit on Wikipedia. Without technical details Gigapixel image looks more a marketing slogan than a technical term (just like Elon’s Gigafactory). But it’s the trend of this time … Of course this does not diminish the value of this image, and so these questions are not important as long as the reproduction is realistic. – Aristeas (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Very weak support It's a rather normal 17th-century portrait with no extraordinary style (and in a rather bad condition), common for artists who had to do them to be able to put food on the table. The only thing that stands out about it, is that it's digitized in a huge file. --Cart (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
File:দুধরাজ, নওগাঁ.jpg, not featured
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 07:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Monarchidae (Monarch Flycatchers)
Info created & uploaded by Sanjoykumar99 – nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 09:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment A great capture for sure, but too much noise reduction has left it with almost no detail and looking at the reflection, it is tilted. --Cart (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- You are totally wrong, it's not a tilted photo, there is no rotation. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sanjoykumar99, in a reflection on a water surface (or any perfectly horizontal surface) the different parts of the reflection are always aligned under the main object. Please take a look at this example. That is how you see the tilt and rotation. Cart (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Again you do mistake, my raw was in that form, i did't rotate.
- With photo i have gained 1st prize in usa https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15JNBjmDTJ
- https://www.natphotosociety.com/2025-reflection-winners Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure your raw has the same angle, you just happened to tilt your camera a little bit when you took the photo. This tilt might be an artistic effect that other sites are ok with, but such tilts of calm water surfaces with reflections do not usually make FPs, unless there are very special circumstances or intentions, like if this photo was taken at a very smooth waterfall. Different sites, different rules. (Did you even look at the example? Because it is your photo with explanation lines.) --Cart (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sanjoykumar99, in a reflection on a water surface (or any perfectly horizontal surface) the different parts of the reflection are always aligned under the main object. Please take a look at this example. That is how you see the tilt and rotation. Cart (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- You are totally wrong, it's not a tilted photo, there is no rotation. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Definitely looks tilted to me. Nice capture but I agree we can afford to be a little bit discriminating about which bird-in-flight images we promote, now that we have so many. The technical issues in this one preclude it from FP despite it being overall impressive. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Are you crazy? How can you definitely told that it was a tilted photo? Do you know about raw? If you need i can show you.There is no rotation. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Somewhat rude. Yes, I know what RAW is, but just because you didn't rotate the picture in postprocessing doesn't mean it wasn't tilted when you took it. I am sure the RAW file looks the same, but this doesn't tell me any useful information. Cmao20 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support ZarlokX (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Agree that this wonderful capture needs at least a rotation. According to the image size the original photo from the camera should provide some more pixels at the borders, so there is hope that the photographer can rotate the image easily. Could anybody (best somebody who talks Bengali/Bangla) try to contact Sanjoykumar99? They have a whole series of great shots, but a lot of them could profit from less sharpening and some minor tweaks. – Aristeas (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- There is not any kind rotation. It's not a tilted photo. It's original reflection in water with orginal angle. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Welcome and it’s great that you take part in the discussion, Sanjoykumar99. For the point, please see the explanations by Cart and Cmao20 above. It’s absolutely normal that photos are tilted because the camera was not completely horizontal when the photo was taken. Sometimes this can be ignored, sometimes it’s very obvious, e.g. in cases like this one when there is a reflection in the photo – please see Cart’s wonderful example. Then many people, e.g. most of the folks here, think it’s better to rotate the photo when developing the raw image file in order to align the image properly, as it was in reality. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Welcome and it’s great that you take part in the discussion, Sanjoykumar99. For the point, please see the explanations by Cart and Cmao20 above. It’s absolutely normal that photos are tilted because the camera was not completely horizontal when the photo was taken. Sometimes this can be ignored, sometimes it’s very obvious, e.g. in cases like this one when there is a reflection in the photo – please see Cart’s wonderful example. Then many people, e.g. most of the folks here, think it’s better to rotate the photo when developing the raw image file in order to align the image properly, as it was in reality. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- There is not any kind rotation. It's not a tilted photo. It's original reflection in water with orginal angle. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per my comment above. --Cart (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for now, sorry. It’s a wonderful photo but the tilt is too obvious in this case, and I cannot see an artistic intention behind it. As I said above, it should be very easy to correct this on the base of the raw image file. – Aristeas (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Why are the curves in the tail different from the reflection? I suppose it could just be refraction -- it was just surprising asymmetry. Also, just to clarify the "tilted" objection, for better or worse participants here prefer horizontal surfaces to be horizontal in the frame. You may not have tilted it in post-processing, but that might be why people are objecting -- they are asking you to make it more horizontal in post-processing. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk | 00:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- The reflection looks fine to me and consistent with the way the small ripples on the surface distorts a subject. --Cart (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Thu 01 May → Tue 06 May Fri 02 May → Wed 07 May Sat 03 May → Thu 08 May Sun 04 May → Fri 09 May Mon 05 May → Sat 10 May Tue 06 May → Sun 11 May
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Sun 27 Apr → Tue 06 May Mon 28 Apr → Wed 07 May Tue 29 Apr → Thu 08 May Wed 30 Apr → Fri 09 May Thu 01 May → Sat 10 May Fri 02 May → Sun 11 May Sat 03 May → Mon 12 May Sun 04 May → Tue 13 May Mon 05 May → Wed 14 May Tue 06 May → Thu 15 May
Closing a featured picture promotion request
The bot
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2025.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.