Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates:
Featured picture candidates ![]() Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new usersAdding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
|
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2025 at 14:50:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#North_Rhine-Westphalia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 14:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 14:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool composition Cmao20 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Abstract and very concrete at the same time, good light and colors--Kritzolina (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2025 at 01:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info Another example of Chuck Ayoub's excellent astrophotography. A small and faint planetary nebula in the constellation of Cygnus. As before, this is an amateur photographer with an account on Commons, not a space telescope like NASA, and should be judged on the standards of amateur astrophotography not against massive stitched panoramas from Hubble. Nevertheless it is the best photograph of this nebula I can find on the internet - it seems to be a very difficult target, with many sources not even quoting an apparent magnitude, see here - and really gets across why it's nicknamed the Flying Dragon. created by Cpayoub – uploaded by Cpayoub – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 17:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2025 at 11:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info A new house was built in the neighborhood and the contractor brought in the big toys. A good thing out here in the backwoods is that such sites are not sealed off so I could get close for some photos. The drill and digger looked like two big battling monsters as they were working on flattening the cliff into a level base for the house. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 17:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak support I see nothing special in this picture and the bottom-right corner is unsharp a bit, but I like the composition and the story too :) -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak support per Ekaterina. --A.Savin 23:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment Like Екатерина Борисова and A.Savin, I see nothing special in this picture, but in my view it's also a cluttered composition. The house behind the engines, and one engine behind the other, a black car hidden behind a big rock, a blue vehicle at the right... Moreover, these two machines seem more busy each with their own task, close to the ground, than "fighting" in the situation. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The big amont of rocks at the foreground doesn't work for me. I don't see the WOW factor here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I agree Poco a poco (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2025 at 08:58:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Pomacanthidae_(Marine_angelfish)
Info Threespot angelfish (Apolemichthys trimaculatus), Zanzibar, Tanzania. Note: we have no FPs of the genus Apolemichthys and in fact a species which I've only seen once. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- How big is this fish? How far did you take it from? Just curious. Yann (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Not just a great, high-quality species photo but a good composition too Cmao20 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Natural environment and the fish with its distinct color seems well isolated from its background -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2025 at 20:11:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Ukraine
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Je-str (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2025 at 15:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 15:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 15:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice lines. And yes, I like such kind of aerial photos. --Rbrechko (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I love these kind of abstract images. A hidden gem for mathematicians :DD --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support per Rbrechko and PantheraLeo. --Terragio67 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Support It is barley, isn't it? --Llez (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2025 at 14:07:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
Info Red Arrows flying the Goose manouvere, with a relatively rare evening display at the Duxford Flying Finale providing nice light. C/u/n by me. — Julian H.✈ 14:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support — Julian H.✈ 14:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Well frozen in flight - "Hello patrols, a deserter is running away." :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2025 at 12:27:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Coral (Leptoria phrygia), Zanzibar, Tanzania. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too much of the picture is unsharp in my view. Sorry. --imehling (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. IMHO there is no way to get everything sharp for this kind of shot. It's a macro shot, to get this level of detail you have to get close to it and so you cannot expect that areas away from the center gets the same level of detail. Poco a poco (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- You might want to give more information: how big is this? From how far did you take it? Yann (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- The width of the snakeshaped coral formation is 2 millimetres (0.079 in). Does it help? Poco a poco (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, certainly. Seeing the small size, this is very good. You should add this in the description. Yann (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2025 at 06:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the pre-rain light, it gives the scene a restful stillness. --Cart (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--XRay 💬 16:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cart Cmao20 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, double vote. --Terragio67 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Support per Cart.
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2025 at 06:50:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Ariège
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Unusual and beautiful composition. I love the purple flowers. Cmao20 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Certainly a wonderful place to visit, but photographically I miss a special composition or an exceptional light. Dull background and midday hues, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the mood of the picture. The flowers and reflections are very nice. --imehling (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Basile Poco a poco (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2025 at 03:50:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Spain
Info uploaded by Zvonimir Stamenov – nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Not the best light but exceptional architectural complex -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2025 at 20:15:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Painted ceilings
Info Giovanni Francesco Romanelli was an early 17th-century Italian painter, known for his use of bright colors and clarity of detail. Many of his works are exhibited in the Louvre. The Fresco depicted is one of these. Created, uploaded, nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Much better and more detailed than our present FP of this work. --Cart (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent photo. Also, per Cart, the present FP (uploaded by a banned user) should probably be delisted as it is unsharp, has obvious colour noise, and is barely QI. Cmao20 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 16:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good quality and nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent and beautiful, indeed much better than the present FP. To be fair: the present FP shows a much larger part of the ceiling and has IHMO its own value because of the composition. It tells us less about the central painting, but much more about its context and the ceiling. – Aristeas (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Very nice indeed, the weak is because of the crop, cropping the frame is a minus for the compo. Poco a poco (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2025 at 19:19:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Corvidae (Crows, Jays and Magpies)
Info all by imehling -- imehling (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Ok, this nomination is courageous ;-) -- imehling (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good for me. I've seen bird photos that are sharper at full size but the resolution is massive so there's plenty of room to downsize and create an image that's still large and very sharp. Good composition and nicely blurred background Cmao20 (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. The plumage looks perfectly natural and realistic, while photos with AI noise reduction often still tend to show artefacs and partial oversharpening in the plumage. – Aristeas (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2025 at 20:34:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Ceramics
Info created by Arabako Arkeologia Museoa – uploaded by Theklan – nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Theklan (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment In my opinion the depth of field is too shallow. Even the center lacks sharpness at the top -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but per Basile Morin. The object is great and really interesting but the DoF is too shallow. I could support if it were only the far side that's out of focus but it's some of the near side too. Cmao20 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile and Cmao20. In a studio shot like this with good light, you can be more generous with the DoF. --Cart (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2025 at 17:19:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Gekkonidae (Geckos)
Info High quality and high resolution photo of a relatively small (10-13cm in length) animal. created by Charlesjsharp – uploaded by Charlesjsharp – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice also the contrast of colors.--Harlock81 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good! -Theklan (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Very high level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Veryweak support The detail is impressive and the support is strictly for its educational value, but the composition is very lacking. With such bright colors on the animal and that varnished wood, it looks more like a kid's toy left on the dinner table. Some other background would be better. --Cart (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good point. As you know I always prefer naturual surroundings, but this is unusual. These geckos were introduced acccidentally many years ago from Madagascar and have adapted to live in houses for the wamrth. Apparantly, they are seldom seen outdoors. Thanks for the nom. Cmao20 Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this info. In this case I think the surroundings add value to the photo because they illustrate the usual setting in which this gecko is found. Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I suspected these geckos liked the indoors, and since that suspicion was only based on what I'd seen on TV, I was being cautious. But there are more appealing indoor backgrounds so I'll just tone it down to 'weak s'. --Cart (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
per Cart. – Aristeas (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Weak support
Support Changed to full support because of the information that this species lives mostly indoors there – so the setting is appropriate. Thank you, Charles, for the explanation! – Aristeas (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose poor composition. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2025 at 13:00:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo_techniques/Styles and Techniques#Intentional camera_movement (ICM)
Info Panorama Tower at night (intentional camera movement). Created by Rhododendrites – uploaded by Rhododendrites – nominated by Zquid -- Zquid (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Zquid (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose -- I don't like the camera movement. Is not too much to know that this is an effect we want, so it just seems moved. -Theklan (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Support The effect works for me. I like all the luminous crosses created by the movement and find something artistic in the image. Also an original nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I agree with Basile Morin. It's a good example of this technique because the crosses are aesthetically pleasing. Cmao20 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment It's a nice and well handled ICM, but since the movements are so precise and sort of follow the buildings' shapes, I think it needs some better perspective correction, otherwise you more get the impression that this was someone trying to take a photo during an earthquake with the buildings starting to fall. --Cart (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing when I saw this nomination. Will see if I can get to that later today. Thanks for the nom, Zquid. — Rhododendrites talk | 16:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support per Basile and Cmao20 (of course a little perspective correction, as suggested by Cart, could make the image even better). – Aristeas (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, for the diversity of opinions and tastes, I also support the suggestion of perspective correction. Why? Simply because in this type of image, lines and directions have a meaning. And if the image were tilted, the visual aspect would not be the same at all. I think that with these very straight buildings, properly worked horizontals and verticals will give more the impression that the blur is not the result of chance, but intentional in the context -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Theklan. I don't see the value to see this motion blur for a static subject. Ok for a car at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, not ok for a skyline by night. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not impressed by it, but it's just a matter of taste at this point. By the way, not to antagonize anyone, but applying perspective correction to this is just nonsensical, it's visually striking because each light traces out the same shape, perspective correction is for documentary purposes Henrysz (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment Made an attempt at perspective correction (a little tricky, of course). Curious if folks think it's an improvement. — Rhododendrites talk | 14:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Improved in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2025 at 12:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Science#Science
Info Scientific illustration of mammal Santamartamys, rodent rarely sighted. Illustration made with ocher stain for background, colored pencils and digital retouching. With the advice of Alistair Ian Spearing Ortiz scientific translator. This image was provided to Wikimedia Commons as a contribution from an art & design school thanks to a collaboration between EASD Pau Gargallo and Amical Wikimedia. (And Spectacular Mammal Rediscovered after 113 Years - First Ever Photographs Taken; Bogotá, 18 May 2011 / File:Red-crested Tree rat rediscovered after 113 years! (5731461919).jpg is one of the sources.)
Created by David Valle Martínez – uploaded by David Valle Martínez – nominated by Zquid -- Zquid (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Support I think this is a "Science" picture more than just a nice picture of an animal (if you know what I mean)... so I choosed Scientific Art category... -- Zquid (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would ask you to reconsider the gallery, since most of the images of animals in Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Animals are scientific art from old books on nature etc. (only 3 out of 28 are not). I think it would look odd to have just one animal image in the gallery that you suggest. --Cart (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment It looks like the textured paper has been erased all around the illustration. But the lower left corner is dark with a white background -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Basile. The conversion from drawing to digital is done a bit haphazardly. This would be better as only a photo of the drawing. Mixing two media needs better post processing. --Cart (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Agree with both of you. Well, it would be very difficult to restore the paper texture, but it’s easy to remove the irritating remnants of the texture at the left border and in some other outer areas. This way we get at least a more consistent impression. Here is an attempt to retouch the image. I have also removed some tiny stains here and there which did not look like intentional parts of the drawing (of course it’s hard to say where to draw the line here; if you want to restore some little points or remove another stain just drop me a note). Furthermore, the missing sRGB colour profile has been added, as well as some basic metadata like author, title, short description, and copyright/license. @Basile Morin, Cart: Would you consider this retouched version as a considerable improvement? Then one could nominate it as an alternative … Hope it helps, – Aristeas (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)- Aristeas, the transition in that picture looks better to me. However "one" should not add it, I think it's up to the nominator to decide if it should be entered as an 'Alternative'. You forgot to include Zquid in your question. I'm not a fan of the way people here sometimes just jumps in and tacks on 'Alts' to noms without even asking the nominator first, it's downright rude and disrespectful. Sometimes people want to keep things in their original state. We can suggest, that's all. --Cart (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Cart, I guess we have a misunderstanding here. I did not want to ignore Zquid. I just wanted to ask first the users who have commented on the image quality whether they would see an improvement in the retouched version. I did this because I do not want to bother the nominator with a suggestion to add an alternative version as long as I don’t know whether the people who made out the problems were satisfied with the improvements or not – in the latter case an alternative would make no sense at all. If you and Basile would have agreed with the retouching, I would have in turn asked Zquid whether they would consider to nominate the edited version as an alternative. I would never have added an alternative version myself (or asked you or someone else to do that; and if you look back you will see that I have never added an alternative to nominations by other people, but only suggested possible alternative versions). The “one could nominate it” was meant as a short explanation why I am asking you, and in no way intended as an insult to Zquid or as an insinuation that you should add the alternative. I understand that the wording of that sentence was unclear and unfortunate. I was under the impression that the use of the indirect “one” in such a context was an educated idiom in English, but it seems this was wrong (I may have confused this with German or classical Greek τις phrases). Please consider that my command of the English language, and also my skills in diplomacy, are not on your level. @Zquid: I apologize if my comment has insulted you. That was not my intention. I just wanted to help. – Aristeas (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Aristeas, I understand your good intention but I think a nominator should be included in all stages of a discussion about their nom. I reacted this way since I myself have been in Zquid's position, where someone was discussing how to correct my image instead of just asking me as nominator. It was not a good feeling and I did not wish it for Zquid. --Cart (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I understand, Cart. @Zquid: I apologize again, it was not my intention to ignore or insult you, I just wanted to avoid to bother you with suggestions as long as I did not even know whether they make any sense at all. But I see this was wrong. So my attempt to be polite was actually quite impolite. I am very sorry for that. I have striken my comment above. – Aristeas (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Aristeas, I understand your good intention but I think a nominator should be included in all stages of a discussion about their nom. I reacted this way since I myself have been in Zquid's position, where someone was discussing how to correct my image instead of just asking me as nominator. It was not a good feeling and I did not wish it for Zquid. --Cart (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Cart, I guess we have a misunderstanding here. I did not want to ignore Zquid. I just wanted to ask first the users who have commented on the image quality whether they would see an improvement in the retouched version. I did this because I do not want to bother the nominator with a suggestion to add an alternative version as long as I don’t know whether the people who made out the problems were satisfied with the improvements or not – in the latter case an alternative would make no sense at all. If you and Basile would have agreed with the retouching, I would have in turn asked Zquid whether they would consider to nominate the edited version as an alternative. I would never have added an alternative version myself (or asked you or someone else to do that; and if you look back you will see that I have never added an alternative to nominations by other people, but only suggested possible alternative versions). The “one could nominate it” was meant as a short explanation why I am asking you, and in no way intended as an insult to Zquid or as an insinuation that you should add the alternative. I understand that the wording of that sentence was unclear and unfortunate. I was under the impression that the use of the indirect “one” in such a context was an educated idiom in English, but it seems this was wrong (I may have confused this with German or classical Greek τις phrases). Please consider that my command of the English language, and also my skills in diplomacy, are not on your level. @Zquid: I apologize if my comment has insulted you. That was not my intention. I just wanted to help. – Aristeas (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Aristeas, the transition in that picture looks better to me. However "one" should not add it, I think it's up to the nominator to decide if it should be entered as an 'Alternative'. You forgot to include Zquid in your question. I'm not a fan of the way people here sometimes just jumps in and tacks on 'Alts' to noms without even asking the nominator first, it's downright rude and disrespectful. Sometimes people want to keep things in their original state. We can suggest, that's all. --Cart (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Basile. The conversion from drawing to digital is done a bit haphazardly. This would be better as only a photo of the drawing. Mixing two media needs better post processing. --Cart (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2025 at 17:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People
Info Unknown photographer – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support It's a shame it's so small, but of course it is irreplaceable and has tonnes of character. Cmao20 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is, at least, at a size where film grain probably is limiting the value of further zoom-in. Would prefer bigger, but the odd dimensions somewhat mitigate the narrow width, and it's rather amazing we have a free-licensed photo of him at all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Clearly there is no point in having more pixels here. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is, at least, at a size where film grain probably is limiting the value of further zoom-in. Would prefer bigger, but the odd dimensions somewhat mitigate the narrow width, and it's rather amazing we have a free-licensed photo of him at all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - Good job of restoration, but few pixels remain few pixels (or film grain). The fact that we only have one freely licensed photo does not automatically make it excellent. Moreover, a very tight crop on the left and right. - Je-str (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per above. -Theklan (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Kind of thought this was on the border as to size, and that's what I'm getting back. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2025 at 11:34:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Cemeteries#Russia
Info Crypt burial site in Dargavs created and uploaded by Tatiana Muzyka - nominated by FBilula (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FBilula (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Good atmospheric photo and well composed but image quality barely scrapes over the bar. Cmao20 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I so wanted to support this, because the place is very interesting and the composition is good, but the phone quality and lack of perspective correction, are too visible for me. --Cart (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Neutral Same opinion Poco a poco (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment The framing and mood of the picture are nice. The quality of the phone picture is not good at full width (sometimes too much pixel is useless pixels). --PierreSelim (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose poor image quality. //SHB2000 (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2025 at 11:35:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Russia
Info en:Franz Joseph Land, Hooker Island created and uploaded by Nixette - nominated by FBilula (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FBilula (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow, a photo from a very isolated archipelago Cmao20 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Bleak but interesting. The horizon is very slightly tilted, perhaps you could fix that. The file name does not comply with Commons naming policy, according to Google it means "Quiet2". If you could suggest a better name that describes the photo something like "Hydro-meteorological station facilities in Tikhaya Bay, Hooker Island", I can rename the photo and nomination, just let me know and I'll fix it. --Cart (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Very interesting place, but very low quality. Both sides of the picture are too blurry. Not even a QI in my opinion, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Always happy to see detailed photos from some of the last truly remote places in this globalized world. Agree that the image quality deteriorates towards the left and right border, but IMHO we can be a bit more forgiving with drone shots, and even more when they come from such a secluded spot. – Aristeas (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support lovely drone shot! //SHB2000 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Disagree on "very low quality". Quality is okay, quite good for a drone photo. Must have been taken under weather conditions rarely as good for this area. --A.Savin 16:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)^
Comment Maybe it's good for a drone photo (and very useful for sure), but not good enough to be FP. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2025 at 08:17:56
Info The left edge is longer and there's a thin line of missing pixels on the bottom as a result of the perspective correction, so the picture should be replaced with this cropped version. (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Delist and replace Uncontroversial improvement Cmao20 (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Delist and replace Fine by me. Thank you for doing this correction the right way. --Cart (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Delist and replace per nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Delist and replace per nomination. In such delist-and-replace nominations we used to show both the old and the new (replacement) image. AFAIK this is OK because FPCBot cannot handle delist-and-replace nominations anyway, so the additional image causes no harm here. Therefore I have taken the liberty to add the new (replacement) image above at the right. @W.carter: Is this still correct and is the additional image OK, or have I missed something? Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for noting this. I wasn't aware about it as this is my first delist-and-replace request.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Aristeas, either way is ok since these noms are closed manually and we can ignore the Bot, and having both images is just more "user friendly". --Cart (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kiril Simeonovski: No problem! I did not want to criticize you! I just wanted to add the new image for the sake of easy comparison, and wrote the notice mostly in order to discuss this with Cart. @Cart: Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Delist and replace –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2025 at 01:53:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info created by Tony Webster on Flickr – uploaded by Domzalee – nominated by Myrealnamm -- Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I could point out some flaws - not sure perspective is completely right - but I really like the overall composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment Nice view and good composition, I would very much like to support this if the perspective is corrected (see top row of windows). With such a geometric photo, the symmetry is important. It's easy to do so I'll wait for that. --Cart (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, the leaning horizontal line is irritating, I also find the noise level a bit high. The subject itself is not extraordinary in my eyes, either. Sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Dull light and bland colors, sorry. Also per Poco. The subject is rather ordinary. About the composition, the asymmetrical composition (windows) and the cut out tree at the right don't work, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment In my eyes this view is actually interesting because of the contrast between the rigid order of the architecture and the living organic order of the trees. However to bring the contrast out we need, just as Cart has pointed out, a perspective correction. – Aristeas (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment from nominator: I could try to slightly fix the window asymmetrical issue by slightly cropping and rotating the image in a bit of time. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment Interesting contrast but perspective correction would be welcome –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2025 at 19:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1910-1919
Info A typical view of a street at the beginning of the 20th century... so what's interesting about it? Well... it's Constantinople (now Istanbul), the capital ot the Ottoman Empire, in 1912! The most interesting part are the french advertisements on the building in the background, particularly visible the Nestlé one. It's like just being there. /// Created by an Underwood & Underwood photographer in 1912 – uploaded originally by Fæ – cropped (was even a double stereo image) and nominated by LucaLindholm -- LucaLindholm (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- LucaLindholm (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment Restoration is needed for FP, and it must be done from the TIFF file with less compression. Yann (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. The fact is that I still don't know how to restore an image. I saw that you various times did restore the historical images (I love them) nominated by me, often saving the nomination itself. I am so grateful for all this work done for me and other users. So, how do we proceed? Regards LucaLindholm (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Yann @W.carter, sorry, didn't remember to mention you. LucaLindholm (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- You could either just let this nom run to its end (it will probably be closed as 'not featured' soon) or 'withdraw' it yourself. Then I suggest you start learning how to restore old images, if you have such a passion for them. When you nominate an image, you are responsible for it and how it looks. If you show up here time after time with images you know are not top notch, just hoping that someone else will do the job for you and save your nom, you are sure to bring down the displeasure of the community on yourself. We've recently had another user with this behavior banned from FPC for life, so patience around here is pretty thin right now. Anyone can browse old archives and find nice photos that needs restoring, the trick is to restore them yourself and by that contribute to improving the quality of the Commons collection. --Cart (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Yann @W.carter, sorry, didn't remember to mention you. LucaLindholm (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. The fact is that I still don't know how to restore an image. I saw that you various times did restore the historical images (I love them) nominated by me, often saving the nomination itself. I am so grateful for all this work done for me and other users. So, how do we proceed? Regards LucaLindholm (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Yann. Since you have made nominations of old photos before, you must know that such photos almost always needs to be restored before having a chance here. So please sort out such things before you make a nomination. When a photo arrives here, everything should be ready and top class, this is actually not a workshop. --Cart (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support "A typical view of a street at the beginning of the 20th century" is what is very interesting and educational. Much more interesting than photos of exceptional scenes. --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2025 at 17:30:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting people
Info created by Adi Nes – uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko – nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Untitled, better known as The Last Supper, is a 1999 photo by Israeli photographer Adi Nes. Inspired by Leonardo da Vinci's famous late-15th century painting of the same name, the photo features 14 Israeli soldiers in a setting reminiscent of the Last Supper. Nes created The Last Supper to reflect the idea that death is ever-present in Israeli society, not only in combat but also in daily life. By portraying the soldiers as both Jesus and Judas Iscariot, Nes sought to emphasize the vulnerability and fragility of their lives. The photograph hints at the possibility that this meal could be the last for any of the soldiers. The photo was sold for $264,000 at Sotheby’s in 2012, the highest price paid for any Israeli photo. The original print is currently in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. -- Tomer T (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting, but quality too low, and too small to be FP. Yann (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Quality is on the low side but I think it can be FP for artistic and historic interest. Cmao20 (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Yann Poco a poco (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The idea and compo of making this image are great, and the quality is what you'd expect from a photo from that time, but the file size is too small especially for an image that is 1.3 m2 (14 sq ft) (!) and available in a museum. --Cart (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2025 at 05:41:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Doors
Info Trier, Caspar-Olevian-Saal, Trier. Beautiful decorated entrance to the Caspar-Olevian-Saal.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting architecture Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Dull light, nothing special here, and perspective correction is needed. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Good, but the left side of the door is slightly tilted to the right.--imehling (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful Renaissance portal, well photographed. – Aristeas (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2025 at 20:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Poland
Info created and uploaded by Piter329c, nominated by Yann -- Yann (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Yann (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support This has been on my list since I saw it at English Wikipedia but you got there first :-) Cmao20 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Special architecture and interesting viewpoint. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Zquid (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, not a FP to me without a perspective correction, the church is also clearly leaning to the right Poco a poco (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support per Basile. – Aristeas (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Poco. --Milseburg (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco and Milseburg: I made a correction, and proposed an alternative. Yann (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Support Rotated version. Yann (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support This corrected photo is OK for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Neutral Definitely better after the tilt, but it does also need a perspective correction, --Poco a poco (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Are you sure it is needed here? This is taken from up in the sky. Yann (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I prefer the original. To my eyes the perspective in this one is worse and the barns on the left of the frame are cropped. Cmao20 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2025 at 13:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Galaxies
Info created by NASA/ESA/HST team (see below), uploaded by Koavf, nominated by Yann
Info The world's largest photo mosaic, made of photos from the Hubble Telescope.
- It is a panoramic view of the neighboring Andromeda galaxy, located 2.5 million light-years away. It took over 10 years to make this vast and colorful portrait of the galaxy, requiring over 600 Hubble overlapping snapshots that were challenging to stitch together. The galaxy is so close to us, that in angular size it is six times the apparent diameter of the full Moon, and can be seen with the unaided eye. For Hubble's pinpoint view, that's a lot of celestial real estate to cover. This stunning, colorful mosaic captures the glow of 200 million stars. That's still a fraction of Andromeda's population. And the stars are spread across about 2.5 billion pixels. The detailed look at the resolved stars will help astronomers piece together the galaxy's past history that includes mergers with smaller satellite galaxies.
- NASA, ESA, Benjamin F. Williams (UWashington), Zhuo Chen (UWashington), L. Clifton Johnson (Northwestern); Image Processing: Joseph DePasquale (STScI).
- This is the complete version of File:Andromeda Galaxy M31 - Heic1502a Full resolution.jpg.
Support -- Yann (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the contour patterns. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Sebring12Hrs: Absolutely nothing can be done about that. Yann (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support This picture has great scientific and educational value. --imehling (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support But I'm the uploader, so maybe only give me 0.5 votes. Thanks, Y--I'm honored. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Just don't say no to this. -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Zquid (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support One word from Vulcan: Astonishing –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Prototyperspective (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I am very sorry, and might be picky, but I would like to see a complete mosaic for an FP status --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2025 at 01:10:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
Info created by Esther Bubley – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Perspective is not realistic. The scene is leaning. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I guess that the photo shows the sight a passenger would have got when entering the streetcar, hence IMHO the angle of view (upwards) and the leaning verticals are OK here. – Aristeas (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- My presumption is that part of the angle is also trying to make everyone visible. If you consider that as a goal, Bubley did incredibly well given how tight a streetcar is. It's not a movie set where you can remove walls. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I couldn’t agree more, Adam. – Aristeas (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- My presumption is that part of the angle is also trying to make everyone visible. If you consider that as a goal, Bubley did incredibly well given how tight a streetcar is. It's not a movie set where you can remove walls. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
File:Castle Square (22346p).jpg, featured
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2025 at 21:52:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Poland
Info Castle Square, Warsaw. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 21:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 21:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful colours and light, nice sky. – Aristeas (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support I don't mind the distortion when a photo is taken from high up, like here. It sort of suits the composition when it's encircling a square. --Cart (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --imehling (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Neutral Very pretty and exemplary use of a square framing but there is a very pronounced distortion visible. Can you fix it? -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely light Cmao20 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I would support, if the horizon wouldn't be so bulged. --Milseburg (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 04:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- If anyone has a good technique for fixing a curved horizon (other than using the warp tool, which is a bit too destructive for a case like this IMO), I'd love to hear it, but I think the photo is worth a feature even still. — Rhododendrites talk | 14:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be this curved in the first place. Could this be due to a faulty stitch? - Benh (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Thu 20 Feb → Tue 25 Feb Fri 21 Feb → Wed 26 Feb Sat 22 Feb → Thu 27 Feb Sun 23 Feb → Fri 28 Feb Mon 24 Feb → Sat 01 Mar Tue 25 Feb → Sun 02 Mar
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Sun 16 Feb → Tue 25 Feb Mon 17 Feb → Wed 26 Feb Tue 18 Feb → Thu 27 Feb Wed 19 Feb → Fri 28 Feb Thu 20 Feb → Sat 01 Mar Fri 21 Feb → Sun 02 Mar Sat 22 Feb → Mon 03 Mar Sun 23 Feb → Tue 04 Mar Mon 24 Feb → Wed 05 Mar Tue 25 Feb → Thu 06 Mar
Closing a featured picture promotion request
The bot
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2025.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.