Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates:
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal things[edit]Nominating[edit]Guidelines for nominators[edit]Please 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Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents[edit]There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others.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:
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[edit]On 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 audio[edit]Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominations[edit]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:
Simple tutorial for new users[edit]Adding a new nomination[edit]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 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. Voting[edit]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:
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 candidates[edit]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:
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 policy[edit]General rules[edit]
Featuring and delisting rules[edit]A 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. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. 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[edit]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[edit]
|
Table of contents[edit]
Featured picture candidates[edit]
File:Havelock Island, Sandy lagoon, Andaman Islands.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 11:39:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
- Info Tropical beach in Havelock Island (Swaraj Dweep), Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andaman Sea, Indian Ocean. All by by -- Argenberg (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Argenberg (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Hibiscus Rising sculpture from above. LEEDS 2023. 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2024 at 09:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures_outdoors
- Info created by Octovision Media - uploaded by Lajmmoore - nominated by Lajmmoore -- Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment this image was uploaded to Commons as part of a paid project, see WPːGLAM/Leeds2023 -- Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment this is my first FP nomination, so am learning the ropes, thank you for your time and patience Lajmmoore (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support adding support as nominator Lajmmoore (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:WLE - 2022 - Parque nacional de Ordesa y Monte Perdido - 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 15:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain#Aragon
- Info The leading lines, the sense of movement in the water, the mist and the autumn colours all make this a strong candidate to me. created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The trees are all leaning out, the technical quality is so-so and I wonder why a square crop was chosen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support: perspective looks fine to me, but the square crop is odd indeed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I actually really like the square crop, it places the blurry water in the corner so that it leads the eye gently through the frame. But I do take Charles’s criticisms about the technical quality. Still FP to me but let’s see how the votes go. Cmao20 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I find the leaning trees most disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Großer Blaupfeil.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 15:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
- Info Sven Damerow at his best, more than 45 megapixels of sharp focus-stacked dragonfly. There may be some minor stacking errors but so far I have only found one and it is barely noticeable at all. created by Sven Damerow - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very high level of detail and nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great! --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:N°2 HAÏK.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 15:03:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
- Info created by Mus52 - uploaded by Mus52 - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question What is different about it and what additional things does this nomination provide compared to this other one? --Wilfredor (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Wilfredor, the difference is that in this one, we can see the entire Haik (the white cloth) instead of only half of it as shown in the picture you mentioned. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support IMO nice, and although the highlights are technically blown, for me it's okay because this is what white clothing in bright sunlight would look like to the eye. Better composition than the existing FP Cmao20 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't agree that this subject is worthy of a second FP. It is too similar. People might think that that the jewellery being worn is part the the haik, but it is not. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp the image can also be used to showcase the accessory worn on the head called Khit er rouh. Best regards. Riad Salih (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too similar to the other one. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support The brightness and the half body portrait make this actually more interesting than previous one. The hands and the hand jewellery are also interesting parts of the composition. --Thi (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Imperial Hall, Residenz Munich, Germany.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 13:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
- Info created by -- Wilfredor (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Eurasian sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus nisus) male.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 13:07:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
- Info A lunchtime visitor to our garden, enjoying his pigeon. Two current FPs, one feeding. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Superb quality, and the contextualised surroundings, while not very nice, make this image interesting and informative. Cmao20 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is really great to have an eye like yours to watch, capture, and bring these wild action scenes here. Could you expand a bit the description on the file page, so that we understand better what's happening? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, Quebec, Canada 22.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2024 at 01:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Québec
- Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 11:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would like more sky and 3x2 or something more panoramic. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think about this one ? Wilfredor (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still too much foreground for my taste. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Niagara River at Niagara Glen.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 23:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
- Info: autumn colours at Niagara Gorge; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Pretty and peaceful. I had no idea there was such a rural part of the Niagara River. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but the composition is not so exciting, in my view. Too much water, unspectacular sky, insignificant foreground. Vegetation is okay, slightly colorful, but not extremely special. Overall no wow, because something like a ship, an animal or an island is missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I would have liked more sky, more panoramic crop, less foreground water, no rock and a brighter day. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support I like the colours and the mood but the composition leaves something to be desired for me. I think it'd be better if the rock was placed at a third, rather than just awkwardly off at the edge of the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Basile Poco a poco (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Lucha entre clanes de la tribu Mundari, Terekeka, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-29, DD 197.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 18:35:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual_sports
- Info Nuba wrestling of different clans of the Mundari tribe, Terekeka, South Sudan. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Is this nuba wrestling? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, I updated the description Poco a poco (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Blue, black and red clothes, skins covered with a film of sand, muscles, bracelets, landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support This reminds me of Chinua Achebe's novels, Things Fall Apart Riad Salih (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Cape Town (ZA), Wale Street -- 2024 -- 3536.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 17:45:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay 💬 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Attractive composition and high quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Well balanced composition and popping up content. La Vie en rose :-) Basile Morin (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support very cool composition. Tomer T (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wow! ★ 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Desert elephant (Loxodonta africana) spraying sand.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 09:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Elephantidae (Elephants)
- Info The desert elephant sprays sand on her back and head to keep cool while standing out in the sun guarding her baby. She has just placed a branch over the baby to protect it from the sun. I can't decide whether to crop the image or not... All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Would create an extracted image of original that is cropped 25% tighter all around. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks; happy to oblige. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic action of a wild animal in its natural environment, excellent view point -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Kunst-Raststätte Illertal-Ost 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 09:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
- Info The only art rest area in Germany was designed by the Austrian architect Herbert Maierhofer. The design costs amounted to almost a quarter of the total construction costs. The curved outer walls were made of expanded clay blocks with integrated thermal insulation made of rigid polystyrene foam. The three towers were each manufactured as a complete component in plastic and transported and assembled by helicopter; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Funky subject and good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too busy, in my opinion. Harsh light with black shadows at the lower right corner. Fun architecture but not breathtaking. Distracting industrial lamp post and red umbrellas. The deer sculpture in the center is a bit simple and badly lit. Overall cluttered composition, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Bloemknoppen van een gewone dotterbloem (Caltha palustris subsp. palustris). 17-03-2024. (d.j.b.).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2024 at 05:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
- Info Flower buds in development of a Caltha palustris hanging above a ditch. Focus stack of 20 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC) - Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing background and distracting yellow shape. The right border is gray and a bit awkward. Quality image but not up to FP for a somewhat easy subject, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. FYI: The background is the water in the ditch where the plant is overhanging. The yellow spot is a flower of the same plant that hangs a little further over the ditch. The right side is shaded by another plant.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Shade over the water seems unlikely, so probably the side of a blurred plant in the foreground? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose As Basile and there are unhelpful bright highlights. It is not very sharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry but that big yellow blob in the background is just too distracting for me. The image quality is good but the background is somewhere short of outstanding Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Fall Of Baghdad (Diez Albums).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 22:13:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Historical
- Info created by unknown 14th century artist, uploaded by पाटलिपुत्र, nominated by Yann
- Support High quality reproduction of a 14th-century representation of the Siege of Baghdad (1258). -- Yann (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 17:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent reproduction of a valuable depiction of a sad event that was one of the turning points in history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very high resolution and good quality for a 7 century old document -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Ganado, Imehejek, Sudán del Sur, 2024-01-21, DD 10.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 18:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
- Info Cattle herd going through a street before sunset in Imehejek, South Sudan. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Amazing composition!, congrats Diego I love very much your work. Maybe some noise because oversharpening?, but FP for sure to me --Wilfredor (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Denoised, thank you for your feedback, Wilfredo :) Poco a poco (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much dust covering the background. JukoFF (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely, that's IMHO what makes this shot, together with the golden hour, so interesting. Poco a poco (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Strange oppose. The dust is essential for the composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Wilfredor. Yann (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent and different to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Kritzolina (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support One of the best FP candidates in my opinion. Great mood, nice light, mystical dust and natural environment -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Stunning photo, everything has been said really Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Kruger National Park (ZA), Elefant -- 2024 -- 0649.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 16:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Elephantidae_(Elephants)
- Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- XRay 💬 16:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Not up there with current FPs in composition of technical excellence. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support It looks like this is technically as good or better than some elephant FPs, but it's also of a type of behavior we don't appear to have an FP of (correct me if I'm wrong). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- We don't. But I much prefer this image of an elephant covering herself in sand whilst standing out in the sun protecting her sleeping baby. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
OpposeComposition; especially foreground. Poor lighting from behind. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- One "oppose" should be enough. See above. ;-) --XRay 💬 13:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The light is not very good. From the shadows, it seems that the midday sun comes from in front. Probably not the best angle of view, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agree that the light could be better but the high sharpness on the elephant makes it FP to me Cmao20 (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Jacaré do pantanal.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2024 at 12:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Alligatoridae (Alligators and Caimans)
- Info Yacare caiman (Caiman yacare) during feeding, Pantanal Matogrossense National Park, Brazil. Located on the border of the states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, the park has an area of 135,606 hectares (335,090 acres). It is in the Pantanal biome. Created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by ★ -- ★ 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Not very high resolution but I think there're strong mitigating reasons here… (BTW, it reminds me of Snowmanstudios' works). -- ★ 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Tilted? -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but still FP. ★ 16:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not the previous version before this correction of the tilt made at 20:02 -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a nice shot, but it is quite tilted, quite small and has oversaturated colours. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I admit I was a bit hesitant to give this picture an upvote, fearing someone might comment about a "Brazilian friends group". However, I decided to cast those fears aside because, frankly, the photo is outstanding. I believe the size is perfectly appropriate given the rarity of images of this style and from this region. The composition truly deserves recognition. As for the colors, could they be considered too saturated? Personally, I don’t think so. To me, they are simply the reflection of a diverse and rich nature. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent! --Yann (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wilfredor: did you use Topaz to upscale it? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I "rollbacked" it. To add sharpness to the photos I do an upscaling with Topaz and then a downsize to return it to its original size, I just forgot the last stage, I already returned it to its original size, thanks for letting me know Wilfredor (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent to me - look at that eye! The photographer hasn't contributed since 2017, so we can't expect them to address the degree of saturation or tilt, but I'd be happy to see an alt if anyone would like to make one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose reso is quite low -- Ivar (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Oversaturated colors and low resolution, only 2,244 × 1,496 pixels -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral per Charles, it's obviously an impressive capture but it's only 3 megapixels and seems likely to be downsampled. Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Charles Poco a poco (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Guaita Fortress - San Marino - 2024 02 13 - GT 01 ver2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2024 at 17:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#San_Marino
- Info This panorama of the San Marino (City) is the result of the fusion of 60 photographs. Above you can see the Guaita Fortress and its famous feather. The whole panorama is breathtaking even if the background is slightly foggy: During the winters, especially in the months of February and March, it is possible to see advection fogs on the Adriatic Sea, which tend to invade the mainland for several kilometers from the coast. This phenomenon indicates the imminent arrival of spring. Created, uploaded and nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It does not work for me, the colours are too dull probably due to the harsh light when the sun is near it's zenith. PierreSelim (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose midday light conditions. -- Ivar (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great resolution. --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Harsh light but mitigated by amazing resolution and detail and great motif Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Bar-bellied Pitta.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2024 at 15:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pittidae_(Pittas)
- Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JJ, you've done it again! --SHB2000 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Educational and good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support In this case I would crop out some of the blurry foreground, but typical high quality for JJH and a beautiful bird Cmao20 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Área de Proteção Ambiental Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Thomas-Fuhrmann (16) (cropped).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 13:40:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Phallaceae
- Info Clathrus chrysomycelinus in the Quilombos do Médio Ribeira Environmental Protection Area, São Paulo state, Brazil. It is a species of fungus in the stinkhorn family, found in South America. Created and initially uploaded by Snowmanstudios - cropped and nominated by ★ -- ★ 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support I cropped it just because the foreground was a bit distracting and the original crop in general a bit unbalanced. Picturesque fungus. -- ★ 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Is the fungus supposed to be grey or white? The whole photo seems very underexposed. BigDom (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, it needs more brightness Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Brightness added. ★ 09:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, it needs more brightness Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting fungus --Poco a poco (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interesting and very strange topic --Wilfredor (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Poco2. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ArionStar thanks for nominating my image, cropping the image this way is much better, yes! thank you. Snowmanstudios (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Nice. Can halos be removed from 'top' edge please @Snowmanstudios: . Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Halos not removed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per others. I think this is quite small. Adding information about the size of the fungus would increase the already substantial educational value of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I request to change the meaningless file name. It should be related to what is shown in the image, i.e. Clathrus chrysomycelinus --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- You should do it Wilfredor (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Corniglia dal Sentiero Azzurro2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 13:18:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Liguria
- Info: village of Corniglia seen from the Azure Trail, Cinque Terre National Park; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Good composition but the light is a little bit dull/hazy. I think this view could be FP at a different time of day. Cmao20 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Parc Culturel De l'Ahaggar (37).JPG[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 12:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
- Info created by Hamza-sia - uploaded by Hamza-sia - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 12:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support: pleasant composition and certainty has wow, but rather soft. Also, I changed the gallery to Algeria. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 13:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support The only thing missing in this composition would have been a motor home. --Wilfredor (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a protected park that contains archaeological artefacts dating back one million years. No motorhomes are allowed Riad Salih (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- This was a joke, I was referring to the landscape very similar to that of Breaking Bad Wilfredor (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a protected park that contains archaeological artefacts dating back one million years. No motorhomes are allowed Riad Salih (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good, and I'm happy to see good photographs of Algeria being featured. If the geological structure we're looking at has a name, it would be great to add it. I notice that in w:fr:Parc culturel de l'Ahaggar, lots of thumbnails are unspecifically identified as "Le parc culturel de l'Ahaggar." Similarly, the file description provides information about the park, but it would be good to add information about the composition of the structure we're looking at (basalt?). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
OpposeIMO this is tilted. Easy to correct though. Yann (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- File:Parc culturel de l'Ahaggar (rotated).jpg looks much better IMO. Yann (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're right. User:Riad Salih, would you consider nominating that version as an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sure!, but please overwrite the file, don't use a separate version. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're right. User:Riad Salih, would you consider nominating that version as an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yann, it sounds like Riad Salih would like File:Parc culturel de l'Ahaggar (rotated).jpg to be the current version of this file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK, done. Yann (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- File:Parc culturel de l'Ahaggar (rotated).jpg looks much better IMO. Yann (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support It is a little bit soft, but the composition and colours are good Cmao20 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Cmao20 I initially considered editing the picture to make it sharper, I ultimately chose not to do so. The soft movement of the sand and the lighting in the scene depict the landscape as it truly appears. It is not a result of any camera settings issue. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:View of Suria (3).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 09:52:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Spain
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: would support if at least some of the trash at the bottom of the gully were cropped out or cloned out; ruins the wow for me. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @The Cosmonaut Don't you think that removing the trash from an image compromises its authenticity? It seems to alter the reality and potentially misrepresent the exact date and time the picture was captured. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it really depends on the context. If a trash pile is the subject, then yes manipulating it would be detrimental. Here, the subject seems to be a pretty Catalan town. Being careful about framing the shot takes nothing away from its authenticity. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support But per The Cosmonaut. That will improve the photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I'd be happy to look at a cropped version, but in terms of cloning stuff out, I agree with Riad Salih on not compromising the photo's authenticity. Besides, what you're calling trash is either all or mostly wood, so it's really not so bad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Terragio67 (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice light and clouds Cmao20 (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:St Vincent church in Soppe-le-Bas (1).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 09:48:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
- Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support All picture is in shadow, but is a nice church in sunset Ezarateesteban 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Very decent photo but not an extraordinary architecture, in my view. Two trees in front of the building are competing with the subject by hiding the main facade. I find the gate on the left distracting and the irregular flows of black asphalt on the road too dominant as part of the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Basile about the black asphalt streaks. Tournasol7, would you consider cropping out most of the road for an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any suggestions for crop? Tournasol7 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'll mark a suggested crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It would definitely be better with a tighter crop, but I fear that even so it would still fall into the 'strong QI' category for me, not FP. A good photo with a nice mood but just not enough wow for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Blanche Roosevelt by Napoleon Sarony.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 03:10:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1870-1879
- Info created by Napoleon Sarony - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Info We have one FP of her (from last week), but this is a second image of her, at a different angle, and I believe there's no requirement to only have one FP per subject. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Subtle and fine portrait. We have at least 7 FP of Neuschwanstein Castle, 4 of them with the same perspective and crop; so it seems legit to feature two photographs, both very good, of the same person ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Трифонов Андрей (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Excellent to me. Two related photos of her are probably enough for FP, though. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Well, that puts a kibosh on my totally-extant plans to do nothing but Blanche Roosevelt the rest of the year. More seriously, I like to check any work I do against what's available. The previous one was definitely the best on-wiki, but checking [1] I saw this one, which, while it does show off the small depth-of-field of the cameras of the era, did focus that depth very well, so quickly did it too, since, when I showed it in the en-wiki FP nomination, people loved it as well. Actually caused a bit of a problem as opinions were so equal. Good luck to COM:VP if they ever try for Blanche Roosevelt (although they'd probably just label 'em side view and 3/4 view and promote both) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Superb Cmao20 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:PepperFlower4K.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2024 at 02:04:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Solanaceae
- Info created by Bst9jkj - uploaded by Bst9jkj - nominated by Bst9jkj -- Bst9jkj (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Bst9jkj (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question What is the gallery? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not too good with galleries since this is my first time, but it's supposed to be the family that pepper plants are in. if you could help me w/ galleries that'd be nice Bst9jkj (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Gallery link fixed – given that the plant really belongs to the bell peppers (as the file category says) and hence to Capsicum annuum, the link is Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Solanaceae. But “pepper” is ambiguous. If the plant rather belongs to the Piperaceae, the gallery link would be Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Piperaceae, but that section does not exist yet (I will create it when necessary). AFAICS we have one “peppers” FP, File:Peppers in water.jpg, but that one concentrates on the fruit and hence is listed under Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Vegetables (raw). --Aristeas (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not too good with galleries since this is my first time, but it's supposed to be the family that pepper plants are in. if you could help me w/ galleries that'd be nice Bst9jkj (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing composition, dull light and low quality, sorry. Also metadata missing, and uncalibrated color profile -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- i added the version w/ metadata Bst9jkj (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Basile and the lack of a wow factor. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that this is not an FP because of the extremely high standards for featuring flower pictures. However, I'd like to give this photo a little love. The resolution and details are really impressive for a cellphone! The categorization is bad, though. Please read COM:OVERCAT. I'd love to compare this to other flowers of the same species, but your categorization does not facilitate that, so I'll leave it to you to figure out whether it's the most useful photo in a suitable scope for a COM:VIC nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Could have been a perfect photo, if the branch on the left side was not there, and if the background was black or green, if the can in the background was removed, and if it has been a bit better light. But otherwise I like it. -- -donald- (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, but, per Ikan, this is not too far away from FP quality for a first try. You should nominate it at QI and I'm sure it'll get the badge Cmao20 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Churchkhela in Shaki.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2024 at 22:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Sweet food
- Info created by Nemoralis - uploaded by Nemoralis - nominated by Nemoralis -- Nemoralis (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Nemoralis (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think this "sucuk" looks very yummy looking so for that im giving this a + Bst9jkj (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Very striking as a thumbnail, but unsharp and noisy at full size. It would also be better to take a level and not slanted picture and include the entirety of the sucuk on the right and left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sucuk to suck perhaps delicious, but the quality... sorry (suffers from issues) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per others -- Ivar (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I love the colours, but the crop is not perfect and the image quality is not great at full size. But please don't let this put you off FPC - take a look at some of the images in the category, and specifically view them at full resolution, in order to see what kind of photos do well in this forum. Cmao20 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:M Santos-Dumont Aéronaute (photographie (...)Atelier Nadar (btv1b53220531z)-restored.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2024 at 00:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1899
- Info created by Gaspard-Félix Tournachon - uploaded by Stv26 - restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 00:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarateesteban 00:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I prefer the Wilfredo's restoration, given that it preserves the original light sepia tone (maybe too much contrast applied?) and has less grain (or it's less visible) in the darker areas. ★ 00:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in the middle. This one has more contrast, but that one eliminated or greatly lessened dots, scratches and other surface damage, but of course they're less visible with less contrast. Might it be possible to combine the strengths of both restorations? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is a job for Adam the Restorer! ★ 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer, where possible, to help other restorers rather than take over. Ezarate, do you have Discord, perchance? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- yes, I have Discord @Adam Cuerden: thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Any conclusion? ★ 12:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- yes, I have Discord @Adam Cuerden: thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer, where possible, to help other restorers rather than take over. Ezarate, do you have Discord, perchance? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is a job for Adam the Restorer! ★ 02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in the middle. This one has more contrast, but that one eliminated or greatly lessened dots, scratches and other surface damage, but of course they're less visible with less contrast. Might it be possible to combine the strengths of both restorations? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still more surface damage than I prefer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Wilfredor's version[edit]
- Support I prefer this Wil's alt. ★ 11:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Watching the Dancers by Edward S. Curtis 1906 - restored.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2024 at 12:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1900-1909
- Info created by Edward S. Curtis, restored and uploaded by W.carter, nominated by Yann
- Support 1906 picture of high quality. I like the symbolism here. -- Yann (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The picture has noticeable stains, scratches, and discoloration as a result of aging and inadequate preservation. The restoration attempts are only partially effective, resulting in a lack of dynamic range and a loss of information in the shadows and highlights. It is challenging to see finer details in contemporary photography due to the image's softness and lack of sharpness. Wolverine XI 18:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Please take into account that it is a 118-year old picture. The quality can't be compared to recent ones, or even to pictures from the second part of 20th century. Yann (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Searching for the best photographs on the website is the main goal of FPC. This image is out of date, and rather than wallowing in the past, we ought to work toward achieving higher and better quality photographs—even if it means removing images from the earlier 1900s. In short, we are moving forward, not backwards. Wolverine XI 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Sorry, but you are completely wrong here. Nothing is out of date, and certainly not old artistic photographs. You better study a bit more of photography before making such judgement. Yann (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I know more about photography than you can possibly imagine. You have not experienced what I have, you are not me, and you have not lived my life. And may I inquire, by which authority do you evaluate my photographic expertise? You make a lot of nasty remarks in your response, and to make matters worse, I just got back. The next time you disagree with someone, avoid targeting their personhood to further your point of view. I don't need your advice or instruction for that matter, thank you! Wolverine XI 06:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Sorry, but you are completely wrong here. Nothing is out of date, and certainly not old artistic photographs. You better study a bit more of photography before making such judgement. Yann (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine XI: Please take into account that it is a 118-year old picture. The quality can't be compared to recent ones, or even to pictures from the second part of 20th century. Yann (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support If the criticism isn't really of the quality of the restoration but of the photo as "out of date," that makes no sense as an appraisal of quality and importance of any artwork. Would you say that about Bach? Michelangelo? The sculptors in ancient Egypt, China and Greece? The architects of the pyramids and the Sphinx? I wouldn't! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're not getting what I'm saying; I made a very good case for my opposition above, and you still don't get it. Wolverine XI 06:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, I don't get it. Please feel free to rephrase it if you like, and I'll definitely consider it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying that what I put in my vote was unclear? "Out of date" refers to the quality being too poor to qualify for FP. Don't consider my reply to Yann, but the reason for my opposition. I hope that makes everything clear. Wolverine XI 09:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't implying anything, just agreeing with you that I must not have understood something about the case you're making and asking for a clarification. So in terms of the photo being too poor-quality, do you mean the photo in comparison to other photos of its time and/or the quality of the restoration? I'll look at it again, but I'm interested to understand your point of view better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying that what I put in my vote was unclear? "Out of date" refers to the quality being too poor to qualify for FP. Don't consider my reply to Yann, but the reason for my opposition. I hope that makes everything clear. Wolverine XI 09:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, I don't get it. Please feel free to rephrase it if you like, and I'll definitely consider it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're not getting what I'm saying; I made a very good case for my opposition above, and you still don't get it. Wolverine XI 06:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Important historical photograph in good quality for its time and very good restoration. --Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Yann and Ikan. Quality is never "Out of Date!" --Ooligan (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for nominating this Yann. This version is already an FP on en-Wiki, in case people don't know. What I love about this photo is the simple and elegant composition and its timeless subject. Four young women are up on a high point looking at dancers (who were predominantly male at that time) performing in the square below. It's not far-fetched to imagining them joking, teasing and making comments about the guys below, same as young people dotoday, and always have done. --Cart (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Barbary macaque in Cap Carbon (Gouraya National Park).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2024 at 13:55:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Cercopithecidae (Old World Monkeys)
- Info created by Hamza-sia - uploaded by Hamza-sia - nominated by Riad Salih -- Riad Salih (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support It could be a bit sharper but this is a special pic of animal behaviour with a good composition so it deserves a star Cmao20 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 19:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good and the better of the two nominees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The image, featuring a hazy Barbary macaque, suffers from inadequate focus and clarity, with distracting background items and uneven lighting reducing the overall quality, resulting in overexposure and underexposure. Wolverine XI 09:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Wolverine XI the image suffers from inadequate focus and clarity, can you tell us where exactly? Riad Salih (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a cute and good picture but the lighting (with the whole scene in shadow) couldn't be worse --Poco a poco (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly a valid and standard objection, but I would say that sometimes, being in shadow gives emphasis, much like in music, a passage that's subito p can be emphasized in a striking way that a garden-variety ff passage is not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor technical quality and poor crop Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Statue of a Victorious Youth[edit]
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2024 at 09:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page
-
3/4 Right front view
-
Body front view
-
Face front view
-
3/4 Left front view
-
Back view
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_indoors
- Info created by J. Paul Getty Museum - uploaded by DEGA MD - nominated by DEGA MD -- DEGA MD (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support High-quality studio photographs of a famous sculpture provided by the museum. Multiple perspectives contribute to better appreciate the details of the artwork. -- DEGA MD (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Sure! I would also include the back side view. Yann (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done I included the backside view in the set. DEGA MD (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Obviously. --Aristeas (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Ermell (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Bien sur --Wilfredor (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment @DEGA MD: you can't add a fifth view like that in the middle of your nomination without notifying all the previous voters -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I stated it immediately after making the change. I'll ping previous voters in case they want to review their support. DEGA MD (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question Any reason for excluding two profiles and two 3/4 back? While number 2 and 3 are very similar (body and face front views). Arbitrary selection, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I would have gladly nominated all the views (they share the same exceptional image quality), but it seemed to me like an excessively large set and I could not find any example of a successful nomination of a set of 9 images of the same sculpture. I originally nominated the four front views because I find them to be the most valuable for Wikimedia projects. Then, I followed the suggestion of an experienced user and included a complementary backside view. DEGA MD (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think we've had larger sets than that, but sets are supposed to be complete. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I would have gladly nominated all the views (they share the same exceptional image quality), but it seemed to me like an excessively large set and I could not find any example of a successful nomination of a set of 9 images of the same sculpture. I originally nominated the four front views because I find them to be the most valuable for Wikimedia projects. Then, I followed the suggestion of an experienced user and included a complementary backside view. DEGA MD (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, but an underlying problem is that they look too similar from each other -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Why not 10 views? Too much for me. 2 views, maximal 3, would be enough, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral Messy set, sorry. ★ 02:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per above. In this case one picture or two would be enough, in my view. A heavy set does not really bring anything more than the "face front view", unless you want to inspect each of the tiny corrosion marks from every angle. It often happens that we take numerous FP-level photos of the same subject, and in this case, the nomination work consists of choosing the best one(s). As written in the guidelines "Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process." Five pictures here (including two similar pairs) is an arbitrary choice, and the whole set would be too much, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a set by FP guidelines. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per above -- Ivar (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. -- Karelj (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Core sampling.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2024 at 22:19:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
- Info created & uploaded by Paaver - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting action shot but the OOF leaves(?) in front are very distracting, and I don't like the vignette effect. BigDom (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose per BigDom. A shame because I like the mood and the atmosphere. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Bold but well thought out editing: the foreground leaves and shallow depth of field create distance, the selective dodging and burning draws the eyes to the main subject, and the muted colours and punchy blacks are fitting for a bogland. A pity about the chromatic aberration on the handle and hands, hopefully the photographer can address it. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose To my mind, this is a valuable photo, so probably a VI, but not an FP with those distracting greenish blobs in front of the people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose because the green blobs are just too disturbing. Would be FP without them Cmao20 (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Off-center composition and, more bothering, the green blurry parasitic shapes in the foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support along the lines of Julesvernex2. At the 1st glance the foreground leaves are irritating but they add depth and a feeling of authenticity. --Aristeas (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice short but the colors seem a bit unnatural --Riad Salih (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]
Sat 16 Mar → Thu 21 Mar Sun 17 Mar → Fri 22 Mar Mon 18 Mar → Sat 23 Mar Tue 19 Mar → Sun 24 Mar Wed 20 Mar → Mon 25 Mar Thu 21 Mar → Tue 26 Mar
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]
Tue 12 Mar → Thu 21 Mar Wed 13 Mar → Fri 22 Mar Thu 14 Mar → Sat 23 Mar Fri 15 Mar → Sun 24 Mar Sat 16 Mar → Mon 25 Mar Sun 17 Mar → Tue 26 Mar Mon 18 Mar → Wed 27 Mar Tue 19 Mar → Thu 28 Mar Wed 20 Mar → Fri 29 Mar Thu 21 Mar → Sat 30 Mar
Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]
The bot[edit]
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure[edit]
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2024.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.