Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
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 name, quality, image description, categories 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 27 Jun 2025 at 17:47:51 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)
Info Fawn-breasted Brilliant (Heliodoxa rubinoides) in Ecuador. Сreated by Andy Morffew – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К 17:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 17:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Advice on fixing the documentation |
---|
|
Support A tad over-sharpened, but the bird and the compo are great. I love the moss on the branch, it complements the colors of the bird so well. --Cart (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly the oversharpening is to mask the fact that the beak is slightly outside the depth of field. Always tempting to oversharpen a little in such a circumstance but if Andy Morffew were a Commons author I'd probably suggest he toned it down a little on this picture. Unfortunately he is only active on Flickr. But the image is still at FP level for me. Cmao20 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Osmo Lundell hey 21:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 17:47:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)
Info Sword-billed Hummingbird (Ensifera ensifera) in Ecuador. Сreated by Andy Morffew – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К 17:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 17:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment I've upgraded the file name according to Commons file names. In the future, please make sure such the file name is really good before making the nom. Now it's up to you (preferably) to fix the Image description and Categories to get them up to FP standard. Thank you. --Cart (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- All done, thanks to Cart and Cmao20 Юрий Д.К 19:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 15:40:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info No FPs of this interesting medieval church. Huge resolution (103 megapixels) and excellent quality (observe how the lettering on the side benches is fully legible). created by DXR – uploaded by DXR – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good! Юрий Д.К 19:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment The image itself is technically very impressive! Maybe it could be cropped a bit? To me there is maybe too much going on at once – in a way the image feels a bit cluttered, especially in the lower section. Won't you agree? --Osmo Lundell hey 21:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- There are more focussed crops (1, 2) but I honestly selected this one because I liked how much there is going on in the frame, I enjoyed this wide, expansive view of the church. Let's see how votes go. Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would happily support the the second one! --Osmo Lundell hey 23:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- There are more focussed crops (1, 2) but I honestly selected this one because I liked how much there is going on in the frame, I enjoyed this wide, expansive view of the church. Let's see how votes go. Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment The inherent distortion gives me pause, most evident in the upper level arches, which are stretched to twice their size and made elliptical by the view. The image illustrates a photographic effect rather than a depiction of the church interior Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 15:40:44 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Isère
Info Scenic and well composed French panorama. No FPs of the Lac de Grand Maison and its surroundings. created by MirandaAdramin – uploaded by MirandaAdramin – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice! --Osmo Lundell hey 21:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 21:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 14:50:59 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Sweden
Info created by Cart – uploaded by Cart – nominated by ERcheck (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment - Beautiful panorama of the fog at blue hour over the towers at Preemraff oil refinery in Lahälla, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. - ERcheck (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ERcheck (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Weak support It's very pretty and I love the panoramic format which gives us a whole wide expanse of lovely reflections. But the left of this panorama is visibly less sharp than the right. Overall scrapes over the bar because of subject and pleasant lighting conditions. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment: The fog was rolling in from the left, so denser fog conditions on left than on right. ERcheck (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I know, but that doesn't justify what seems more like slight motion blur than merely softness. Cmao20 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- You can read the discussion preceding this nom. --Cart (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I didn't know about this phenomenon. My vote remains 'weak support' though. Cmao20 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Very understandable. --Cart (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I didn't know about this phenomenon. My vote remains 'weak support' though. Cmao20 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I know, but that doesn't justify what seems more like slight motion blur than merely softness. Cmao20 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Having seen similar effects of emerging fog in my photos, I understand that the little softness was unavoidable, and the atmosphere and the impressive overall effect are much more important to me. – Aristeas (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Åh, så vackert! --Osmo Lundell hey 21:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support I was about to kvetch about the 'motion blur' before I learned it was refraction. No motion blur, no objections. JayCubby (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice scene, but unfortunately the left frame is not of the same quality as the right one.--Ermell (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 11:56:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created, uploaded and nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support I added categories for the date, the trees, and the weather conditions. Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful. Thank you Cmao20 for fixing this. --Cart (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 21:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:31 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Equidae_(Equids)
Info created and uploaded by Byrdyak – nominated by Kelly zhrm -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment Unconvinced the documentation is at FP level, although the picture certainly is. 'Three zebra' seems a very bare-bones title, and 'unidentified subspecies' in the categories doesn't give me much confidence (and the picture is also categorised with a specific subspecies - which is it? Do we know the subspecies or don't we? Unfortunately this is just the kind of thing the short lived checklist was designed to point out... Cmao20 (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
on this basis until some work is done to address these problems. I would not usually oppose for fixable category mistakes but the nomination seems to be picking up lots of support anyway and I don't think it should be promoted in this condition. Cmao20 (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Oppose
+1. This oppose will slow down the nom enough for the issues to be fixed. I will probably support it once the documentation is up to FP standards. --Cart (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cmao20 and Cart, for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. The conflicting category has been removed, and structured data has been updated. Given the location (Masai Mara), the characteristic striping, and the absence of other subspecies in the area, Equus quagga boehmi is the most accurate identification.
If helpful, I would suggest renaming the file to: Three plains zebras (Equus quagga boehmi) in Masai Mara National Reserve, Kenya.jpg to better reflect the subject.-- Radomianin (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC) - Addendum: I've now struck the filename suggestion from my comment - many thanks to Cart for already taking care of the rename. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support I will rename after nomination is over. Cmao20 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- NB: Grant's zebras not Three plains zebras. The ssp. is correct. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Charles - correction noted and applied. Much appreciated! -- Radomianin (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cmao20 and Cart, for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. The conflicting category has been removed, and structured data has been updated. Given the location (Masai Mara), the characteristic striping, and the absence of other subspecies in the area, Equus quagga boehmi is the most accurate identification.
- @Cmao20 Sorry for the delay because I don't have much time due to a lot of work, so the delay is inevitable. Kelly zhrm (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Osmo Lundell hey 08:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support That's better. And Cmao20, I've already fixed the name. --Cart (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Clear, well-composed image in natural habitat with excellent lighting. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. Thanks to all of your for your concerted effort to improve filename, description and categories! – Aristeas (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2025 at 14:11:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Cymatiidae
Info Gyrineum roseum is a small but beautiful representative of the Cymatiidae, the Rock whelks; created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Outstanding, as always - I could spend a while browsing your shell pictures for fun. Cmao20 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support. Wow! JayCubby (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Like a summer dream ice-cream cone. --Cart (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2025 at 01:46:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice abstract forms. But I can see some purple CA at full size. Not a deal breaker but it would be good if it can be removed. Cmao20 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your review. Much appreciated. I uploaded a new version last night (in the first version I didn't correct for CA) – please check and let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to do. All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- A lot better, thank you! Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your review. Much appreciated. I uploaded a new version last night (in the first version I didn't correct for CA) – please check and let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to do. All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Clearly composed, strong lines, technically precise; thanks for the update. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool and clear lines. --Cart (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cart, Cmao20, and Radomianin. – Aristeas (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment The CA at the facade should be removed.--Ermell (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Although I couldn't find chromatic aberration, I cranked the defringe slider in Capture One to 100 and uploaded a new version. The Super Elmar 21mm f/3.4 is known for its extremely low chromatic aberration and distortion. Let's hope the new version works :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Foster’s clients are willing to spend on curved glass; I’ve added the architect to the parent category. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2025 at 01:43:17 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#United States
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Very interesting building, nice colours, skilful perspective/detail, good quality. – Aristeas (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Question - @Frank Schulenburg: Do you have photos of the interior of the church? From my reading - there are 1500 of the pictured small windows with stained glass inserts, which create a beautiful, colorful light play in the sanctuary. - ERcheck (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not. My wife and I didn't have much time while visiting Palo Alto. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support I will try to organize a category for that style of mosaic-like punched windows and credit the architect. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2025 at 20:43:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Plants
Info created by Henri Matisse, digitized by Google, uploaded and nominated by Yann
Info Bowl of Apples on a Table, Henri Matisse, oil on canvas, 1916. 89.5 × 114.9 cm
Support Public domain since last January. No FP by Matisse yet. Only one FP of still-life paintings. Very high resolution. -- Yann (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment The description page should better use the {{Artwork}} template instead of the plain {{Information}} template. The collection should be mentioned not only via a category, but also in the description. There are no categories for the subject of the painting; at least Category:20th-century still-life paintings of fruit bowls, Category:Still-life paintings with apples and Category:Paintings of tables should be added, or whatever you consider as appropriate. From a more formal perspective, Category:1916 still-life paintings and Category:Paintings by Henri Matisse in the United States would be useful. – Aristeas (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 20:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2025 at 18:19:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order : Perciformes (Perch-like Fishes)
Info Moorish idol (Zanclus cornutus), Anilao, Philippines. It can be found from the eastern coast of Africa between Somalia and South Africa east to Hawaii and Easter Island. The Moorish idol lives between depths of 1–180 metres (3.3–590.6 ft) in turbid lagoons, reef flats, and clear rocky- and coral reefs. They mostly feed on sponges. Note: we have no FPs of the family Zanclidae. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking underwater image. --Tagooty (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Great shot, however categories were looking a bit sparse, I added a couple for you Poco a poco but it would be appreciated if you could add these ones in future underwater noms. Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support A little bit tight framed... --Cart (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Categories are incomplete, also missing location. There should be camera location and more specific category on location. --A.Savin 18:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bullshit bingo review here: 1) cats are fine 2) coordinates is definitely not a must for FP 3) my camera has not GPS 4) GPS doesn't work under water + the camera is shield within a case 5) nothing new, I just considere this is a personal attack due to the fact that half ot he noms here have no coordinates but you only care about this one. Poco a poco (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- There are several of us here trying to get the FP standard up to what it was before people started to become lazy and not care about proper documentation for FPs. The goal is to have the FPs in as good order as they were when Daniel Case was active here and help everyone with the categories. Perhaps you have forgotten how it looked back then. We are all dreading to comment on your photos because of your often bad temper when we do so. A.Savin is taking one for the team here, and I will back his request.
- It doesn't matter if your camera doesn't have GPS, none of mine do, but I usually remember where I've been and can give an approximate location on my photos. It doesn't need to be spot on, just a few decimals in the location coordinates per this. Having a cat like Category:Anilao, Iloilo (if that is the right place) would improve the cats, as well as Category:Nature of Iloilo (province) since that is the sort of categories where animals usually are.
- I'm really surprised at this, because you have no problem adding plenty of categories related to your travels, awards, and other personal categories, but you get red-hot mad when we ask you to add a couple more for the benefit of Commons and its users. As the user with the most FPs and an Admin, you should really be one of those who set a good example for what good documentation as per Commons recommendations is. Instead you are doing the opposite, doing just the very bare minimum and using your whale status here to intimidate anyone who dares to ask you to do what most of us others do. --Cart (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Bullshit bingo review here: 1) cats are fine 2) coordinates is definitely not a must for FP 3) my camera has not GPS 4) GPS doesn't work under water + the camera is shield within a case 5) nothing new, I just considere this is a personal attack due to the fact that half ot he noms here have no coordinates but you only care about this one. Poco a poco (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2025 at 16:24:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Scyphozoa
Info created by Mozzihh – uploaded by Mozzihh – nominated by Mozzihh -- Mozzihh (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mozzihh (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment - Image looks good, but categorization is lacking. Is there nothing for the species (are they even identified)? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment I've fixed up the categories for you, please check them out so you can do it yourself the next time. The file name is borderline with little specifics and a bewildering number. --Cart (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing! File name is from my archive... Mozzihh (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose While the jellies are very pretty and the rather too much black space in the photo can be cropped, I think the quality is too low, especially for an aquarium shot. Some might be salvaged by better editing from the raw (if such exists), but as it is now, I'm not too impressed. Sory. --Cart (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the hints, I did some raw editing and cropping. I hope it's more impressing now. Mozzihh (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- The crop is good for me, but the edit might unfortunately have made it worse. It's "blotchy" now. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the hints, I did some raw editing and cropping. I hope it's more impressing now. Mozzihh (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Osmo Lundell hey 18:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Interesting subject but sorry, poor quality at full size (low detail and unsharp). Cmao20 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2025 at 10:33:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info created by Osmo Lundell – uploaded by Osmo Lundell – nominated by Osmo Lundell --Osmo Lundell hey 10:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- --Osmo Lundell hey 10:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment Gallery fixed. If a gallery link you make is red, then there is something wrong with it and you need to check it out. Go to the gallery pages and find the right one, plus the right section heading on that page and simply copy it. A little info about where this photo was taken, and is it wild or cultivated, should also be in the description and categories. Would you please add that. Best, --Cart (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I checked the diff, didn't notice the category was empty while posting from a mobile device. I'll add info of when the photo was taken soon. --Osmo Lundell hey 14:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Added details on where the photo was taken. Hatanpää mansion has a private owned garden that is open to the public in Tampere. Technical details on the camera body and lens aren't that important, atleast according to the policy, but I can provide them if someone is interested. The composition was edited in Lightroom. --Osmo Lundell hey 17:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Now we are getting somewhere, but the idea was that you should have added the place for the flower on the file page, not just here, since this page will be archived out of sight for most of the general public as soon as the nomination is over and the info will be lost. I've copied it for you and added the relevant categories too. A plant photo without a good location is almost useless for Commons, so please take a look at what I've done so you can do the same the next time. :)
- So since this was in a garden, I assume that the flower was planted and not wild. Or? In that case it should be in the 'Doronicum orientale (cultivars)' category and not the general category for the wild plants.
- Regarding info about the camera you used: Yes, we are very interested in the equipment used for a photo. We usually find that in the photos EXIF, but if you don't keep that with your photos you can also use the Template:Photo Information and add to the description on the file page. Having the tech specs is useful for people learning how to take good photos, and it also allows voters to see how well you have used the cameras capacity. That can be very useful when providing feedback on your photos and perhaps give hints and tips. I know this is a lot to take in for a "newbie", but this is the Big League for photos on Commons, so everything is the next level from just uploading photos for wikis. --Cart (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- The plants in the garden were planted, yes. I took the exif and other metadata out, because there was too much info I didn't want to be there and stripping it straight out was easier than cherrypicking them out of the ~200 or so pics I took on that tour.
It's not a lot to take at all! I'll go add the deets you asked. ^^ --Osmo Lundell hey 17:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)- Thank you! Plant category fixed. --Cart (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- The plants in the garden were planted, yes. I took the exif and other metadata out, because there was too much info I didn't want to be there and stripping it straight out was easier than cherrypicking them out of the ~200 or so pics I took on that tour.
- Added details on where the photo was taken. Hatanpää mansion has a private owned garden that is open to the public in Tampere. Technical details on the camera body and lens aren't that important, atleast according to the policy, but I can provide them if someone is interested. The composition was edited in Lightroom. --Osmo Lundell hey 17:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I checked the diff, didn't notice the category was empty while posting from a mobile device. I'll add info of when the photo was taken soon. --Osmo Lundell hey 14:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Low quality (noise, halos/CA along the petal edges); not an appealing composition; missing EXIF. Overall, much below the bar of the many images in the FP Gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hey! Thank you for your detailed opinion. If I understood you correctly, re-editing the original would make the picture better for you? Could you elaborate bit further on that? --Osmo Lundell hey 08:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but I can see a lot of JPEG artefacts at full size and I am not sure I like how the harsh light means that the flowers just appear to be floating in mid air, it isn't a very satisfying composition for me. I think this picture is QI and was worth a try but I don't see it as FP. Cmao20 (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! Could you explain what you mean by "JPEG artefacts at full size"? :D --Osmo Lundell hey 19:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Tagooty and Cmao20. Like I recommended you before, since you are new here, you should nominate your photos at COM:QIC first to get all photo-technical issues sorted out first. When an image appear here it should be in tip-top shape. This is not a photo workshop, even if it often turns into one, especially for new participants. --Cart (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for your opinion Cart! Could you elaborate further on the said photo-technical issues? The users you mensioned above didn't explicitly rule out what they thought was the issue in a comprehensible way. --Osmo Lundell hey 19:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I see now that you and your photo are in the very capable hands of Aristeas, and I suggest to take a good look at any of the edits he will do to your photo. That will be more instructive than any words alone can be. Also, the users above are very specific about what can be improved in the photo. There is a page here with explanations for the photo language we use here at FPC: COM:PT. You might want to read it. --Cart (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'm exited how Aristeas can pimp the image. Sidenote: I hope that the language used in FP will be sufficiently specific to indicate the areas of the image that might need work. If not by screenshots or coordinates within the image, then at the very least by using comprehensible and clear language, enabling at least an above-average photographer to respond to the provided feedback. I agree that the upcoming revision of the edit by Aristeas will likely be more helpful than just a comment (which is understandable, since FP is not a DIY club as you mentioned). Clear communication is super important for making the community of any Wiki-project more inclusive and active, especially for those who aren’t actively participating in FP nominations, which is exactly what we want, right? --Osmo Lundell hey 21:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- The communication you are searching for is usually taking place at the COM:QIC, that is sort of the prepping area for FPC. There is also the COM:CRIT for more feedback. We review thousands of photos here, so very few of us have the stamina to be as detailed as you would like us to be. This is only your second try, and we are being patient with you and giving you advice. I suggest you take them. It's always better to be a bit involved in the community here on Commons before jumping into FPC. --Cart (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- No no, I ment as a general rule of thumb in any wiki process and basically in anything in life, if you can write it better and more clearly, you should do so! It doesn't take nearly that much effort as one might think at first. And again thanks for your comments! --Osmo Lundell hey 22:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- The communication you are searching for is usually taking place at the COM:QIC, that is sort of the prepping area for FPC. There is also the COM:CRIT for more feedback. We review thousands of photos here, so very few of us have the stamina to be as detailed as you would like us to be. This is only your second try, and we are being patient with you and giving you advice. I suggest you take them. It's always better to be a bit involved in the community here on Commons before jumping into FPC. --Cart (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'm exited how Aristeas can pimp the image. Sidenote: I hope that the language used in FP will be sufficiently specific to indicate the areas of the image that might need work. If not by screenshots or coordinates within the image, then at the very least by using comprehensible and clear language, enabling at least an above-average photographer to respond to the provided feedback. I agree that the upcoming revision of the edit by Aristeas will likely be more helpful than just a comment (which is understandable, since FP is not a DIY club as you mentioned). Clear communication is super important for making the community of any Wiki-project more inclusive and active, especially for those who aren’t actively participating in FP nominations, which is exactly what we want, right? --Osmo Lundell hey 21:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I see now that you and your photo are in the very capable hands of Aristeas, and I suggest to take a good look at any of the edits he will do to your photo. That will be more instructive than any words alone can be. Also, the users above are very specific about what can be improved in the photo. There is a page here with explanations for the photo language we use here at FPC: COM:PT. You might want to read it. --Cart (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for your opinion Cart! Could you elaborate further on the said photo-technical issues? The users you mensioned above didn't explicitly rule out what they thought was the issue in a comprehensible way. --Osmo Lundell hey 19:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment However I am bound to say that in my eyes the composition is actually very good – the flowers nicely stand out before the background of the OOF leaves, and are also nicely framed by them. I would try to crop ~ 90 pixels from the left margin to remove the fragments of two cropped leaves. In my eyes the brightness (too dark) and the halos at some petals are the main problems. @Osmo: I cannot promise too much, as I don’t know the quality of the original image data. But if you could give me access to the original image file (i.e., the raw image file, if available, or the original JPEG file from the camera), I could try to edit it and forward the result to you; sometimes I am lucky and can get a better result ;–). Best, – Aristeas (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you @Aristeas! Definetly, could you send me an email through my userpage? I can send you the original raw with the same license as this one (CC-BY-SA-4)! Thanks for offering your help, means a lot!! --Osmo Lundell hey 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Done Thank you, I have sent you an e-mail. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- No prob mate! Take your time, we can renom this if the deadline passes and
ifwhen your edit blows me away ^^ That image also has the fixed EXIF, which Cart was asking for earlier. --Osmo Lundell hey 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- No prob mate! Take your time, we can renom this if the deadline passes and
- Thank you @Aristeas! Definetly, could you send me an email through my userpage? I can send you the original raw with the same license as this one (CC-BY-SA-4)! Thanks for offering your help, means a lot!! --Osmo Lundell hey 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 22:13:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/People#1860-1869
Info created by JayCubby – uploaded by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Good portrait of a notable individual -- JayCubby (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice. Why not making a JPEG version? --Yann (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Yann, fair point.
Done at File:Samuel Morse portrait.jpg. JayCubby (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Yann, fair point.
Support Good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 14:27:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Africa
Info Physical Map of Africa. Created by Tom Patterson – uploaded and nominated by Riad Salih (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment There are several mistakes regarding some names in Italy, that are reported in Italian (some of them with typoes), and not in English: Golfo di Cagliari --> Gulf of Cagliari; Golfo di Taranto --> Gulf of Taranto; Golfo di Salerno (Gulfo is a typo) --> Gulf of Salerno; Puglia --> Apulia; Isole Pelagie --> Pelagie Islands; Calabriaa (typo) --> Calabria.
The capes are named in Italian, but this can be ok (Capo Spartivento, Capo Rizzuto, Capo Passero and Capo Santa Maria di Leuca), since there are other in northern Africa that are in French; otherwise, you may use Cape Spartivento, Cape Rizzuto (not frequent), Cape Passero, and Cape Santa Maria di Leuca. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)- If someone is able to open the source file in Adobe Illustrator, they might be able to correct those inaccuracies. Riad Salih (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I used to have an Adobe Illustrator license, but do not have it anymore (using Inkscape instead; unfortunately Inkscape cannot convert this AI file). If somebody still has a license, could they please download the AI file and convert it to SVG format. First, because SVG is an open standard for vector graphics and can be uploaded directly to Commons; second, because then we could easily fix any typos etc. Of course the fonts are a problem; the map uses a proprietary font family (Myriad Pro), to allow the community to edit the file we would have to replace it by a font family which is available under a free (libre) license, preferably under OFL. If somebody could convert the file to a valid SVG, I would try to replace the fonts and to fix the typos. – Aristeas (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- If someone is able to open the source file in Adobe Illustrator, they might be able to correct those inaccuracies. Riad Salih (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment Could you please transfer some data from the source to the file page on Commons, such as how and when the map was made. Even physical features change with time. --Cart (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- I did Riad Salih (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment The source website offers two versions: the medium-quality and the high-quality file. This is the medium-quality version. But IMHO we should use the high-quality file because it allows for much more possible use cases. It’s exactly the same image, just in higher resolution. (One can always downscale a raster image, but upscaling it is much more difficult and problematic.) No problem, we can simply upload it over the current (medium-quality) image. Please do so. – Aristeas (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Aristeas I attempted to open and upload the high quality file, but my internet speed and PC capabilities are somewhat limited. Please feel free to upload the high version if you can. Riad Salih (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Done Uploaded the high-quality file. Looking at the Exif data they say that the image uses “uncalibrated” colours; this means normally that the file uses the Adobe RGB color space, but the profile was not embedded, this causes wrong display (too muted colours). I have embedded the AdobeRGB profile with ExifTool, i.e. without any quality loss. Now the colours look a bit different, but IMHO quite reasonable and more like in common physical maps. – Aristeas (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Aristeas I attempted to open and upload the high quality file, but my internet speed and PC capabilities are somewhat limited. Please feel free to upload the high version if you can. Riad Salih (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 20:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 11:27:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Canada
Info Willistead Manor, a manor house in Windsor, Ontario, designed by Albert Kahn for the Walker family. This 36-room house, completed in 1906, is in the Tudor-Jacobean style. All by Crisco 1492 -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 14:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Kritzolina 14:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment I like it. Lifting the shadows a bit would be an improvement, though. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Frank Schulenburg, I've increased the shadows by another 35. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Much better. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support for the improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Well done, the more so since my firm is presently working on one of Kahn's industrial buildings, this is quite a contrast. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ERcheck (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Osmo Lundell hey 21:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
White-booted racket-tails
Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 08:03:54 (UTC)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page
- male white-booted racket-tail
- female white-booted racket-tail
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)
Info These white-booted hummingbirds live to the west of the Andes in Ecuador. 250km away, on the east of the Andes, the male and female racket-tails have orange boots. No FPs of the genus. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful Cmao20 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support. I like the action. @Charlesjsharp: , the denoise software left 'hot pixel'-esque things, I've marked them here. JayCubby (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, again. Two new versions uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tkarcher (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Good pair of images. --Tagooty (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Indeed, and we must especially appreciate that these photos were taken without flash etc. – Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Too much Topaz for my taste, e.g. the legs of the second picture look unnatural due to excesive sharpening Poco a poco (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Neutral
Request I agree with Poco's assessment. In its current state, the images appears to have undergone quite heavy processing - possibly involving strong noise reduction followed by sharpening. As a result, some details seem unnaturally emphasized, and parts of the image take on a slightly harsh or fragmented appearance. If reprocessing is an option and not too much effort, a more balanced development could preserve the many strengths of this set. That way, the nomination might still succeed - and we would gain two new, excellent featured pictures. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- new version of the female uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely better, will
Support now Poco a poco (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely better, will
Support for the set. Thank you for the updated version. The texture now appears more natural and balanced. I appreciate the quick revision and am happy to support the nomination. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Looks nicer now. Just curious: Are the male's "foot feathers" purple at the base or is that CA? --Cart (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Looks natural. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 06:28:04 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#India
Info The church was built in 1897 and the bell towers added in 1918. Note: There is an FP of this church, a significantly different view than this nomination. No other FPs of church exteriors in India. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support A tough shot to get right Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Neutral The white on white is very well handled, but sorry I'm not a fan of that top-heavy, distorted look you get when photographing such tall buildings in close proximity. Some buildings are just impossible to get a full clean photo of that really works. --Cart (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support imposing structure, well-captured. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Having struggled myself with shooting tall buildings at close quarters (a tilt-shift lens doesn't help much with the top-heavy look), I think you've done well to keep it in proportion. The whiteness is well-handled. Acroterion (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 01:42:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info Madam Marie's Temple of Knowledge on the boardwalk at Asbury Park, New Jersey. Marie Castello was mentioned in 4th of July, Asbury Park (Sandy) by Bruce Springsteen:
- "Well the cops finally busted Madam Marie
- For tellin' fortunes better than they do"
- created by Acroterion – uploaded by Acroterion – nominated by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 06:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support - Simple lines, shot well, with an interesting history. Works for me! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 14:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Chris Woodrich. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Love the beautiful contrast between the blue shades (Madam Marie’s, sky) and the yellow/orange shades (left and right buildings). The colour palette, the austere composition and the meaningful emptiness remind me of some paintings by Giorgio de Chirio and Edward Hopper – Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Luis Barragán was who I had in mind when I took the photo. Acroterion (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas. --Cart (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2025 at 20:39:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family : Lutjanidae (Snappers)
Info Mexican barred snapper (Hoplopagrus guentherii), Cabo Pulmo, Baja California, Mexico. It is native to the eastern Pacific Ocean and attains a maximum total length of 92 centimetres (36 in), although 50 centimetres (20 in) is more typical, and the maximum published weight is 9.6 kg (21 lb). It emerges at night from their day shelters in caves and crevices to hunt during the night other fishes and crustaceans. Note: we have no FPs of the genus Hoplopagrus. c/n/u by Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent portrait Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support Another great underwater image --Tagooty (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)