Commons:Featured picture candidates

Other featured candidates:

Media 

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

Skip to: Add a nomination Guidelines for evaluating photographs Current candidates Delisting a featured picture Current delisting candidates Rules Contents

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: Scope – In addition to falling within the Commons scope, candidates must be static two-dimensional images. All other types of files should be nominated at Commons:Featured media 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 – Images (with the exception of animations and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. 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. Over saturated 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 2 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 7 STEP 8 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}} Strongly recommended: 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 Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her 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 different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters. Voting Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her 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 (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates 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. Featured picture candidate policy General rules 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. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome 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. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated. 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. 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. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5) Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator). 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.) Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added. 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. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied. 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: Appropriate license (of course) At least seven  Support votes (or 7  Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes 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, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page. 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 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 To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished Basic list of photography-related terms Quality image candidates Valued image candidates Photo challenge Photography critiques Help:Scanning

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

Featured picture candidates

File:Viviana Cordero Espinosa.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2021 at 21:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Viviana Cordero Espinosa.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Viviana Cordero Espinosa.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
•  Info created/uploaded by GARY FLORES CADENA nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 21:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Thuringia Suhl asv2020-07 img06 Cross Church.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2021 at 12:38:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Thuringia Suhl asv2020-07 img06 Cross Church.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thuringia Suhl asv2020-07 img06 Cross Church.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
•  Info Baroque altar of the Holy Cross Church in Suhl, Thuringia ---- all by A.Savin -- A.Savin 12:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 12:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Ezarateesteban 21:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Malacosoma castrensis caterpillar

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2021 at 05:22:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

• 

  Side view

• 

  Top view

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Lasiocampidae_(Eggars)
•  Info all by Ivar (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful colours on the caterpillar, good contrast to the soft green background. --Aristeas (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Very well done. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Layers of the GI Tract numbers.svg

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2021 at 18:24:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Layers of the GI Tract numbers.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Layers of the GI Tract numbers.svg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Science#Science
•  Info created by Goran tek-en - uploaded by Goran tek-en - nominated by Goran tek-en -- --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment I would think the portion of the alimentary tract should be identified. Is this the colon, the ileum, or what? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak support Very nice SVG conversion. But the original JPG still has some advantages: It has stronger contrast (especially noticeable for the muscles, but also a thicker green outline around the lymphatic tissue), which makes it appear … well, sharper, more crunchy, especially at smaller sizes. Maybe something to keep working on … --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:FCAB GT22CU 2405, 2401 and GL26C 2005 at Cumbre II.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2021 at 15:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:FCAB GT22CU 2405, 2401 and GL26C 2005 at Cumbre II.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FCAB GT22CU 2405, 2401 and GL26C 2005 at Cumbre II.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
•  Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, the Hasselblad. --Mosbatho (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Like a snake in the desert :-) Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support - What a bleak landscape! —Bruce1ee^talk 07:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --IamMM (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Amos Oz 1965-12-12.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2021 at 15:15:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Amos Oz 1965-12-12.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amos Oz 1965-12-12.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
•  Info created by Moshe Pridan - uploaded by AlMare - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support A photo of 26 years old Amos Oz, the notable Israeli writer who has several times up for consideration for a Literature Nobel Prize, that wrote among others A Tale of Love and Darkness. Good composition and high quality scan. -- Tomer T (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just not striking enough, for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Looks like a bad scan/edit with no true blacks and the highlights clipping like that. Film tends to have much smoother transition to pure white ("highlight roll-off"). --El Grafo (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Ancient Roman amphoras in Pompeii.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2021 at 09:49:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ancient Roman amphoras in Pompeii.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ancient Roman amphoras in Pompeii.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Ceramics
•  Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Commonists 09:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Abstain -- Commonists 09:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for nominating this, I would have done it myself later otherwise. :-) The soft light goes so well with the pastels and shapes in the photo. The kind of photo that would be lovely as a print on a wall, and with this resolution, putting it on a canvas wouldn't be any problem. Nice! --Cart (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support The light feels a bit diffuse to me, but high educational value, good resolution as Cart mentioned, and a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan --IamMM (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Regretful oppose I love the tones and the general earthiness, but ... a lot of the upper background is unsharp and possibly overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting composition, subject, huge resolution. If you downsize at 4000px large (that is still generous for this kind of image IMO), the quality is perfect -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Basile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Jabiru (Jabiru mycteria) 2.JPG

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2021 at 20:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Jabiru (Jabiru mycteria) 2.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jabiru (Jabiru mycteria) 2.JPG

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Ciconiidae (Storks)
•  Info Two existing FPs: one pair nesting and one in flight. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment I'd support a version with a shallower depth of field. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't like to blur my backgrounds in post-processing, Frank. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Me neither. I was referring to the f-stop. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think F5.6 instead of F10 would change total DoF from about 7m to 4m, i.e. 1/2 that for the background. You wouldn't see the difference would you? For my 'ready to go' hand-held settings, I preset 1/1000 sec and ISO 800 (or 400 if very sunny) and the camera chooses F number to suit light available. In this case we were driving on a public road, the busy Transpantaneira Highway. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sure you already know this, but in order to get a creamy and less distracting background, you either have to use a longer focal length, move closer to the subject, or increase the distance between the subject and the background. This recently promoted image of an Australian Brushturkey is more what I'd consider a featured picture of a bird. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• But you did nominate this one!! Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I obviously like blurry backgrounds :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Dof is fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak support Background is distracting, but the detail on the bird is good. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Spotted dove (Spilopelia chinensis suratensis).jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2021 at 17:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Spotted dove (Spilopelia chinensis suratensis).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spotted dove (Spilopelia chinensis suratensis).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Columbidae (Pigeons and Doves)
•  Info No FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Pretty bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --IamMM (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Killer Whales Hunting a Seal.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2021 at 14:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Killer Whales Hunting a Seal.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Killer Whales Hunting a Seal.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Delphinidae (Oceanic Dolphins)
•  Info created & uploaded by Utee85 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Exciting picture, but there are some water or dust spots that should be edited out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, found a few and removed them. Great capture! --Cart (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Super! Yuriy75 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Lucky seal --IamMM (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Commonists 21:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support High educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I like the seal's defiant attitude (And per the description, he actually survived all this). Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Amazing shot, but quite tilted, which menas it is not as easy on the eye as it should be. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Tilt fixed and some CA removed. Please revert if you don't like it. --Cart (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw Main exhibition Gwoździec synagogue.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2021 at 12:40:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw Main exhibition Gwoździec synagogue.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw Main exhibition Gwoździec synagogue.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Poland
•  Info created by Magdalena Starowieyska, Dariusz Golik - uploaded by Boston9 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Andrei (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Beautiful, but small for an FP in 2021. I see that this photo was uploaded in 2014. I'm guessing this is the full size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  That is right. Not extra huge, but obtaining a bigger version (even if it exists somewhere) for an OTRS file is probably impossible --Andrei (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Question Is it especially difficult for someone to visit the museum and take a photo of this motif tomorrow? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Having a photo without people would be difficult. It is also forbidden to use flash light. --Andrei (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose Definitely something worth trying to get an FP of but ... busy composition below the ceiling isn't helped by its asymmetry, and the dim lighting isn't doing the colors much justice. If it were possible to shoot the ceiling by itself ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

   Info there is File:Warszawa - synagoga z Gwoźdźca 2.JPG. The hardest thing is, I believe, to catch more than a small piece. --Andrei (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support It would be fantastic to have a large photo of this wonderfully painted ceiling; and indeed the desks, information boards etc. make the picture rather busy. On the other hand, the photo as it is has high documentary value for me. It shows precisely that this wonderful synagogue only exists in (beautiful!) fragments, which are painstakingly put together and explained in the museum. In this respect, the photo is also a symbol of the fate of the once so rich Jewish culture in Eastern Europe – persecuted, destroyed, murdered, saved only in fragments. --Aristeas (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Windows of the Frost Building (Toronto, Canada) in monochrome.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2021 at 08:34:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Windows of the Frost Building (Toronto, Canada) in monochrome.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Windows of the Frost Building (Toronto, Canada) in monochrome.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
•  Info Windows of the Frost Building (Toronto, Canada) in monochrome. Created and uploaded by Maksim Sokolov – nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Info There is already a similar FP of the same building made by the same photographer. But despite the similar perspective, the two photos have a very different character; the light makes the difference. In this shot, it creates the hard triangular shadows that vary harmoniously because of the curvature of the façade.
•  Support A strong semi-abstract monochrome photo. I love the contrast between the sharp triangles and the gentle curvature of the façade, underlined by the contrast between the hard shadows and the soft shades of grey. --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas. This light is different and better served by monochrome. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I like this better than the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Hutan Gunung Leuser Aceh.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2021 at 17:34:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hutan Gunung Leuser Aceh.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hutan Gunung Leuser Aceh.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Indonesia
•  Info created by Ganjarmustika1904 - uploaded by Ganjarmustika1904 - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Neutral Not sure yet. It's a very nice scene indeed, but the image is not at all of top quality – lights blown (OK, just a few small areas), saturation and contrast overdone. --Kreuzschnabel 05:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image is indeed beautiful enough that it offsets the distracting potential of that dark area at right, but as Kreuzschnabel suggests the background leaves much to be desired technically ... I for one see a lot of posterization, more than I'm willing to forgive in a long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Moon jellyfish in Rågårdsdal 4.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2021 at 11:54:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Moon jellyfish in Rågårdsdal 4.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moon jellyfish in Rågårdsdal 4.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Scyphozoa
•  Info I'm going to risk one more jelly photo. I'm just as fond of marine life as many other photographers here are of butterflies and birds. ;-) I like the light in this photo, taken just as the jelly breaks the surface. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Abstain as author. -- Cart (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 14:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --IamMM (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Buidhe (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Axel ^(talk) 20:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Qualified support Very much another "cool album cover" image. But could you do something about that noise on the jellyfish that extends to an abrupt stop (where the selection line was, I imagine) a short distance above it? Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed Hope it's better now. I don't want to do too much NR on the jelly since that will mess with the delicate cilia. --Cart (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak support I would like it to be more centred --Commonists 10:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• It has lead room since it's going in that direction. --Cart (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Ok understood --Commonists 21:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  CommentI think right side should be croped a bit, like jellyfish is going to diagonale. I see zoom was big, could not get closer ? Who made it, i see author is Ann-Sophie Qvarnström. --Mile (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm keeping the crop since I like to have the lead room. As for zoom, well, it is shot from a jetty, the water level was rather low and I have a damaged back (I walk with a cane) so I can't bend down low. On the other hand, you get a longer DoF with a bit of distance. I made the photo, ASQ is my real name, not W.carter/Cart (see my other photos). Like so many others I have a user name on Commons. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, good to know. --Mile (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Iris Emperor's Delight.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2021 at 10:49:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Iris Emperor's Delight.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iris Emperor's Delight.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Iridaceae
•  Info created by Citron - uploaded by Citron - nominated by Citron -- Citron -- Citron (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Citron (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lower petal is unsharp. --A.Savin 14:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per A. Savin; but aside from that I don't find it really stands out from our other flower photos. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. The standard for FPs of flowers is very high. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Macrophotography of Vespula germanica, Queen in hibernation, awaits spring to awaken and establish a new insect colony.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2021 at 08:04:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Macrophotography of Vespula germanica, Queen in hibernation, awaits spring to awaken and establish a new insect colony.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macrophotography of Vespula germanica, Queen in hibernation, awaits spring to awaken and establish a new insect colony.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Order : Hymenoptera (Ants, Bees, Wasps & Sawflies)
•  Info created and uploaded by MaxNikon - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Neutral great pic, but looks like max resolution 18 MP is downsized to 3,8. --Ivar (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Considering the small size of the animal, this lens probably reached its limit and couldn't go further. Thus, this is a crop which reduced the resolution, IMO, rather than a downsizing -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• I doubt that, because macro lens (MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Lens) was used. --Ivar (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• You might be right, this lens can increase 5x, sorry. More powerful than I supposed. Then the image can be downsized or cropped, I don't know -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Impressive -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Lmbuga (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Commonists 10:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment If this is a 'lab' photo, whcih I am guessing it is, the description should say so. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• The Italian description also said that the bee was found in a fallen tree, but nothing was said about the lab. It seems that the photographer has not been around for a while. --IamMM (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --Mile (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

File:View from Miradouro do Pico do Arieiro - Madeira 05.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2021 at 06:14:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:View from Miradouro do Pico do Arieiro - Madeira 05.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Miradouro do Pico do Arieiro - Madeira 05.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
•  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Beautiful blue tones and endless depth. CA on the left should be removed.--Ermell (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done Thanks for the hint --Llez (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Extremely weak regretful oppose The CA has been removed, yes, but the result still looks unnatural and a little overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think the pioture looks unnatural and a little overprocessed. The valley runs in a southerly direction, so it can only be photographed against the light. Therefore, the colors differ from those of a backlit picture. See for comparison this picture, taken at the same time from the same point. The valley that can just be seen partially on the left edge of that panorama is the valley in this picture. --Llez (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I don't know if it's out of focus, posterized, overprocessed or something else is going on but some of the textures in the image do look "off" when viewed at full resolution, especially in the foreground. Don't want to oppose such a great vista though. Buidhe (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Ermell, overall a wonderful view. --Aristeas (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support The shape of the photo makes it harder to judge on my screen, rather than from seeing a printout, but it looks beautiful and not posterized to me, the grasses in the sunlight look totally natural to me, and I like the shapes. Nominating a photograph in this light is daring for FPC, I guess, but it's not worse for that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw building 0012.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2021 at 05:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw building 0012.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw building 0012.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Poland
•  Info created by Wojciech Kryński - uploaded by Boston9 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Andrei (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Info very abstract, but check this out to understand the scale --Andrei (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support wonderful abstraction --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Martin.--Ermell (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --IamMM (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Martin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 09:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Look like some futuristic Alien movie place --Wilfredor (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Axel ^(talk) 20:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Commonists 10:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Hanooz 16:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Bloemknoppen van gevlekt havikskruid (Hieracium maculatum) 06-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2021 at 04:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknoppen van gevlekt havikskruid (Hieracium maculatum) 06-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknoppen van gevlekt havikskruid (Hieracium maculatum) 06-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
•  Info Flower buds of Hieracium maculatum. A rare species in the Netherlands. Focus stack of 22 photos.}}
  All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --IamMM (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 09:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Axel ^(talk) 20:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Commonists 10:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Oottam thullal.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2021 at 14:35:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Oottam thullal.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oottam thullal.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
•  Info Ottan Thullal is a recite-and-dance art-form of Kerala, India. This is the face art of Ottan Thullal.

All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Fits well in this FP events category. --Axel ^(talk) 20:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Not a blackface but green one :-) Basile Morin (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --IamMM (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Flower of Fuchsia.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2021 at 14:01:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Flower of Fuchsia.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flower of Fuchsia.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Onagraceae
•  Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Commonists 14:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Commonists 14:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose A featurable image? The resolution is high indeed, but that's probably the only advantage. The picture is claimed to be a focus stack, but honestly I don't see much difference in focus range in relation to a center-focused single shot. If you zoom in to full size, you see stitching errors at the lower part of the blossom. Furthermore some white parts of the flower are overexposed, there is noise, the background is not appealing. The flower is neither well identified nor well categorized. Compare the already FP image of similar flower. --A.Savin 14:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• I cropped the photo a bit, corrected some mistakes, I don't see any noise,I do not see overexposure and it is definitely not the same as a single shot. Thank you--Commonists 15:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Service: [1] --A.Savin 17:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify, "Service" here means that you are invited to examine your photo at full size (100%); that way you can see some of the errors that people are talking about. I've compiled some files for you for clarification. In Lightroom there is a function where any overexposed parts in a photo are shown as red. Take a look at the first photo in the link and you'll see the red that shows up in your photo. As for the stacking errors, they are not the ordinary misaligned parts that show up in stitched photo, instead they are areas that should have been crisp and sharp, but where the program has missed and has used a soft/blurry photo. I have marked some of these areas with blue in the linked file. Hope this makes it easier for you to understand that critique. --Cart (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose Kind of busy compositionally. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Along similar lines, the background is too distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Rotoballe nella campagna fiorentina.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2021 at 07:25:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Rotoballe nella campagna fiorentina.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rotoballe nella campagna fiorentina.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Agriculture#Italy
•  Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't see much more than grass + sky here, and there are quality problems (noise on the sky). --A.Savin 14:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wow ... I think this is the first time we've evaluated an image here on the day it was taken. Cart's done more interesting things with round hay bales in fields that nevertheless haven't made FP. Here the potentially interesting part is in a narrow band in the middle of the image, and notwithstanding that the light's kind of harsh. And re any possible quality issues, I would have waited to see what happens at QIC before nominating here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

•  CommentIn QIC it has already been judged to be of quality(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see it has been promoted ... the icon in the corner isn't there yet. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Daniel, not quite true with "on the day". ;-) --Cart (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, yeah, you nominated that one that day. But unlike this one I wasn't able to !vote on it that same day. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Right you are. --Cart (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose nice pic but there's some noise issues Buidhe (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality issues and lack of compositional help from the static sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

File:JRW 287 and JNR 381 Kounotori 2015-06-07.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2021 at 13:56:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:JRW 287 and JNR 381 Kounotori 2015-06-07.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:JRW 287 and JNR 381 Kounotori 2015-06-07.jpg

721

757

4790

2743

5724

3784

Suggested crop

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
•  Info created by Satoshi KAYA - uploaded by Ytoyoda - nominated by 廣九直通車 -- 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Seems to have good composition. I also like the theme of meeting two train sets with a drastic difference in history. -- 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting, but nothing is really sharp. Compare User:Kabelleger's photographs of trains, by contrast. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak support I'm OK with the sharpness, but I think the image could be cropped down more, tightening on the subject and getting rid of that awkward crop at top right. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose for two reasons: 1) The composition doesn't galvanize me, 2) Technically the foreground is blurry and the train at the left very unsharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• sorry, but I count three reasons.--Christof46 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• One artistic and one technical --Basile Morin (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Rosenkäfer in einer Rose.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2021 at 10:06:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Rosenkäfer in einer Rose.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rosenkäfer in einer Rose.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Scarabaeidae (Scarab Beetles)
•  Info created by Spiegelauge - uploaded by Spiegelauge - nominated by Blauendorn -- Blauendorn (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Rose Chafer sitting on the flower it got its name from. Perfect illustration. -- Blauendorn (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose For me, too much of the photo is out of focus. Sorry.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Famberhorst. In fact, the unsharpness is exacerbated by possible overprocessing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Only rose beetle in FP that actually sits on a rose. In my opinion, fokus stacking sharpness is not the point, here. Beautiful color distribution and light distribution. Great photo. --Axel ^(talk) 12:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Poor discription. I miss the species of the chafer (rose chafers comprise about 4.000 species), and perhaps also the variety of the rose, locality and so on --Llez (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Description: named and linked. --Axel ^(talk) 12:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

File:L'hôtel Biron (musée Rodin) à Paris, 13 juin 2021 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2021 at 16:30:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:L'hôtel Biron (musée Rodin) à Paris, 13 juin 2021 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:L'hôtel Biron (musée Rodin) à Paris, 13 juin 2021 01.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
•  Info created by Jean-Pierre Dalbéra - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose A good photo, but no wow for me and without those walking people it would have been better --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Michiel, also the off center sculpture is bothering me. Buidhe (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Not sure having a statue mooning you in the center of a photo is such a good idea... Unless that was the point of the photo. --Cart (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Having a famous statue by Rodin at the musée Rodin seems entirely appropriate to me. 'Mooning' is a trite and sexist observation. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support after Cart's comment . Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Neutral Overall a good view of the building. The technical quality (sharpness, exposure etc.) is not perfect, but good; the perspective has not been corrected completely. The light is OK, but a bit harsh. The photo would be better without the people, but there are only few of them and they do not hide important features. And, yes, when the sculpture is almost centered it would be better if it was centered completely. --Aristeas (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Brooklyn-Manhattan-Williamsburg-Bridges at Sunset 2021-06-15 19-31.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2021 at 20:31:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Brooklyn-Manhattan-Williamsburg-Bridges at Sunset 2021-06-15 19-31.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brooklyn-Manhattan-Williamsburg-Bridges at Sunset 2021-06-15 19-31.jpg

15

31

857

3018

12035

3064

Could be cropped away for better harmony. But that's just my personal opinion, don't pay too much attention to it. --Cart (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#United_States_of_America
•  Info etc. all by me: clouds forming a "fourth bridge" right before sunset -- Axel ^(talk) 20:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Axel ^(talk) 20:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment It seems like a very bright image to me. Looking at the histogram for it, there is almost no black at all in it. It's a bit unusual for such a city panorama. --Cart (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Yeah, it looks strangely bright. Axel, work on that, and I'll look again. I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Done Thanks for the suggestion. I have reduced overall exposure and brightness now. -- Axel ^(talk) 01:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support A splendid view with great light and beautiful details. The buildings at the left are leaning in a tiny little bit and there are some very small stiching errors (have made image notes for two), the photo would be even better if you could improve that further. But I do not want to spoil your nomination, this is a wonderful photo and IMHO really deserves the star. --Aristeas (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for your support. I did some stitching corrections at these positions and uploaded a new version. --Axel ^(talk) 17:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --IamMM (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak  Support Not pin-sharp, but OK for a 36 MP panorama. Nice clouds and colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose A lot of shapes and lines running into each other ... just not an FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel Case Buidhe (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose It should be... a piece of that or the other. Honestly I think some people come here to play, these should be the best commons photos instead there is a disconcerting approximation. you want to put a bridge? at least put it WHOLE! --Commonists 15:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• That is not a very nice way to voice your disagreement, insulting a fellow user/photographer, shouting with all caps and everything. How would you feel if someone posted that comment on your nomination? Where opposers have only been respectful and tactful with their opinions. --Cart (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have not insulted anyone Cart. And anyway, I think a photo should have the whole subject if it is put in the description. Plus you have to ping it if you want me to read it. I was speaking in a general way, if someone feels offended I'm sorry, it was just disappointment about this photo, not personal criticism or as a photographer. I humbly apologise. I did not mean to be offensive. Greetings.--Commonists 18:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ok Commonists, apologies are a good thing. Next time you are disappointed, just take a few deep breaths before you write. Also, consider yourself one of the gang here; we don't always 'ping' those we know are going to be around the page anyway. :-) --Cart (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• This photo isn't a documentary photo of the entire span of one bridge; it's a photo showing a view of 3 bridges plus clouds. I don't understand the rigidity that we sometimes see here, that a photo that includes x must always include the a, b, and c parts of x, no matter what. Even ignoring the fact that conservatism is at odds with the previous century+ of avant-garde art, have cityscape painters, even academic ones, traditionally followed rigid rules of this type? We so often see crops cited as a dealbreaker here, whereas painters constantly crop anything and everything from their views. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment And here I was, thinking the panorama would look more harmonious if it was cropped even more on the left side. See note. So hard to make a photo to please everybody here. --Cart (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Seems the image is distorted (skewed), this is most visible on the left hand side where the rectangular buildings look more rhomboid. Another issue are the shadows; these just look weird. There must have been some shadow detail recovery black magic because the Manhattan Birdge, which is quite a bit darker, is lighter in shade than the shadows on the Brooklyn Bridge's light bricks. Another area to spot irregularities is on the right pillar of the BB where there are very deep shadows on the towers, not seen elsewhere, but also the shade below the deck gets progressively lighter going from right to left. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• At least the differences in light and shadows is no mystery for anyone who has done a very large structure panorama on a partially cloudy day, like here. You start at one end with one sort of light and while you move the camera for photos, the clouds move as well. When you get to the other end, the light is completely different and the camera has changed the exposure with it. It's a nightmare. You can correct some of this by matching the exposures in most panorama programs, but that will not fix all of it since so much else change with the light too. Clouds are nice in the background, but for panos with more than three frames, be sure to check the sky behind you. I am not surprised that the clouds played around with you, illuminating this and that randomly from shot to shot when taking on such a big project. (My version, trying to fix some of that + the tilt, to give you an idea.) --Cart (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for helping me out, here. I like your tilt correction & adjustments. Replicated that on the original. --Axel ^(talk) 02:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment The change in light/shadow is due to Manhattan skyline: Each building's shadow is progressing from left to right. There are no sharp edges due to the distance. The rare thing here is the cloud formation. --Axel ^(talk) 01:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• I can imagine the difficulties, skyscrapers are just as bad as clouds when it comes to ruining the light for you. --Cart (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose Sorry, quality must be better. A lot of stitching errors, halos, sharpness too low, color problems at the wires. --XRay 💬 18:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversharpened --Kreuzschnabel 18:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Flocking behavior of mallard ducks when feeding.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2021 at 20:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Flocking behavior of mallard ducks when feeding.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flocking behavior of mallard ducks when feeding.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Anas
•  Info created by Александр Байдуков - uploaded by Александр Байдуков - nominated by Александр Байдуков -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Abstain -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Concept might be interesting, but doesn't work here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not an outstanding composition to me, but I think that whichever picture is the clearest example of this phenomenon should be nominated at COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charlesjsharp --IamMM (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support this picture grew on me. A rather impressionist approach. Well done. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Super creative! Congratulations! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Andrei (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose This image doesn't blow me away, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Textielmuseum-cabinet-10.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2021 at 16:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Textielmuseum-cabinet-10.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Textielmuseum-cabinet-10.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Clothing and Textiles
•  Info created by Textielmuseum Tilburg - uploaded by Husky - nominated by GuavaTrain -- GuavaTrain (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support High resolution and informative about the subject. Passed evaluation to become a quality image. -- GuavaTrain (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment This image shouldn't be a QI, that is only for Commons user photographers and this photo was taken by Textielmuseum Tilburg. Looks like the QI nominator, whoever that was, made the mistake of writing the uploader Husky as photographer and QI promoter Llez didn't notice that [2]. Could someone from the QI department revert and fix this. --Cart (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Per Cart it can't be a QI, but it's a good enough FP that I can practically smell it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose the contents should be in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charlesjsharp; sharpness could be better. Buidhe (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Neues Schloss Bensberg, June 2021.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2021 at 21:44:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Neues Schloss Bensberg, June 2021.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neues Schloss Bensberg, June 2021.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
•  Info Neues Schloss Bensberg, Bergisch Gladbach, NRW, Germany, built from 1703-1711, now a palace hotel. (And I have absolutely no idea why they'd use greenish water for the fountain.) All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. Very nice, though the resolution is a bit low. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment @KoH, @Daniel: the width is almost native but I had to crop out a lot of foreground. I guess I'll finally have to upgrade my gear - maybe I'll use your remarks as reference to convince my wife --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Best way would be to first give her something very expensive that she wants. After that, negotiations for better photo stuff should go easy. :-) --Cart (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• It isn't so much a new camera you need, but a panoramic head for your tripod, and PtGui software. Then a cheap camera and lens will be fine. -- Colin (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Shhh, Colin! My wife must never know that! ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Resolution is fine to me, but was the water in the fountain really so green? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Ikan Kekek It was, bizarrely... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• OK,  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I don't like the shadows on the left, and the overall sharpness doesn't convince me. But it's a nice palace. Would you also photograph it from the same angle as the main photo of the DE-WP article, which has only a tiny resolution, and replace it then? --A.Savin 16:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Good idea, I'll do that sometime - when I happen to get to Bensberg early in the morning. The steeple in the background is currently under renovation, anyway --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --IamMM (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Sun 20 Jun → Fri 25 Jun
Mon 21 Jun → Sat 26 Jun
Tue 22 Jun → Sun 27 Jun
Wed 23 Jun → Mon 28 Jun
Thu 24 Jun → Tue 29 Jun
Fri 25 Jun → Wed 30 Jun

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)

Wed 16 Jun → Fri 25 Jun
Thu 17 Jun → Sat 26 Jun
Fri 18 Jun → Sun 27 Jun
Sat 19 Jun → Mon 28 Jun
Sun 20 Jun → Tue 29 Jun
Mon 21 Jun → Wed 30 Jun
Tue 22 Jun → Thu 01 Jul
Wed 23 Jun → Fri 02 Jul
Thu 24 Jun → Sat 03 Jul
Fri 25 Jun → Sun 04 Jul

Closing a featured picture promotion request

The bot

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

1. 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)
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
2. 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 ===
3. Save your edit.
4. 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 an 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.
   • 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.
5. 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/June 2021), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

1. 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)
2. 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 ===
3. 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/June 2021.
4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
   1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
   2. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. 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).
      2. Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night shots, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
   3. 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.
5. 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

1. 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=--~~~~}}

2. 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 ===
3. Save your edit.
4. 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/June 2021), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.