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 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Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents[edit]There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others.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:Chief Joseph by Edward Sheriff Curtis.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 23:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1900-1909
- Info created by Edward Sheriff Curtis - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very good portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Maardu Northen lights.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 21:51:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Aurora
- Info created and uploaded by Bilovitskiy - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Amazing! Yann (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support it is, actually, both beautiful and amazing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 23:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Treuenbrietzen 50 Pfg 1921 Luther.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 18:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Money (banknotes)
- Info Designed by Heinz Schiestl (1921), issued by the Town of Treuenbrietzen, reproduced from an original banknote, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC).
- Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Another great Notgeld note, excellently photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Image:Compucorp 322G Scientist BW 2024-02-22 18-21-02 Stack.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 16:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There are several aquamarine hot pixels to the right of the middle of the calculator. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The pen does not look to be the same era as the machine. Is it? Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same Wilfredor (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Sour rainbow belts.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 11:58:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Sweet_food
- Info Sour rainbow belts, my photo. -- Mile (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 12:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Something really different, beautiful colors, excellent composition --Kritzolina (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like selective blurring of the white background around the coloured pieces. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Info Highligthed. --Mile (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral per Charles. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Galanthus Nivalis, sneeuwklokje. 12-02-2024. (d.j.b.).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 05:21:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Amaryllidaceae
- Info Galanthus nivalis double-flowered Snowdrop. Focus stack of 44 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC) - Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm impressed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan Kekek. --Harlock81 (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 13:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:2021 December Tornado - Cayce, KY (51750743572).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 02:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
- Info created by State Farm - uploaded by A1Cafel - nominated by WeatherWriter -- WeatherWriter (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- High-quality (5,143 × 2,999 pixels) damage photo of a house destroyed by the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado in Cayce, Kentucky. Note, this image is higher quality than the current highest quality tornado-related FP (4,032 × 3,024 pixels — File:Low-end EF3 damage to a home in Virginia Beach, Virginia.jpg) WeatherWriter (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This PoV is probably not the best way to show the aftermath. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Mt Technical from Lewis tops, Lewis Pass Scenic Reserve, New Zealand 06.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2024 at 01:05:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand#Canterbury (Waitaha)
- Info I think the shadows cast by shifting clouds on this New Zealand mountain add some real depth and dynamism to this photo, and I also love the colours and the touch of mist at the top of the mountain. created by Podzemnik - uploaded by Podzemnik - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive landscape.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice and high-quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 13:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Silver-breasted Broadbill 0A2A9641.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2024 at 19:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Eurylaimidae_(Broadbills)
- Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Another masterpiece from JJ Cmao20 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support JJ, you've done it again! --SHB2000 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Masterpiece it is not. That implies technical excellence. It is an outstanding capture of a very hard-to-find species. That is why it is clearly FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Is it a rare bird, although it's considered "least concern"? Dunno, but it's very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Many little-known birds are IUCN Least Concern. IUCN uses data on declining/increasing numbers to move an animal up or down a category. With no data, they cannot act. This occurs in many localities so is unlikely to be threatened with extinction. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 18:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Buda de Ibiraçu.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2024 at 19:14:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
- Info Worm's-eye view of the Ibiraçu Buddha, Espírito Santo, Brazil. Created, uploaded and nominated by ★ -- ★ 19:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes, it's a giant Buddha statue (possibly the largest in the Western Hemisphere) in the middle of an almost unknown town and in a Christian majority country (BTW, taller than the Christ the Redeemer). -- ★ 19:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Yes it's a very impressive place but the image quality is not great at full size and I'm not convinced by the perspective looking upwards at the statue, there are more interesting compositions of this statue on the internet. Also it's visibly not centred even in thumbnail and with no obvious mitigating reasons why getting it centred was impossible. Cmao20 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Cmao20: the place has been receiving more and more tourists, so I tried to take a shot from a perspective where they wouldn't get in the way. ★ 22:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Question Could you perhaps centre the image? --SHB2000 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SHB2000: the lotus petals are not symmetrical at all, but I added a more centered (or centralized?) version. ★ 22:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Did you try BW ? --Mile (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Black-White. --Mile (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
B&W version[edit]
- Info B&W version added. ★ 12:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new centered version bur I rollbacked myself because it need author approval. If you think that its ok you can just use that version Wilfredor (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Don't worry, you've permission to improve any of my images without prior request, you're my inspiration. ★ 14:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- better not, I feel that that is an abuse Wilfredor (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support It's nicer than the version above. ★ 15:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- better not, I feel that that is an abuse Wilfredor (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Don't worry, you've permission to improve any of my images without prior request, you're my inspiration. ★ 14:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support In this case, the black & white version works better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support yeap, it works. --Mile (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Hydracarina.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2024 at 13:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Others
- Info created & uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This could be amazing if the stacking and noise reduction could be handled better. Such a shame. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Stacking such characters is not quite the same as stacking 5-10 frames for some landscape photos. However, these are very complex objects. The object is placed on a microscope slide in water and covered with a cover glass. Bringing the models to an interesting angle is already a big job. In this image, the object is at a very rare angle (by the way, you won't find similar images of hydracarin at this angle) and stacking at this angle is very difficult. It is fortunate that these legs were satisfactorily captured in the picture at all. Janeklass (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support The stacking errors are quite visible here but I am still impressed by this photo. Cmao20 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Scary. --Yann (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Maddona del Melograno (Collegiata di Santa Maria della Scala - Chieri).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2024 at 08:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
- Info created by Brigante_mandrogno - uploaded by Brigante_mandrogno - nominated by Brigante mandrogno -- Brigante mandrogno (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Brigante mandrogno (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting and technical quality
Vignetting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC) - Oppose Hi Brigante mandrogno and welcome to FPC. This is a really interesting motif and I enjoyed seeing this photograph but sadly it is some way short of the technical quality needed for FP. The detail at full size just isn't there as a consequence of the use of an iPhone camera which generally struggles in low light - please have a look at some of the other FPs in the Sculptures gallery and make sure to view them at full resolution to see the kind of image quality that makes an FP. This photo would also be better if the window was centered in the frame, as is it's clearly closer to the left than the right, and that might be enough to preclude it from FP by itself. Please keep trying though - few people get an FP on their first try - and also have a look at the featured picture guidelines, the quality image guidelines, and the previous succcessful candidates in the FP galleries, to find out what the technical requirements are for a featured picture. Cmao20 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Cmao20 thank you very much for your kind and thorough response. I sincerely appreciate the time you took to provide me with such valuable feedback. I assure you that I will do my utmost to improve the quality of my photographs and to meet the standards required for a Featured Picture. I am grateful for the opportunity to learn and grow within this community. Thank you again for the support and constructive advice. By the way, I did not use any vignetting filter or any others. Additionally, I intentionally did not center the window in the frame for compositional reasons. I don't particularly like 'perfectly-centered things'. That's all :) Brigante mandrogno (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Wilhelm Steinhausen - Alpine Landschaft, Tränken der Kühe (1879).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 23:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
- Info created by Wilhelm Steinhausen - uploaded by Trzęsacz - nominated by SDudley -- SDudley (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think the quality of the file is quite high. Add to that the beautiful composition of the image, and I really do think it should be included. The colors are gorgeous, the lighting is wonderful, and the sense of scale is very nice.-- SDudley (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great scene! ★ 23:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not the full picture; the image was taken from an auction catalogue photographer. The signature is cropped, possibly by the frame, but we cannot tell. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would you support if we are able to get the whole image? I was not aware this was cropped. SDudley (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't normally support uploaded images of artworks. I don't see the point. I only oppose on technical grounds: alignment, crop, colour, sharpness, size, reflections etc. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would you support if we are able to get the whole image? I was not aware this was cropped. SDudley (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Rainbow bee-eater (Merops ornatus) Fogg Dam.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 19:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Meropidae (Bee-eaters)
- Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Rjcastillo (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support of course Cmao20 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Portrait of a Carpathian Lynx.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 22:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
- Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Why use these settings for a zoo pic, Wilfredo? Higher ISO and smaller aperture would haven given a much better depth of field. A contrasting Background would be better, but I'm sure that is more difficult in a zoo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Capturing a moving animal with the Nikon Z7II under low light conditions presents its own challenges. The camera's autofocus system, though advanced, has limitations when operating in dark environments. This is exacerbated when using the lens at its maximum zoom capacity, 400mm, on a full-frame sensor. The experience differs significantly from working with crop sensor cameras, where the effective focal length extends beyond 400mm due to the sensor's crop factor. Thus, although the Z7II is a formidable camera, especially for landscapes, these specific conditions are less suitable for capturing sharp details in low light situations at long distances. Wilfredor (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah! well you needed to climb over the railings to get closer to the lynx... Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Capturing a moving animal with the Nikon Z7II under low light conditions presents its own challenges. The camera's autofocus system, though advanced, has limitations when operating in dark environments. This is exacerbated when using the lens at its maximum zoom capacity, 400mm, on a full-frame sensor. The experience differs significantly from working with crop sensor cameras, where the effective focal length extends beyond 400mm due to the sensor's crop factor. Thus, although the Z7II is a formidable camera, especially for landscapes, these specific conditions are less suitable for capturing sharp details in low light situations at long distances. Wilfredor (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Quite good IMO. Yann (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Better with a darker background. Yann (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose There is detail but the depth of field is limited. I find the crop unbalanced and the background distracting (not to mention where the shot was taken). Poco a poco (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Its very difficult get more DoF with 400mm, in the description and category mention where the shot was taken "Alpenzoo Innsbruck" Wilfredor (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- F11 would have helped. Also, a good candidate for focus bracketing when you all time to choose PoV and wait for the animal to stay still. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Z7II's focus system is not enough for those things. It's another world apart, I already had mirrored APS-C and I know what you mean. I invite you to read about it and have a broader vision Wilfredor (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- F11 would have helped. Also, a good candidate for focus bracketing when you all time to choose PoV and wait for the animal to stay still. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Its very difficult get more DoF with 400mm, in the description and category mention where the shot was taken "Alpenzoo Innsbruck" Wilfredor (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support The depth of field could be better for sure but the detail on the head is great and the resolution is huge. Although the background is a little busy, the bokeh is well done. Overall FP for me Cmao20 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 02:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Crop is bothering, left side - overlighted image. Remove or try to lower exposure there manualy.--Mile (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)- Done Please, take another look, thanks Wilfredor (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Now see the difference. My eyes get straight to the object. --Mile (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The new version is much better. With a further crop (see note) I would remove my oppose vote. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Alt version by Charles[edit]
- Info Portrait of a Carpathian Lynx alt crop by Charlesjsharp --Wilfredor (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Give some space. Yann (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree, I'd strike through my oppose vote if you don't go for such a tight crop as long as you keep it balanced, the darkening of the background was an improvement Poco a poco (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I don't go for zoo images, but I like this with the eyes in the middle. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:HabitanteComunidadQoM(CDI-CA-MM-00005)-restored.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 21:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
- Info created by Anonymous - uploaded by Patriciasalatino - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Looks good, but I'd like to see the original to compare. Could a link to the original be provided? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This should be renamed to a meaningful name. Yann (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Ikan and Yann, sources of restoration provided now on description and renamed Ezarateesteban 17:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice portrait. Yann (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Thanks for providing the original. I feel like some more restoration could be done, but this is probably in good enough shape to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I applied more restoration, I find more damaged areas. Thanks!!!Ezarateesteban 12:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 02:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Ciudadela, Carcasona, Francia, 2023-01-07, DD 216-218 HDR.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 21:03:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
- Info Fortified city of Carcassonne during the blue hour, France. Founded during the Gallo-Roman period, the citadel derives its reputation from its 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) long double surrounding walls interspersed by 52 towers. The medieval citadel, situated on a hill on the right bank of the river Aude, was restored at the end of the 19th century by the theorist and architect Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. In 1997, it was added to the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites because of its exceptional testimony to the architecture and planning of a medieval fortress town. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Superb Cmao20 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Rjcastillo (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful at full size, really impressive sharpness and overall quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 16:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Brazil
- Info View of nave and chancel, Cathedral Basilica of Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Built by the Society of Jesus as part of a large Jesuit monastic and educational complex, the church is the seat of the city's Roman Catholic Archdiocese. Created and uploaded by Prburley - nominated by ★ -- ★ 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ★ 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose ghosts. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support Much better than the other one but still maybe not one of our most detailed church interiors at full size, nevertheless nice light and satisfying composition Cmao20 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with both Charles and Cmao20, so I'm undecided. Deserves the QI designation, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Ultimately, I think that for this to have been an FP, it would have been necessary to wait for a view that didn't have such distracting ghosts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination ★ 19:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Why would you withdraw a picture after one day of voting and with 2 supports and 1 oppose? Don't really get it. Cmao20 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, here's Support number 3 FTR (I'm also happy to take the nom under my name). --SHB2000 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Why would you withdraw a picture after one day of voting and with 2 supports and 1 oppose? Don't really get it. Cmao20 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Ikan Poco a poco (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Walt Whitman - George Collins Cox.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2024 at 10:44:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1880-1889
- Info restored and uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by -- Thi (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Thi (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, thank you! I have historically been pretty bad at Commons nominations of my work, I appreciate this. Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Great looking image! --SDudley (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Fine photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:St. Trudpert Münstertal 04.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2024 at 17:34:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
- Info I found this picture really satisfying both in terms of the composition - symmetrical, but with just enough asymmetry to make it interesting - and the beautiful rich colours. Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Nice, but the left and right crops feel close (I understand the problem Llez faced, but I'd still theoretically like some space on either side, and maybe on top, too), and the 2nd floor's sharpness might be OK but is hardly overwhelming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support IMO, there is enough space on either side. Otherwise excellent quality. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think Ikan means that the blue windows are right at the edge of the frame, which is fair enough, but ultimately you have got to make the crop somewhere. Personally I think it is well framed as it is but we will see how the votes go. Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Correct. That's how I react to this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Info You can see a JPG-copy of the original raw file here. The photo was taken with 10mm wide angle. It was not possible to go further back to get the lines more vertical. After perspective orrection there were not many alternatives in cropping in my opinion. I request anyone who has a better suggestion for cropping to upload it using the link mentioned. --Llez (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- It may not have been possible to shoot what I would have considered an FP of this facade, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for the nomination --Llez (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. -- Karelj (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Lucas Cranach d.Ä. - Bildnis der Prinzessin Sibylle von Cleve (1526, Klassik Stiftung Weimar).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2024 at 14:28:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings
- Info Lucas Cranach the Elder, Portrait of Sibylle von Cleve, 1526. - uploaded by Botaurus - nominated by Thi -- Thi (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Thi (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Not the biggest painting reproduction, but extremely sharp and very beautiful and interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Considering the issues with the other nomination, I'll support this one if we can be assured that this is a faithful reproduction, as I don't see a working link to the original file (the link next to "2." for "Source/Photographer" is useless). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- https://lucascranach.org/en/DE_KSW_G12/ --Thi (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks. Please correct the link on the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- https://lucascranach.org/en/DE_KSW_G12/ --Thi (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Really interesting subject, thanks for finding this and nominating it --Kritzolina (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Kritzolina. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Probably my favourite painting by Lucas Cranach the Elder; thank you for highlighting this solid reproduction! --Aristeas (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 21:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Dust storm approaching Stratford, Texas.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2024 at 10:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1930-1939
- Info created by George Everett Marsh Jr., restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
- Support Restoration of historical image, used in many articles across all Wikimedia projects. The exact date it was taken is known. I even found who is the photographer. See his story here. Obviously the original picture got a lot of dust. I imagine it is difficult to keep a clean camera in this environment. FP on English WP. -- Yann (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very striking portrayal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Mayfield KY State Farm CRU -23.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2024 at 07:40:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
- Info created by State Farm Insurance - uploaded by JoleBruh - nominated by WeatherWriter -- WeatherWriter (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- High quality damage photograph of Mayfield after the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. WeatherWriter (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support FP to me. High-quality, as you said, and has a good composition to me, in addition to emotional effect and documentary value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support as per Ikan, and this is not a picture that can be reproduced. Yann (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan and Yann Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support A very valuable FP candidate. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not seeing the "high quality" here. 5,464 × 3,640 pixels is fairly normal for today's age and there isn't anything exceptional in this photo that would make it one of this site's finest images. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- For weather-related damage photos, it is very high quality. 99% are not even 2,500 pixels in 1 dimension. Actually, this image is higher quality than any other tornado-related featured photograph, with the current one being 4,032 × 3,024 pixels (File:Low-end EF3 damage to a home in Virginia Beach, Virginia.jpg). WeatherWriter (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per others - very high quality for this kind of photo --Kritzolina (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Kritzolina. Often news photos are of much lower quality. --Aristeas (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support What a pharse here. When you check autopark, all SUV's and than the result. Some vibrance would be nice. --Mile (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Basílica de San Nazario, Carcasona, Francia, 2023-01-08, DD 46-48 HDR.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2024 at 19:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#France
- Info Basilica of Saints Nazarius and Celsus, citadel of Carcassonne, France. The original church is thought to have been constructed in the 6th century during the reign of Theodoric the Great, ruler of the Visigoths. In 1096, Pope Urban II visited the town and blessed the building materials for the construction of the cathedral, which was completed in the first half of the 12th century. Around the end of the 13th century, during the rule of kings Philip III, Philip IV, and the episcopates of Pierre de Rochefort and Pierre Rodier, the cathedral was reconstructed in the Gothic style. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment FP quality as usual. Do we need the walls at both sides (see note)? Perhaps a little lighter/brighter would be good. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Charlesjsharp: I agree with Cmao20, the frame has been chosen on purpose, I'd like to keep it like this. --Poco a poco (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support OK; you're the author. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Need vertical perspective fix, please check the left side border column to guide you --Wilfredor (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wilfredor: Not sure what you mean, I checked but cannot see any deviation and cannot guarantee either that an 800 years old building is perfectly straight. Poco a poco (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- La parte superior derecha parece ir sobresaliendo mas hacia adentro, en el mismo recuadro de nota que agregaste puede verse incluso en miniatura Wilfredor (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wilfredor: Not sure what you mean, I checked but cannot see any deviation and cannot guarantee either that an 800 years old building is perfectly straight. Poco a poco (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I can almost smell that interior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support –-Llez (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Amazing, and please don't crop it any closer. Cmao20 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan, Cmao20; please don’t crop more. --Aristeas (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Персеид (метеор).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2024 at 20:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
- Info created by FilipNeshkoski - uploaded by FilipNeshkoski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Good and very clean photo of a night sky with a meteor trail, a very good QI and possible VI, but not incredibly inspiring to me such that I'd support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Very small size. Content is not spectacular, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty and interesting but per Ikan, IMO not outstanding enough for FP Cmao20 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
File:038 Svartifoss waterfall (Iceland) Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2024 at 09:58:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Iceland#Southern Region (Suðurland)
- Info created & uploaded by Giles Laurent - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Thank you for the nomination! --Giles Laurent (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Not an exceptional long exposure nor of Svartifoss – especially the hazy bit at the top. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose No, I think the PoV is too close and there's not enough sky. I am guessing the weather was poor for photography. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The light is very grey and dull, but maybe that's just Iceland. I'll support if the purple CA on the rocks at the bottom right is removed. Cmao20 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Iceland is known to have this weather. I just uploaded a new file that fixed the CA (press cmd+R on Mac or Ctrl+F5 on Windows with image open to force refresh) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support lovely, thank you Cmao20 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This is a great motif. As a photo, I find that parts of it are great and much of it is at FP level. But I'm torn because I don't like the parts that are blurred not from the exposure but due to the depth of field, mainly the near right corner and some ways behind it, and I also don't love the sky. Basically, per SHB2000 and Charles, but no vote from me yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support For the composition. ★ 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per SHB2000. -- Ivar (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Comparison optical telescope primary mirrors.svg[edit]
Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2024 at 13:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Engineering
- Info created and uploaded by DmitTrix and Ahecht (last version), nominated by Yann
- Support High quality SVG graphics, detailed description, used in many places. -- Yann (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very informative and high quality --Wilfredor (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment
Many of the dates on this image would need to be updated before promotion. Both of the dates I changed in my last update, for example, need to be pushed.I went through and updated the dates for future telescopes, but we probably need some extra sets of eyes on the various translations (for example, I didn't know how to translate 2030s, so that date is only in the English text). We also likely need to add text to Arecebo to say (1963–2020) in the other languages (which is non-trivial for non-speakers of the various languages, and which needs manual checking for each language to make sure the new text fits). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the file and fixed all issues I could recognize (I'm speaking English, Russian, and Hebrew, and with some help from translation tools could make fairly educated guesses for other Slavic langs there; for Chinese, I totally relied on Google Translate, and the changes I made were very minor). It would be great if someone could re-generate text2path stuff after Arecibo’s text was updated. Also, I see that the generated PNGs show some issues for James Webb and Gaia – looks like the subscripts there are breaking something. DmitTrix (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I'm torn, because I love the comparisons of scale, but I don't like the crowding or the overlapping text, so I wonder whether it might be better as a table, though I recognize the problem of FAST and the radio telescope in Arecibo being so much bigger than the others. This is definitely a good VI, but is the usefulness sufficient for it to be featured, or might we decline to feature it, for aesthetic reasons? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is not possible to show that much information in reduced space in another way. While it would be possible to create a table, the information would be lost, and we couldn't see the relative size, so we would miss the point of this file. Yann (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but does that make this an FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think it does for the amount of information provided and the very good execution. It was also just updated. Yann (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Alberto Santos-Dumont, half-length portrait, facing front, sitting, with right arm resting on back of chair LCCN2008676779-Edit.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2024 at 13:01:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1900-1909
- Info Alberto Santos-Dumont, half-length portrait, facing front, sitting, with right arm resting on back of chair. Created by Zaida Ben-Yusuf - restored and uploaded by Wilfredor - nominated by ★ -- ★ 13:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks Wilfredo for restoring this masterpiece! -- ★ 13:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Info Only to clarify that no AI technique was used to improve the beak, sharpness or noise elimination, only missing, folds were eliminated. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Not very sharp, but well... Yann (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it was the sharp in the time, however, I did a AI improved version that can be visited here which with confidence the fanatics and purists in restoration will hate --Wilfredor (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, quality is better, but do we have to follow that path? Yann (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Question for @W.carter: Wilfredor (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not quite sure why you ping me, when it's clearly Adam Cuerden who is our biggest expert on restorations. And I hope that you don't include me in the "fanatics and purists" group you mention above, because that would be very insulting. But I'll try to answer as best I can.
- AI can be good for reducing noise in modern photos, if it's handled the right way, but not so good for fixing up old photos. AI simply isn't good enough for such things yet. This is because (as the AI techs put it) "it lacks consequentialist thinking". This is at the moment the big problem that those working on AI in films are dealing with. For example, most AI still have a problem with hair, and therefore it can't see the difference between a hair growing from someone's head or if it's just lint on the film.
- The noise in modern digital photos is fairly uniform and predictable since it is made in a digital way. AI can find patterns in it and make calculations about what the missing bits might be, and make the image better. Photos made on glass plates or film are a very different matter. They are made in a more "organic" way with noise and grain more random, which makes it hard for AI to "read" the info in it. AI isn't smart enough either to recognize damage made to a photo by time (scratches, dust, lint, spots, etc.), because "it lacks consequentialist thinking". AI can scan a photo/object in 3 dimensions, but it can't see the 4th dimension: time. It can't see if a line in a photo was there when the photo was taken or if it has been added later. Real, good restoration work is not about making a photo look better (a lot of people misunderstand that part), it is mostly about reversing time for it, trying to make it look like it did when it was new and sometimes doing the same retouching or lighting work a photographer from that time could/would have done. AI is still a blunt tool painting with big strokes using a "digital roller", but good restaurations need to be done with a very fine brush. That is why humans are still the best tool for doing restorations. Sure, AI-aided tools (like all the tools in Photoshop) are great for human-guided micro-work on a photo restoration, but AI is pretty useless for big overall once-over works.
- I know how much you like all these new digital inventions, but they are still just tools, and any work is best done if you select the right tool for it. AI is not the right tool for restorations. Yet. --Cart (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment, I think we could take some points about this and put them in the FPC guideline. When I talked about purists in restoration I was thinking of myself. I think it could have been misinterpreted but I would never think badly of you, on the contrary, I admire you and that is why I invited you to this conversation. And btw, I want cite the Nolan Restoration of 2001 again to compare what is a well done work and something digital alteration that look better but its not a real restoration [1] Wilfredor (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's probably cases for generative AI models, but they're for things like "adding in some paper to fit this torn section that matches the other paper, or other cases where the thing being generated is far, far from the focus of the image. The bright spot upper left in File:Chief Joseph by Edward Sheriff Curtis.jpg where you want to match darkness and pattern might have AI applications, as the randomness screws with the tools you'd normally use. But don't use it to clean up the image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment, I think we could take some points about this and put them in the FPC guideline. When I talked about purists in restoration I was thinking of myself. I think it could have been misinterpreted but I would never think badly of you, on the contrary, I admire you and that is why I invited you to this conversation. And btw, I want cite the Nolan Restoration of 2001 again to compare what is a well done work and something digital alteration that look better but its not a real restoration [1] Wilfredor (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Question for @W.carter: Wilfredor (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, quality is better, but do we have to follow that path? Yann (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it was the sharp in the time, however, I did a AI improved version that can be visited here which with confidence the fanatics and purists in restoration will hate --Wilfredor (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- The portrait was very small, wasn't it? I don't like the AI version, because it looks like this is a sepia photo, not black & white, and the AI version seems to change the shape of his face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- In case it's not clear, I'm waiting for a response to my question before I consider whether or how to vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Cape Barren geese (Cereopsis novaehollandiae) in flight Kangaroo Island 2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2024 at 17:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Cereopsis
- Info Flying over trees burnt during the 2020/21 bushfires. Get info on the wildlife deaths on page on pages 36/7 of latest Sharp Eye on Wildlife Photography. No FPs of this genus/species. All by Charlesjsharp ] -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noticeable blurry trees. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment I see at least three dust spots, above the leftmost bird and two above the rightmost bird.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
* Oppose Per SHB2000. Charles, the sharpening mask is wonky, our AI overlords seem to have mistaken some tree branches for birds --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment
Čarlton, beside dust spots, which could be cleaned, i dont get trees. They are far further than birds i suppose and yet there are some parts of tree in hyperfocal and much of them out... !? So actually you keep birds, go there exact time on put same EXIF and make trees. Than stitch. Try manual foucs to set trees to similar blur as here.--Mile (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies. Wrong version (magazine edit to highlight trees) was nominated. Have reverted to original version. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support This could go, i would still do some botton crop, some alien pixels. Anoted.--Mile (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I had a good look, but I cannot see any 'alien pixels'. Would crop if that is the majority view. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yup, much better. --Julesvernex2 (talk)
- Support I can't see any errors now. Great capture. Cmao20 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Much better version, thanks. I don't have a problem with the degree of blur on the trees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support –-Llez (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great capture of a difficult subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Ikan and Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:SAARC Fountain 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2024 at 17:17:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Light trails
- Info created by Azim Khan Ronnie - uploaded by Azim Khan Ronnie - nominated by Moheen -- ~Moheen (keep talking) 17:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ~Moheen (keep talking) 17:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I really like those light trails --Kritzolina (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support this is real creative. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 15:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality does not convince me. --Mile (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's a long exposure photograph, so the noise… ★ 18:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- ★ And there is solution, ND filter. f/14 on APS-C is overdose, increasing "mistakes" like halos etc, check upper-left corner, where "benefits" came. Could pass just noise. --Mile (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Mile, strong processing artefacts. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The effect of this is great at small size but it just looks too weird and overprocessed at full size Cmao20 (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, especially Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Wood Sandpiper Safari Park.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2024 at 16:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Tringa
- Info created by Abdul Momin - uploaded by Abdul Momin - nominated by Moheen -- ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support perfect composition. -- -donald- (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Ouch, very bad photo editing especially on reflextion, mising parts. Oversharpened subject, fur low quality. --Mile (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Mile. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This image should indicate that it has been retouched or otherwise altered --Kritzolina (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There's probably not enough definition on the feathers for a feature, but how were you able to spot retouching? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I hadn't noticed the suspect retouching Moheen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good in thumbnail but regretfully not FP at full size for the reasons Mile and Charles mention Cmao20 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Asher B. Durand by Abraham Bogardus.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2024 at 05:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1860-1869
- Info created by Abraham Bogardus - restrored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Intense portrait and well restored. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support –-Llez (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 07:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Rufous hummingbird (61556).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2024 at 00:25:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Trochilidae_(Hummingbirds)
- Info Female rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus). all by — Rhododendrites talk | 00:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Took a few trips to find this rare vagrant, and luckily on a day with some sun. — Rhododendrites talk | 00:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 11:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support A bit small, considering the bird doesn't take up much of the frame, but composition and light makes up for it. Cmao20 (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this ranks alongside our many hummingbird FPs in sharpness and composition (non-contrasting background) and it would benefit by a crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support –-Llez (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Charlesjsharp. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would make crop, above and on rigth side, and suddenly bird wont be so small, main object-bird is sitting in the middle. --Mile (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @PetarM: I had played with such a crop before uploading and erred on the side of the larger frame. I've implemented it now, though. New version uploaded. Pinging supporters for good measure: @Llez, Agnes Monkelbaan, Cmao20, ArionStar, and SHB2000: — Rhododendrites talk | 22:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Ebakiivrik.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2024 at 03:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Daphniidae
- Info created & uploaded & nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Janeklass (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Info I edited nomination a bit. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks, Kruusamägi. But I'm confused about the taxonomy of this species. Wikispecies' entry on Simocephalus states that "The name of this taxon appears to be invalid under the relevant nomenclatural code." Do we know the species or at least genus of the individual shown in this picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Those things are not overly well researched and thus a lot of species are not known and classification occasionally gets changed. But this family was classified already in the 19th century and there doesn't seem to be some new classification published recently that merges Simocephalus genus into some other Daphniidae genus. I would not trust Wikispecies on this (and generally struggle to understand on why this project even exists when there is now Wikidata). Kruusamägi (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support, in that case. (I'll note that en.Wikipedia has no article about this genus, either, so if anyone wants to add one...) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Another cool creature. --Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 07:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Great Sphinx of Tanis, Paris.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2024 at 23:39:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_indoors
- Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Appropriately monumental style of photography, and it's probably smart to limit the depth of field so that the copyrighted information plate is sufficiently blurred. My only question is whether there is purple and green CA in many places including the near left corner or whether those discolorations were really there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I cant see it, please, could you add notes?. I have corrected it by developing the photo again, I couldn't reproduce the error but I suspect that it was due to Photoshop's automatic white balance correction, contrast or some problem with the RGB profile that I had that I changed it to sRGB. Wilfredor (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Question Had you considered a much tighter crop? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but I dont know where cut, you could add a note to see the possible cut? Wilfredor (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done... Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but I dont know where cut, you could add a note to see the possible cut? Wilfredor (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support This looks better to me. As I said before, I like a monumental treatment of this statue, and it's this version that suggests a cavernous space, not the close crop, so this is the version I support, though the other one is also of FP quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little undecided now, I think this really shows the cave, I'll let you decide. Wilfredor (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wow. Honestly I prefer the original version. --Aristeas (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support either Cmao20 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support prefer this version. BigDom (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per Ikan. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Alternative version proposed by Charles[edit]
- Info Thanks Charles for your proposition cut, I think I prefer this to avoid the prominent block of marble under the structure that takes away from the main subject's weight. Wilfredor (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Impressive statue, well photographed; the cropping is a benefit for the composition. I took the liberty of formatting Alternative Version as a subheading, for better section editing.-- Radomianin (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for format it Wilfredor (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support either Cmao20 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Karpvähiline.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2024 at 14:58:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Subphylum : Crustacea (Crustaceans)
- Info created & uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Question The Genus and species are not known? I would like photographer to assure us that there are two appendages (?) on the right hand side as the image looks like there was movement and the same appendage is shown twice. I can't find any similar image to compare this with. Apologies if I am being sceptical. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I can't tell you the exact type. I'm just a photographer and I'm not a specialist who can determine the species.
- It is possible to find similar pictures, for example here are some similar species: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-review-of-rice-field-ostracods-(Crustacea)-with-a-Smith-Zhai/a744116bb59f1ab740742b4ba1d6ab2a9dfc7d14/figure/1 Janeklass (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think it can be one of Commons' finest if we don't know what it is. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- In most such images, the exact species is uncertain. It requires very specific knowledge and a thorough observation under the microscope. I am not a scientist and I have no such competence. I will try to find out in the microscopist community if anyone can at least determine the genus. If someone can tell me, I'll add it to the description. I don't have an answer at the moment. Janeklass (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- The genus would be fine. In very many cases a species cannot be identified with a photo. Can you answer my query on the possible double appendage please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong there on the right. It's a natural part of him. Here is a similar species. In my picture, the character inside the box is just in a different position.
- Look at this picture:
- https://1drv.ms/i/s!ArkcQeKMeunHicAdsbybw4OaQIYktA?e=mUAcTN Janeklass (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- The genus would be fine. In very many cases a species cannot be identified with a photo. Can you answer my query on the possible double appendage please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- In most such images, the exact species is uncertain. It requires very specific knowledge and a thorough observation under the microscope. I am not a scientist and I have no such competence. I will try to find out in the microscopist community if anyone can at least determine the genus. If someone can tell me, I'll add it to the description. I don't have an answer at the moment. Janeklass (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Before looking deeper at the picture, I just find the crop too large. Too much uninteresting black background -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- It would be easy to cut it, but to be honest, I don't see the need for it. Janeklass (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I did crop the image a bit though. Janeklass (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would be helpful, if there were some information, where this specimen comes from, where it was collected, where it lived. I think, without this information any attempt to determine the specimen is useless. --Llez (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- This character comes from fresh water, caught from a lake in Estonia. We probably won't know what species it is based on the photo. No one in the microscopist community has been able to tell me this, and I've actually been in touch with one scientist who also owed me an answer. Even so, the photo is not useless. This fits very well with an article that describes ostracods more generally. Janeklass (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is probably a specimen of the dolerocypris genus. Janeklass (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I understand objections and reservations, but the photo is really good, far beyond the possibilities of many. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment For my part, I don't think I would even consider featuring a photo of an unidentified creature. I realize that educational value is not always emphasized on FPC, but I think we do have to maintain some minimum standards of usefulness in photos of living things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If we go to some smaller insects and other similar creatures, then exact identification may only be possible based on genetics. I don't know if that is the case here, but for a stuff that small, ordinary approach may no longer work. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Also, the picture may be exploited for educational purposes indipendently from the identification of the species. Besides, the author of the work may not be able to identify the species, but someone else could in the future - in the aim of the collaborative projects that Commons and Wikipedia are. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good reason for a feature, but Kruusamägi's remarks give me pause. In cases in which it's impossible to identify the genus by sight, wouldn't a higher-level taxonomic category be sufficient? But how would we determine when that's the case? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Also, the picture may be exploited for educational purposes indipendently from the identification of the species. Besides, the author of the work may not be able to identify the species, but someone else could in the future - in the aim of the collaborative projects that Commons and Wikipedia are. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If we go to some smaller insects and other similar creatures, then exact identification may only be possible based on genetics. I don't know if that is the case here, but for a stuff that small, ordinary approach may no longer work. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Kruusamägi and Harlock81. --Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Pedestrian overpass in Colatina.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2024 at 09:50:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Structures
- Info Pedestrian overpass in Colatina, Espírito Santo, Brazil. Created, uploaded and nominated by ★ -- ★ 09:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think this B&W version is nicer than the original one; the tones appear more uniform. -- ★ 09:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but you should upload this version as a separate file. Yann (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it's my own work? ★ 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why not? I'd like it to be offered as an alt. I'm tending to prefer it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Done. ★ 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why not? I'd like it to be offered as an alt. I'm tending to prefer it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but you should upload this version as a separate file. Yann (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Perspective issue (at the top) -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, no… I can assure you that the beam (just the first one) was really titled/misaligned (notice that the other beams are firmly perpendicular). ★ 00:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weird. Not horizontal -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- The tilt was the first thing I noticed when I took the photo; I personally checked it several times and concluded that it was indeed what I was seeing at the time. ★ 01:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weird. Not horizontal -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Prefer b&w over color (I'm more than used to my phone (1 model before yours) overprocessing the clouds which is somewhat absent in the b&w photo). --SHB2000 (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Artistically impressive. The colour one would probably be slightly more encyclopedic in theory, but this isn't really the kind of image that gets used in literal encyclopedic uses like Colatina. It's more likely to get metaphorical uses. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per my comments on the alt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support the black and white version only as an interesting collection of shapes and forms that add up to a good semi-abstract photo. But the quality at full size is not very good. Cmao20 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Horizontal cables are distracting at the top (electrical lines?) Also the tilted beam looks odd (although possibly real). Busy background behind the metal fence, especially the lower right corner with many cables. The architectural work is not outstanding, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. ~Moheen (keep talking) 07:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination ★ 12:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
- Info Original version. ★ 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks. I like this photo but haven't yet decided whether I think it's special enough to feature. I will live with this photo longer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- The B&W one has all the drama making sense, IMO as the author. ★ 14:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree with you. This version somehow has more depth, and while black & white doesn't always look drab, I think this composition does look drab as a black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- So, support this… ★ 12:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said, I'm not sure this version is an FP, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree with you. This version somehow has more depth, and while black & white doesn't always look drab, I think this composition does look drab as a black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Horizontal cables are distracting at the top (electrical lines?) Also the tilted beam looks odd (although possibly real). Busy background behind the metal fence, especially the lower right corner with many cables. The architectural work is not outstanding, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination ★ 12:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]
Thu 22 Feb → Tue 27 Feb Fri 23 Feb → Wed 28 Feb Sat 24 Feb → Thu 29 Feb Sun 25 Feb → Fri 01 Mar Mon 26 Feb → Sat 02 Mar Tue 27 Feb → Sun 03 Mar
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]
Sun 18 Feb → Tue 27 Feb Mon 19 Feb → Wed 28 Feb Tue 20 Feb → Thu 29 Feb Wed 21 Feb → Fri 01 Mar Thu 22 Feb → Sat 02 Mar Fri 23 Feb → Sun 03 Mar Sat 24 Feb → Mon 04 Mar Sun 25 Feb → Tue 05 Mar Mon 26 Feb → Wed 06 Mar Tue 27 Feb → Thu 07 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/February 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/February 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/February 2024), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.