(Redirected from FPC)


Shortcut
This project page in other languages:

Other featured candidates:

Media 

Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates

Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures.

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal things

Nominating

Guidelines for nominators

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

  • Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • Resolution – Raster images of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. This does not apply to vector graphics (SVGs).
    • Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful color adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

There 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:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

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."

Photographs

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Color is important. Oversaturated colors are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or color AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of color brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

Video and audio

Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates.

Set nominations

If 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:

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Simple tutorial for new users

Tutorial: Nominate on COM:FPC
How to nominate in 8 simple steps

STEP 1

  • STEP 1
    STEP 1

STEP 2

  • STEP 2
    STEP 2

STEP 3

  • STEP 3
    STEP 3

STEP 4

  • STEP 4
    STEP 4

STEP 5

  • STEP 5
    STEP 5

STEP 6

  • STEP 6
    STEP 6

STEP 7

  • STEP 7
    STEP 7

STEP 8

  • STEP 8 (last step)
    STEP 8 (last step)

NOTE: You don't need to worry if you are not sure, other users will try their best to help you.

Adding a new nomination

If 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 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

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:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

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: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports An image will only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

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.

Voting

Editors 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:

  • {{Support}} ( Support),
  • {{Oppose}} ( Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} ( Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} ( Comment),
  • {{Info}} ( Info),
  • {{Question}} ( Question),
  • {{Request}} ( Request).

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:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).

Over 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:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}}  Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture.
{{Delist}}  Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

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:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}}  Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as a FP.
{{Delistandreplace}}  Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

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:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

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.

General rules

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome.
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome.
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{Withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5):
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have fewer than two support votes.
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) This does not apply to nominations containing at least one ‘Alternative’ image – because it is possible that another image can overtake the one in the lead during the last days, such nominations are never closed early.
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rules

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven  Support votes (or 7  Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, they should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.
  5. Only two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

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 polite

Please 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

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
Shortcut

File:Chêne, colza, Jura (horizontal).jpg

Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 18:14:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

English oak standing in the middle of a rapeseed field with the Jura Mountains background. Versonnex (Ain), France.

File:Tractor John Deere 6320 with front and rear mower cutting grass.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 15:49:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tractor John Deere 6320 with front and rear mower cutting grass

File:46-218-0001 Zolochiv Castle RB 24.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 11:50:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Top down view on castle in Zolochiv, Ukraine.

File:Chêne, colza, Jura (panorama).jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 20:19:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

English oak standing in the middle of a rapeseed field with the Jura Mountains background. Versonnex (Ain), France.

 I withdraw my nomination ZarlokX (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bottomless Blue Pool (54453584411).jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 18:03:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Glassy Glacial Lake (54441988747).jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 18:03:49 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fawn-breasted brilliant (Heliodoxa rubinoides aequatorialis) in flight Paz de Las Aves.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 11:59:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fawn-breasted brilliant (Heliodoxa rubinoides aequatorialis)

File:Red-headed barbet (Eubucco bourcierii aequatorialis) male Paz de Las Aves.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 12:10:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red-headed barbet (Eubucco bourcierii aequatorialis) male

File:Riedböhringen - St. Genesius 29.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 11:06:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Parapet of the organ gallery, parish church St. Genesius, Riedböhringen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

File:Samarjit by Rudhra Varma.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 05:54:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Potrait of an Indian actor Samarjit
  • However, it is not currently categorised. Can you sort that out and add suitable cats? I know you're quite new to FPC but it shouldn't pass unless properly categorised. Cmao20 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice portrait and good-looking guy. I see that we have a couple of new photographers focusing on Indian actors. While we are thankful that these photographers are willing to donate good photos to Commons, I think we will have to take care of the categories since I doubt that sorting is their primary interest for participating. I have added categories to this photo. --Cart (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anémona tubo (Pachycerianthus delwynae), Anilao, Filipinas, 2023-08-21, DD 212.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 20:33:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sea anemone (Pachycerianthus delwynae), Anilao, Philippines
  • It was a night dive (I forgot to update the time) and the anemone was quite big, so to get it fully on the picture with my 100mm lens I had to keep some distance so that the light was not strong anymore. I've brightened it a bit and uploaded a new version. Poco a poco (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much, both for the explanation and the brightening! IMHO the photo is very good now – making it even brighter would be exaggerated given that it was taken during a night dive. – Aristeas (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basílica de la Dorada, Toulouse, Francia, 2023-01-07, DD 11-13 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 20:32:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Image of the Black Madonna in the basilica of Our Lady of the Daurade, Toulouse, France.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#France
  •  Info Image of the Black Madonna in the basilica of Our Lady of the Daurade, Toulouse, France. The first church in this location was established in 410 when Emperor Honorius allowed the conversion of pagan temples to Christianity. The original building of Notre-Dame de la Daurade was a temple dedicated to Apollo. During the 5th or 6th century another church was erected, decorated with golden mosaics; the current name derives from the antique name, (“Deaurata”, gold). It became a Benedictine monastery during the 9th century. After a period of decline starting in the 15th century, the basilica was demolished in 1761 to make way for the construction of Toulouse's riverside quays. The buildings were restored and a new church built, but the monastery was closed during the French Revolution, becoming a tobacco factory. The basilica had housed the shrine of a Black Madonna. The original icon was stolen in the fifteenth century, and its first replacement was burned by Revolutionaries in 1799 on the Place du Capitole. The icon presented today is an 1807 copy of the fifteenth century Madonna. Blackened by the hosts of candles, the second Madonna has been known since the sixteenth century as Notre Dame La Noire. The current edifice was built during the 19th century. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose for now I hope this is taken in the spirit of constructive criticism but I really am not convinced by your current processing algorithm. In this and your previous nomination, which you kindly corrected/improved at my request, the reprocessed version you have uploaded in 2025 has made the text on the signs in the church far less legible than it was in the original versions in the file history uploaded in 2022/2023. What is sharp and easily readable in the earlier versions is now blurry, smudged, and sometimes seems to contain characters that don't really even look like letters. It is obvious in this image if you zoom in to virtually any noticeboard, sign, or monument with lettering.
I wonder whether your processing software is applying some form of AI-based sharpening or noise reduction without you being aware. AI is a huge fad at the moment, and I notice that photo processing software is often jumping on that bandwagon, adding AI-based features that are sold to us as a great improvement while they are actually quite dubious. AI is notoriously bad at handling text, and its sharpening algorithms often work by interpolating textures, which can easily smooth out details like text where precise rendering of individual pixels is important.
I am keen to support this picture but on principle I won't support a version that's to my mind obviously worse than the 2023 version. I can see that the new version does have certain advantages - the altar is a little bit sharper - but for me these are far outweighed by the poor rendering of fine detail. One of the things I like about your church interiors is that, like David Iliff's and DXR's, they contain plenty of interesting detail to explore at full size. It would be a huge shame to lose this. Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, Cmao20, I addressed the issue. I hope this version looks much better. Poco a poco (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Yes, that's what I want it to look like Cmao20 (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shervin Hajipour.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 16:43:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

is an Iranian singer-songwriter. Hajipour rose to fame after the release of his single "" which has been described as "the anthem" of the 2022 protests. In 2023, he won the first Grammy Award for Best Song for Social Change at the 65th Annual Grammy Awards for "Baraye". On 1 March 2024, Hajipour was sentenced to 3 years and 8 months of jail and ordered to write anti-America-Aggression music because of "Baraye", a song that won Best Song for Social Change at the 65th Annual Grammy Awards.

File:Tanguar haor, Bangladesh 01.jpg (delist)

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 16:20:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Delist and surprised at the 27 support to 0 oppose of original nom. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks to Abdulmominbd for providing evidence of the image’s authenticity. I understand that this discussion may have been uncomfortable but it is also essential given how often undisclosed manipulations do get featured at FPC.
    For me, the image though not a photomontage is still not FP—a significant part of the image is completely black, the saturation brush in the sky is way too obvious, the wetland i.e. the titular subject is cropped out. To me, the unedited actually looks better (even FP worthy with some editing). Perhaps it could have been edited differently? For now I am not striking my vote, will revisit this later. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A side  Comment Looking at the author’s stream, I can see that many, if not most, of the shots are overedited, overprocessed, and extensively oversaturated. Yet many of them have Wiki Loves Earth winner badges, picture of the day stars, and featured awards. I wonder if encyclopedias actually need these kinds of images featured on their pages? I’m talking about a broader set of winners on Wiki Loves Earth. If you look at Wiki Loves Earth winner pages from many countries, many of the top entries there are overedited and oversaturated to the extent that they have nothing to do with realistic photography. There seems to be a competence/expertise issue among the judges. It’s like pop culture eating encyclopedia culture ;) To quote: “The primary driving forces behind popular culture, especially when speaking of Western popular cultures, are the mass media, mass appeal, marketing”. It’s probably fine to have pop culture, but it’s not OK to substitute encyclopedia work on summary of knowledge with pop culture or fantasy culture. --Argenberg (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a constant stream of positive votes in the original nomination, and the only user who questioned the nomination with regard to editing was Charlesjsharp. This particular image, aside from being a photomontage, is actually OK tonality-wise. One could imagine taking a shot like this with a telephoto lens and minimal post-processing. --Argenberg (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the judging on Wiki Loves Earth and Wiki Loves Monuments is often poor. There are good pictures that win awards, but they are frequently beaten by low-quality, oversaturated, heavily processed, unrealistic slop. The judging here is much better, although as this picture shows, we can make mistakes. I don't know how judges for WLE and WLM are chosen. I was once approached to judge WLM Bangladesh, which was good fun, but that is my entire involvement with them. It would be good if these contests solicited the opinions of people who are more skilled photography critics from here, QIC, VIC and elsewhere. Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I cannot go into details (that would be rather impolite), but I can tell you from my own experience that often some other jury members don’t like it if one gets picky about details; they think that is boring nitpicking. – Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This says a lot about the competence of such judges. It could be one of the dividing lines between the smartphone/pop/marketing culture mentioned above and the photography/encyclopedia culture. One aims to impress and manipulate, while the other tries to educate. And education is tough, much harder than marketing, because it takes more energy to build up new neural circuits and pathways in the brain. --Argenberg (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist  Keep It's unfortunate that this was promoted, but at the time we were still a bit naive here at FPC. A montage was suspected, I remember more chatter about this in e-mails than on the FPC page, so it went undocumented. I know that people were checking if all the ducks were different, maybe a composite from one duck flying past and several exposures used. But it was before schablons popped up in every editing program, and we simply didn't know what to look for. Now we are more seasoned by AI and more wary. Shit happened, and now that we are wiser, it can be corrected. --Cart (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's natural to have doubts about anything that seems unusual, but as you know, reality can often be stranger than fiction. Back in 2017, while traveling in Tanguar Haor, I was on a boat capturing the men in silhouette light when by chance some birds flew into the frame. Whenever I shared this photo on my social media pages, people often assumed it was a montage or some sort of manipulation, much like you're doing now. To clear things up, I'm sharing the original files with you. Please have a look and let's settle this, as it's honestly a bit embarrassing for me. At the time, I was new to photography and used to shoot in JPEG to save space and also my editing skill was very poor. I have also included the photo taken just after the shot in question to help provide context. The files are downloadable, so feel free to inspect them thoroughly. Google Drive Link Abdulmominbd (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy to be proved wrong in this. There is still some wonder in the world. Of course I apologize to you. --Cart (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist It’s a pity because this particular image is, as Argenberg stated, “aside from being a photomontage, […] actually OK tonality-wise”. I guess this also explains the broad consent in the original nomination. Many manipulated images are totally overdone and immediately look unrealistic; this one is better. I would love to see the original image before the montage. Maybe it would still be a FP, and with more right than this manipulated version. But we don’t have the choice. – Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's natural to have doubts about anything that seems unusual, but as you know, reality can often be stranger than fiction. Back in 2017, while traveling in Tanguar Haor, I was on a boat capturing the men in silhouette light when by chance some birds flew into the frame. Whenever I shared this photo on my social media pages, people often assumed it was a montage or some sort of manipulation, much like you're doing now. To clear things up, I'm sharing the original files with you. Please have a look and let's settle this, as it's honestly a bit embarrassing for me. At the time, I was new to photography and used to shoot in JPEG to save space and also my editing skill was very poor. I have also included the photo taken just after the shot in question to help provide context. The files are downloadable, so feel free to inspect them thoroughly. Google Drive Link Abdulmominbd (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for sharing the files, Abdulmominbd! I’m happy to learn that the photo is authentic. I will take a closer look tomorrow, but have striked my oppose vote. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Keep Just for the record: I can confirm that the metadata of the provided JPEG files look completely authentic. I can reproduce the look of the discussed image by ca. 1 minute of editing of the provided original JPEG (only removing CAs and reducing the sharpening applied by the camera would take longer). So I have to apologize to you, Abdulmominbd, and want to thank you again for sharing the original images for comparison. Congratulations to this great shot and I wish you always good light and many more wonderful photos! – Aristeas (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good capture. But the image is quite heavily edited with newly introduced hues (yellow in the sky). This gives it a different, slightly surreal atmosphere. --Argenberg (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Great, EXIF tell Ver.1.02 which is camera firmware, early one. Probably its all fine here, just edit was a bit strange. Birds have colors, some have CA - so "lens mistake". Abdulmominbd Thanx for showing up. So now is can this edit be FP or not. --Mile (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep obviously Юрий Д.К 21:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak keep Clearly overprocessed (yellow sky and what looks like mist) but not fake (genuine shot with real silhouettes of accurate proportions) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Thank you, Abdulmominbd, for stepping forward with transparency and sharing the original files—it takes humility and integrity to do so, especially in such a charged discussion. It's a reminder that sometimes extraordinary moments do happen in real life, and scepticism, while healthy, must be open to evidence. This image may be imperfect from a technical or post-processing standpoint, but the authenticity you've demonstrated deserves appreciation. I hope this experience encourages continued dialogue grounded in both critical thinking and mutual respect. --Moheen (keep talking) 10:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per consensus above. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tejedor de Speke (Ploceus spekei), parque nacional del lago Nakuru, Kenia, 2024-05-18, DD 09.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 15:15:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Speke's weaver

File:Vishwak Sen.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 06:57:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Indian actor Vishwak Sen
  • Upscaling is not considered best practice on Commons. Seeing that no new information is actually being added by upscaling, it is merely interpolating pixels, then we take the line that upscaling just increases file size without preserving any new content and thus it should be done client-side if desired rather than being done by the uploader. Anyway, if this is the best version you have,  Weak support on the basis that the composition is really good but the size is a little on the low side. Cmao20 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't mind the size, and the photo, colors and light are well managed. But sorry, for me the crop is too tight at the bottom and to the right, cutting off the shoe. I don't think this pose is the best for an FP portrait, even though I understand that it is meant to convey some sort of attitude and mood. It's more suited for GQ, Harper's Bazaar or something like that, as one in a series of photos in an article about the actor. As a stand-alone portrait, it doesn't work that well. --Cart (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olkhon Island, Capes, cliffs at sunset, Lake Baikal, Russia.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 15:55:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Capes and cliffs of Olkhon Island at sunset. Lake Baikal.

File:Beilstein - Kaisersbach - Oberes Höllwäldle - Birnbaum mit Blick über Schmidbachtal (1).jpg

Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 15:19:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Solitary pear tree on a hill above the hamlet of Kaisersbach near Beilstein, Württemberg, Germany

File:Broken window, Ponte de Sor, Portugal julesvernex2.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 14:36:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Broken window, Ponte de Sor, Portugal

File:Nymphaea alba from lake Iffer 3.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 10:25:04 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:বেগুনি মৌটুসি (Cinnyris asiaticus), জাতীয় উদ্ভিদ উদ্যান, ঢাকা.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 04:01:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Male Purple sunbird
@Ashraf747 I see that the Sony ILCE-7RM4A can produce images at a maximum resolution of 9504 × 6336 pixels. It seems this file might have been downscaled from the original. If possible, could you please reupload the high-resolution version? High-res image is important for a FP nomination, as it allows for detailed evaluation, better usability across Wikimedia projects, and meets the technical quality standards expected for featured content. Thank you! -- Moheen (keep talking) 17:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not downsized. It's just cropped to make this composition. In wildlife or birding one cannot always go near the subject. So we make sure to keep a safe distance for not disturbing the birds or other animals. Hope you understand. Ashraf747 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Cmao20. The bird benchmark is set pretty high. JayCubby (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be quite happy if I took this photo -- congratulations on the bird in flight on clean background! As others are explaining, the standard for this particular process involves looking at the image in full resolution, in which case it does show some oversharpening, especially in the wingtips. If you didn't sharpen it in post-processing, the camera is likely doing some sharpening itself (perhaps a setting you might want to change). But yes, I too have many shots I'm proud of but which don't meet the technical requirements to become a featured picture. Hope you'll continue to share your photos, though! — Rhododendrites talk |  01:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The EXIF metadata suggests the image was taken in Raw (so no in-camera sharpening), but that two AI editors were used (Topaz Labs and DXO's). These are notorious for adding false feather detail with default parameters. Hopefully you can have another go at editing this wonderful image. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Idukki Dam Reservoir Hillview Pano Kerala Mar22 R16 05581-Pano.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 00:50:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Idukki dam reservoir