Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates:
Featured picture candidates ![]() Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new usersAdding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate 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. VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
|
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 10:25:04 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Morocco
Info created by Mounir Neddi – uploaded by Mounir Neddi – nominated by Mounir Neddi -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 04:01:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Nectariniidae (Sunbirds and Spiderhunters)
Info created & uploaded by Ashraf747 – nominated by ROCKY -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Again it is a spectacular capture, but again the oversharpening and lack of detail on the bird give me pause Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 00:50:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created and uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Neutral Nice view but the light is a bit pale and the composition, while pleasant, doesn't seem outstanding enough to compensate for me. Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 00:01:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Poland
Info Beautiful drone photo of a Polish castle and surrounding landscape at sunrise. You could argue there's a bit of noise in places but honestly I much prefer a bit of noise to too much noise reduction. created by Gswito – uploaded by Gswito – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 20:13:12 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Tyrannidae#Genus_:_Tyrannus
Info Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis). I debated whether to nominate this one or this other one. I like the pose of the latter, but can't resist this composition between the two similarly-colored leaves. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 20:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support - I agree, @Rhododendrites: . The juxtaposition of the kingbird between the bright yellow leaves is unexpected and impressive. ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support the composition is great with the leaves calling the ventral feathers. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 20:08:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Icteridae_(Icterids)
Info Male brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). In the blackbird family, but unusual for that group, it's a brood parasite (they lay eggs in other species' nests). all by — Rhododendrites talk | 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Gorgeous plumage! --Cart (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 11:03:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Fagales#Family : Betulaceae
Info The "veins" of the forest. The exposed roots of two birches next to a hiking trail in Brastad, Sweden. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 07:41:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1970-1979
Info created by Jahangir Razmi, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
Info A revolutionary firing squad at the Sanandaj airport in Iran, 27 August 1979. This image got the 1980 Pulitzer Prize. There was a successful previous nomination in 2011 for a very small version.
Support Quality is not the best, but educational and historical values compensate for that. -- Yann (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment For the sake of clarity, it might be best to link to the previous nomination and also mention that the small version was deleted later. --Cart (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Cart. The previous nomination is also linked above, below the title. Yann (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I can't find it, I think you missed that one. --Cart (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, it is there, but only visible from the whole page. That's the case for all renominations. Yann (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank, now I see it, but no harm in having it visible directly from the list page too (for people like me who tend to not go to the individual page for each nom). --Cart (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support As per Yann. ZarlokX (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Gruesome, but we now live in an age where the copyright of our childhood's nightmares are being released, so I guess we will have to deal with them and make history visible. --Cart (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Cart. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 04:21:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Netherlands
Info The foundation stone of this church (National Monument) was laid on 23 May 1814. With some shifting back and forth, the church tower was placed properly between the two trees.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hello Agnes, I really like the composition etc., I just would suggest to remove the fragmentary twigs in the sky near to the right edge – please see the image notes on the nomination page. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Aristeas Thanks for your comment. I removed the branches. Sometimes it takes a while before the improvement is visible. Greetings from Friesland.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I think the sky could do with denoising but it's still great Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Done. Noise Reduction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 15:51:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Soldiers
Info: created by Paolo Bovo, US Army – uploaded by ERcheck – nominated by User:ERcheck -- Thanks. ERcheck (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support: ERcheck (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hi and welcome to FPC. Before we begin evaluating this photo, it needs to have a name that is in line with Commons naming policy and not just a code from the military. If you would be so kind as to suggest a good name for the photo here, describing it so that anyone can understand it, I'll take care of the re-naming and fixing the nomination for you. You can write your suggestion in a reply below. Best, --Cart (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart - Thanks for the welcome and the assist. How about "Wet silk training - US Army paratrooper - Lake Garda, Italy - March 2025" ERcheck (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I'll fix this for you. Good luck with your nom now. --Cart (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart - Thanks for the welcome and the assist. How about "Wet silk training - US Army paratrooper - Lake Garda, Italy - March 2025" ERcheck (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment A great composition (even if I almost get a panic attack by looking at it! <gasp!>), almost like some alien birth scene from a SciFi movie. However, the photo is full of chromatic noise and artifacts (photos are always reviewed at 100%). I have mended most of that in this version. You are welcome to use it as you like, such as overwriting the nom photo with it. Your choice. --Cart (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cart - I agree, it is rather scary. Reminds me of Frodo in Shelob's Lair (LOTR - Return of the King). Thanks for working on the photo. I've uploaded the "healed" version. Much appreciated! ERcheck (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Great and though-provoking photo of a rather strange situation. It brings on a lot of emotions like any good photo should. --Cart (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support A striking and almost surreal image that impresses both emotionally and aesthetically through its composition and material texture. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 20:50:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by unidentified 17th-century painter, uploaded by Zhuyifei1999, nominated by Yann
Support Gigapixels reproduction of a painting. -- Yann (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment If you have problems opening this large file, please use this link, it shows the painting large enough to see the details, brushstrokes and lint, without freezing your browser. --Cart (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Cart, thanks for warning me before I crashed my computer with that. It's a nice painting reproduced at a ridiculous resolution. Were we to feature this on the main page, can we link ZoomViewer straight away or add a note of its resolution? JayCubby (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- JayCubby, you need to ask the people in charge of the main page that. We've had very big images like this before there, and I don't think there is ever any warning. --Cart (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm the only one who clicks on images straight from MediaViewer. In any case, I feel it's worth noting that this is an exceedingly high-resolution reproduction, as that's part of the reason it's FP-worthy. Just a thought. JayCubby (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are other user who go straight to MediaViewer since it's in the setting options in your Preferences. --Cart (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm the only one who clicks on images straight from MediaViewer. In any case, I feel it's worth noting that this is an exceedingly high-resolution reproduction, as that's part of the reason it's FP-worthy. Just a thought. JayCubby (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- JayCubby, you need to ask the people in charge of the main page that. We've had very big images like this before there, and I don't think there is ever any warning. --Cart (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 12:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive reproduction of a portrait painting which is exemplary for its time; the huge resolution allows to study the finest details. It’s a pity that we do not have Exif/metadata or other comments as it would be interesting to see how this file has been created and edited. – Aristeas (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Aristeas: We have an encyclopedia with an article. ;o) Yann (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! It’s a pity that the article does not really explain much besides saying these pics are sooo big. It’s the same with Gigapxl Project, Gigapan, etc. – all articles with a strong advertising/fanboy smell and no technical details. Such articles do not reflect any credit on Wikipedia. Without technical details Gigapixel image looks more a marketing slogan than a technical term (just like Elon’s Gigafactory). But it’s the trend of this time … Of course this does not diminish the value of this image, and so these questions are not important as long as the reproduction is realistic. – Aristeas (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Very weak support It's a rather normal 17th-century portrait with no extraordinary style (and in a rather bad condition), common for artists who had to do them to be able to put food on the table. The only thing that stands out about it, is that it's digitized in a huge file. --Cart (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 20:04:27 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Iran
Info The Milad Tower by night and the Hakim Expressway, Tehran, Iran. – created, uploaded and nominated by ZarlokX -- ZarlokX (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose A pretty sight, but it needs a lot of cleanup:
chromatic aberration, perspective correction, sharpness, too many and too big starbursts (sadly no Exif so not possible to tell about the camera settings) to get to FP standard, and like we've seen on the previous nomination there is the problem with the freedom of panorama for the tower. I would recommend that you nominated your photos at COM:QIC first, to get a sense of what quality is required for top Commons photos. --Cart (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- I am going to move to "quality images" category for my future submissions. Thank you for your feedback. ZarlokX (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 07:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Monarchidae (Monarch Flycatchers)
Info created & uploaded by Sanjoykumar99 – nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К 09:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment A great capture for sure, but too much noise reduction has left it with almost no detail and looking at the reflection, it is tilted. --Cart (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- You are totally wrong, it's not a tilted photo, there is no rotation. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sanjoykumar99, in a reflection on a water surface (or any perfectly horizontal surface) the different parts of the reflection are always aligned under the main object. Please take a look at this example. That is how you see the tilt and rotation. Cart (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Again you do mistake, my raw was in that form, i did't rotate.
- With photo i have gained 1st prize in usa https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15JNBjmDTJ
- https://www.natphotosociety.com/2025-reflection-winners Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sure your raw has the same angle, you just happened to tilt your camera a little bit when you took the photo. This tilt might be an artistic effect that other sites are ok with, but such tilts of calm water surfaces with reflections do not usually make FPs, unless there are very special circumstances or intentions, like if this photo was taken at a very smooth waterfall. Different sites, different rules. (Did you even look at the example? Because it is your photo with explanation lines.) --Cart (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sanjoykumar99, in a reflection on a water surface (or any perfectly horizontal surface) the different parts of the reflection are always aligned under the main object. Please take a look at this example. That is how you see the tilt and rotation. Cart (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- You are totally wrong, it's not a tilted photo, there is no rotation. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Definitely looks tilted to me. Nice capture but I agree we can afford to be a little bit discriminating about which bird-in-flight images we promote, now that we have so many. The technical issues in this one preclude it from FP despite it being overall impressive. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Are you crazy? How can you definitely told that it was a tilted photo? Do you know about raw? If you need i can show you.There is no rotation. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Somewhat rude. Yes, I know what RAW is, but just because you didn't rotate the picture in postprocessing doesn't mean it wasn't tilted when you took it. I am sure the RAW file looks the same, but this doesn't tell me any useful information. Cmao20 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support ZarlokX (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Agree that this wonderful capture needs at least a rotation. According to the image size the original photo from the camera should provide some more pixels at the borders, so there is hope that the photographer can rotate the image easily. Could anybody (best somebody who talks Bengali/Bangla) try to contact Sanjoykumar99? They have a whole series of great shots, but a lot of them could profit from less sharpening and some minor tweaks. – Aristeas (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- There is not any kind rotation. It's not a tilted photo. It's original reflection in water with orginal angle. Sanjoykumar99 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2025 at 00:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created and uploaded by Chirnzb – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Rocky Masum (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment A beautiful place, but any chance of a little tighter crop to get rid of the blue structure to the left and the guy on the right plus some sharpening? See note. --Cart (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean Cart, I had originally thought of making those changes but then decided against them because I thought them too minor/marginal to make a new upload. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is often that little extra care, the attention to details that makes an FP. When selecting the best of Commons; we can afford to be picky. ;-) --Cart (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean Cart, I had originally thought of making those changes but then decided against them because I thought them too minor/marginal to make a new upload. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 May 2025 at 19:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery:Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#India
Info Srikalahasti town with Durgammakonda, Swarnamukhi river, temple Gopuram, and Ghat. All by iMahesh (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely composition! Cmao20 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Regretfull oppose Sorry, but the detail in the photo is just too low and adding to that, not taken at the best time of the day. The side of the temple facing us is in shadow as is most of the right side of the scene. Having the sun a bit nearer the back of the photographer would have been better. --Cart (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, My intent was not to capture only a clean architectural photo of the temple, but to include the cityscape around it. The light and shadow play are what I focus on that gives the town its character (but sadly temple lost it), especially the sunlit hill and colorful buildings on the left. That contrast was strongest around midday. I went back in the evening hoping to take a better shot for HDR to balance the shadows. However, the AQI had dropped sharply. In my opinion, this one is the most representative image of Srikalahasti in terms of townscape and atmosphere. But I am still waiting for a few more reviews. iMahesh (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 May 2025 at 13:24:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Sweden
Info Abandoned former rod mill of Horndal, Avesta Municipality, Sweden. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Arild Vågen (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Atmospheric Cmao20 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I miss some more from composition. Mix of metal, wood, bricks does not convince me. --Mile (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Harmonious colors and it works well as a chic print in any loft apartment. The weak is for the intruding objects on the left. Looking at the other photos from the session, it seems like they (or other intruding elements) were hard to avoid. --Cart (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank for reviews!
- Yes, unfortunately. Due to legal reasons, all photos was taken through a broken window. The building is not open to the public.--ArildV (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ah! I know all about such conditions. :-) Well done with the constraints. --Cart (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting composition with dynamic diagonals, beautiful rust and earth tones, charm of decay. The only irritating point is the lower left corner, but that’s a minor point given the difficult circumstances. – Aristeas (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 May 2025 at 20:27:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Paris
Info Cathedral of Saint-Louis-des-Invalides, Paris, France. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Big wow and great image quality Cmao20 (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Poco a poco, one note I have when reviewing this picture in some more detail. If I look at the 2023 version in the file history, the text on the walls seems considerably sharper and more legible to me. To the extent that I'd honestly say the 2023 version is superior to this one. Are there any tweaks you could possibly make to improve this? I can't help feeling that whatever you've done to denoise the region around the altar has also made this worse. Cmao20 (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I made some changes, what do you think now? Cmao20 Poco a poco (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Considerably better for me. Thank you for always being responsive to criticism. Cmao20 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have reached 1125+ FPs otherwise :) Poco a poco (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support … and also good light. – Aristeas (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Very good, but too reddish in my opinion --Llez (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, agree,
fixed Poco a poco (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support OK now --Llez (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, agree,
Support As Per Cmao20 -Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rolf Kranz (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Cmao20 and Aristeas. Thanks for the retouching, Poco. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support ZarlokX (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support ERcheck (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Jeong seolah (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
*
Support Khji0620 (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Invalid vote. User only has 35 edits so far. --Cart (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 May 2025 at 15:11:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail vehicles#United Kingdom
Info For those of you who found the landscape in this nomination a bit boring, I wonder if this is more to your taste. created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support - Wow! Awesomecat713 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive scenery, good light and colours. – Aristeas (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 18:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --A.Savin 08:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 May 2025 at 14:25:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Echinoidea
Info Flower urchin (Toxopneustes pileolus), Zanzibar, Tanzania. This widespread and common species of sea urchin lives in the Indo-West Pacific. It is considered highly dangerous, as it is capable of delivering extremely painful and medically significant stings when touched. It inhabits coral reefs, seagrass beds, and rocky or sandy environments at depths of up to 90 m (295 ft). It feeds on algae, bryozoans, and organic detritus. Note: we have no FPs of the genus Toxopneustes. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Amazing details Cmao20 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 18:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Delicate. --Cart (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 May 2025 at 13:39:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Iran
Info created, uploaded and nominated by ZarlokX -- ZarlokX (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I actually really like the composition of this, the tower shining like a jewel in a vast emptiness accentuated by the surrounding buildings. You got a good eye. Unfortunately, the editing, detail and sharpness is not as good as the compo. There is also purple
chromatic aberration just about everywhere. --Cart (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment A beautiful photo, but I fear somebody has to mention the elephant in the room. Take a look at the comment at the top of Category:Milad Tower. If that comment isn’t a mistake (I would be happy to learn that it is one), it does not make much sense to discuss and eventually promote this photo because, ehem, somebody will delete it sooner or later … as the tower is certainly the main subject of this image. – Aristeas (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, I nominated another picture of the tower I took from a different point of view. ZarlokX (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per easily fixable chromatic abberation, and I also sadly suspect this picture won't be staying with us for long, per Aristeas. I like the composition though. Cmao20 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 May 2025 at 09:20:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Structures
Info Roundabout interchange, Belgrade, Serbia. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Agree and assume this kind of shot is legal Poco a poco (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Awesomecat713 (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking clarity and geometry - an impressive capture of clean structure and dynamic form. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment More COM:Categories needed. "Roundabout interchanges somewhere in Serbia" is not enough. --A.Savin 08:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment @A.Savin could you rewrite again ? "Roundabout interchanges somewhere in Serbia", really ? --Mile (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- You fix the categories or you not fix the categories? --A.Savin 09:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support ERcheck (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 May 2025 at 04:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Megalaimidae (Asian Barbets)
Info created & uploaded by Mahmudul Bari – nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'd support if it were the first we'd seen of this bird. But we already have this FP and this FP. They are both higher resolution and they are similar compositions to this nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Cmao20, I'd have probably brought this argument with the second nom, I wasn't aware of the first one Poco a poco (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Cmao20, and it's enough with two photos of this scene. Part of the thing with FP is the ability to select THE best photo from a series or a photoshoot of the same subject. --Cart (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 May 2025 at 14:14:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Trentino-Alto Adige
Info Looking from the Pflerscher Scharte into a South Tyrolean part of the Stubai Alps. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Huge wow Cmao20 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Stunning scenery, wonderful sky, excellent quality, good light and colours. – Aristeas (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Should the panorama template be added or ist this a sensor shift image?--Ermell (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- A {{Panorama}} template is helpful, but not mandatory. It's up to the photographer if they want to use it. Some do, some just write the info in the description, and some are fine without it. --Cart (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Info I added the panorama-template. Milseburg (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Support majestic! --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice, I love all those small details you find out when reviewing it at full size Poco a poco (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 18:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rolf Kranz (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Poco. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 May 2025 at 11:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Texture photography
Info I like this because it's in the magnification between plain snowdrift and marco of individual snow crystals, and you get a sense of the texture of snow. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support The beauty of nature Cmao20 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful and elegant. One could wish for more DoF, but the contrast of sharp and unsharp adds depth to the image and I guess that with more DoF (which would be possible only with image stacking) the photo would lose much of its elegance, therefore it’s fine for me as it is. – Aristeas (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've tried stacking photos like this of snow, but at this level of magnification you need so many photos for a reasonable DoF, and snow isn't very stable. The crystals move more than you'd think and so does the sun shining on them, so you need a camera with that new built-in stacking for that to reduce time needed. I have to do this manually with my camera. I've managed better with hoar frost since those crystals are fixed and I've got up to six shots before the angle of the sun moved too much (even got 16 stacks with the help of a flashlight). Still, the DoF isn't that much greater. The trick with this photo was to go for a leaning little pile of newly fallen snow at a good angle from the sun. Going only with a side view, you get an even shallower DoF. --Cart (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your insightful remarks, Cart! As I said above I think the limited DoF is actually a feature because it adds depth and elegance to the image. The angle is indeed a very good choice. – Aristeas (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've tried stacking photos like this of snow, but at this level of magnification you need so many photos for a reasonable DoF, and snow isn't very stable. The crystals move more than you'd think and so does the sun shining on them, so you need a camera with that new built-in stacking for that to reduce time needed. I have to do this manually with my camera. I've managed better with hoar frost since those crystals are fixed and I've got up to six shots before the angle of the sun moved too much (even got 16 stacks with the help of a flashlight). Still, the DoF isn't that much greater. The trick with this photo was to go for a leaning little pile of newly fallen snow at a good angle from the sun. Going only with a side view, you get an even shallower DoF. --Cart (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support A compelling interplay of sharpness and blur that clearly captures the delicate nature of freshly fallen snow crystals. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 May 2025 at 04:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Fagales#Family : Fagaceae
Info Leaf bud in development of a scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) The beautiful colors of the budding leaves are already somewhat visible. Focus stack of 15 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've fixed the gallery. This was one of the new galleries that I mentioned before on the talk page, so this is what the link looks like from now. --Cart (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting the new gallery. I think I got the hang of the new system.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I really like the composition this time Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Vivid colors and sharp detail. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 May 2025 at 04:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany#Bavaria
Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice light, although the sharpness at the top could be better Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The shot is fine but not outstanding to me, sorry. There is room for improvement in terms of sharpness and yes, I like the POV but neither the lighting not the subject are either extraordinary in my eyes. Poco a poco (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 May 2025 at 21:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Portraits
Info created by Sylvain lasco – uploaded by Sylvain lasco – nominated by Seewolf -- Seewolf (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support This is a truly great portrait. --Seewolf (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Seewolf ! Sylvain lasco (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Elegant and artistic portrait, but the caption should be better. Cmao20 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed. --Cart (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Cmao20 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support - Great catchlight in the eyes, lovely B&W photo. - Fuzheado (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Convincing charm, and as per Fuzheado. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 07:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment If cutting above, i would crop some more, its not scalp of Indian warrior. Otherwise nice portrait in BW. --Mile (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 May 2025 at 20:33:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful view, despite the wires Cmao20 (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support One could wish for stronger autumn colours, but the beautiful shades of blue and green in the river and the nice staggered arrangement of trees and mountains make up for that. – Aristeas (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support a bit blurry, but very nice view. --Rbrechko (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose a good quality image, but not enough special. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 May 2025 at 10:51:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family : Charadriidae (Plovers)
Info created & uploaded by Lisunkhanbd – nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Moheen (keep talking) 07:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I'm sorry but the oversharpening makes me hesitant even though this is a great composition Cmao20 (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Oversharpened. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 May 2025 at 08:20:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#North Macedonia
Info Following the comments in the previous nomination, the picture was brightened by 1 EV. Created by Деан Лазаревски – uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski – nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I wish the corner sharpness was better but still FP for me Cmao20 (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sharpness is indeed fine to me for a drone shot but I don't see anything featurable in that ensemble of buildings. The monastery doesn't seem to be of high historical value, either. Poco a poco (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: I don’t know what you mean by ‘doesn’t seem to he of high historical value’, but this monastery is a national cultural heritage site.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- I meant how old it was (middle age?). What I see is rather modern / renovated / in renovation buildings (apart from the one on the left) and even scaffoldings Poco a poco (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- The monastery was built in 1839. The church and the konak behind it are evidently old with some reconstruction works over time that haven't harmed their authenticity (modern churches and konaks aren't built that way). Only the buildings on the far left and far right are new, but they're important details indicating that the monastery is expanding.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 May 2025 at 07:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Traditions
Info created by Bijay Chaurasia – uploaded by Bijay Chaurasia – nominated by Bijay Chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 07:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice capture --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Cute, but the flowers are out-of-focus, unfortunately. The head is not very sharp either. Is she "praying", really? She seems rather distracted by something else, her gaze drawn into the distance -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It's an endearing photo, but the quality is overall borderline and I'm not really wow-ed by the overall light and composition. I have no problem with the file name, since you can be into prayer and be momentarily distracted. --Cart (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Also, the shadow on the right in the background indicates someone is standing there, which is a bit distracting. --Moheen (keep talking) 10:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Subject-background, compo, light. --Mile (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 May 2025 at 01:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
The technical quality is truly impressive - especially the sharpness and overall execution. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Support
- Note: In light of the alternative, which I personally find superior in terms of expression and composition, I am withdrawing my vote for version 1. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Request At the same time, I find version 104A8815 from the same series even more compelling in terms of composition and expression. Though the eye is not quite as crisply defined, the overall presence feels stronger to me. Would you consider it as an alternative for the nomination? Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Seewolf (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I prefer this one. --imehling (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I prefer this one as well, crossed arms make subjects seem closed off to me. __UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Moheen (keep talking) 19:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not so striking pose. Would change compo in this, more up, or crop bottom. 2nd ver better. --Mile (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Info (c/u/n) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you very much for the alternate version, Frank - while the first image of the nomination now enjoys strong support (deservedly so), I'm happy to support this one as well. Both are excellent! -- Radomianin (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support as well. – Aristeas (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Better than ver above. But EXIF could be better, aperture. --Mile (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Support per Mile] JukoFF (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2025 at 04:44:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Rail_tracks
Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice shot, certain QI, but otherwise I cannot find anything special about it. Sorry --A.Savin 09:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but I think I agree with A.Savin here. The central vanishing point is not very interesting, it's all quite a bland composition. I also think the picture doesn't seem to have many shadowed regions, everything is quite bright and I'm not sure this suits the subject. Image quality is of course as high as ever and I like the motif but it doesn't feel like a featured picture to me. Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Support Nature returns. --Thi (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support I find the whole abandoned feel of the image eerily calm. Would've been better if the photographer had stepped slightly to the right, but still works for me. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose sorry. Normally scenes like this one have problems like overexposed highlights, harsh shadows and some noise in the dark areas. We all try to mitigate these problems, but when we go too far a photo can get an unnatural, artificial look, and IMHO this has happened here. There are no (real) shadows in the image, and in areas with slight shadows (e.g. at the trunks of the trees at the left), the image has a painterly look, like some noise reduction tools produce it. Honestly when looking at these details I wondered first whether this is an AI-generated image. As it isn’t, as the Exif data state, I can only assume that the post-processing has caused this look. In any case, the result looks too artificial for my poor old eyes, sorry. – Aristeas (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- It looks to me like how my pictures look if I lift the shadows too far in Camera RAW, so that the picture has no pure black left. Cmao20 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Cmao20, @Aristeas Thanks for your reviews. What do you think of this alternative version? Plozessor (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think the alternative is certainly a big improvement but I'm still not sure the composition is sufficient for FP in my eyes Cmao20 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you – I agree that the alternative is a big improvement. I would not oppose that version. In the meantime I have taken the liberty to take a look at the XMP data in the original image and the raw conversion settings explain the artificial look. Temperature 5800 is quite warm for a midday scene; Contrast -78, Highlights -100, Shadows +88, Blacks +30, Clarity +100, Vibrance +100 are very daring settings, to put it mildly. The new version reduces some of these values – Contrast +5, Highlights -100, Shadows +64, Blacks +30, Clarity +25, Vibrance +60. Honestly I think that reducing the highlights by more that 50 is almost always problematic (better use additional local reduction, if necessary); Shadows > 50 is rarely needed, but can be useful in rare cases; I almost never raise the blacks (only use negative values like -5 to -20 here if appropriate); I used to use values like Clarity +15, but today apply Clarity only locally, where needed; Vibrance +60 is still very daring and would already be sufficient to say that the result will very probably look quite unreal (typical values are around 10, rarely 20). Do with these remarks what you want; you can ignore them; I just want to give you a hint which settings may cause an artificial look. – Aristeas (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC) @W.carter: I remember your excellent hints on such settings; maybe you could add a short comment on the tasteful use of Clarity and Vibrance? Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry Aristeas, I didn't get the 'ping' for some reason. Each toggle in Photoshop has its own specific and good area for their use, but to use them all in extremis like in this photo is too much for me, I wouldn't know where to start with it. I know there are parts of the photo community who like these dreamy photos, where all is beautiful, but to me it's an artificial look. Clarity can be used in big doses on clouds to get some shape in them, to clean up murky waters or define ice crystals or architecture, but for foliage only use very small doses. To go over 22 in Vibrance is never a good idea if you want to avoid psychedelic colors, and if you use a lot of it, you might want to tone down the Saturation. In a way Vibrance and Clarity are each other's opposites, Vibrance adds to bright colors and Clarity makes them grey. In this photo, I think you started with a too bright exposure. The exposure bias is 0. Leaves always reflect light, so the default would be -0.3EV, perhaps go down to -0.7EV with the sun at your back. Once you started to edit to compensate for the brightness, other values became worse and you tried to compensate for them, and it domino-ed into this result. Also keep in mind that Commons system displays photos differently than Photoshop does. What might look ok on your monitor can look weird when uploaded, especially with very processed photos. Hope some of this is helpful. --Cart (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your comments! Sorry for not replying earlier, was busy taking pictures 😉 I appreciate your comments! Plozessor (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry Aristeas, I didn't get the 'ping' for some reason. Each toggle in Photoshop has its own specific and good area for their use, but to use them all in extremis like in this photo is too much for me, I wouldn't know where to start with it. I know there are parts of the photo community who like these dreamy photos, where all is beautiful, but to me it's an artificial look. Clarity can be used in big doses on clouds to get some shape in them, to clean up murky waters or define ice crystals or architecture, but for foliage only use very small doses. To go over 22 in Vibrance is never a good idea if you want to avoid psychedelic colors, and if you use a lot of it, you might want to tone down the Saturation. In a way Vibrance and Clarity are each other's opposites, Vibrance adds to bright colors and Clarity makes them grey. In this photo, I think you started with a too bright exposure. The exposure bias is 0. Leaves always reflect light, so the default would be -0.3EV, perhaps go down to -0.7EV with the sun at your back. Once you started to edit to compensate for the brightness, other values became worse and you tried to compensate for them, and it domino-ed into this result. Also keep in mind that Commons system displays photos differently than Photoshop does. What might look ok on your monitor can look weird when uploaded, especially with very processed photos. Hope some of this is helpful. --Cart (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you – I agree that the alternative is a big improvement. I would not oppose that version. In the meantime I have taken the liberty to take a look at the XMP data in the original image and the raw conversion settings explain the artificial look. Temperature 5800 is quite warm for a midday scene; Contrast -78, Highlights -100, Shadows +88, Blacks +30, Clarity +100, Vibrance +100 are very daring settings, to put it mildly. The new version reduces some of these values – Contrast +5, Highlights -100, Shadows +64, Blacks +30, Clarity +25, Vibrance +60. Honestly I think that reducing the highlights by more that 50 is almost always problematic (better use additional local reduction, if necessary); Shadows > 50 is rarely needed, but can be useful in rare cases; I almost never raise the blacks (only use negative values like -5 to -20 here if appropriate); I used to use values like Clarity +15, but today apply Clarity only locally, where needed; Vibrance +60 is still very daring and would already be sufficient to say that the result will very probably look quite unreal (typical values are around 10, rarely 20). Do with these remarks what you want; you can ignore them; I just want to give you a hint which settings may cause an artificial look. – Aristeas (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC) @W.carter: I remember your excellent hints on such settings; maybe you could add a short comment on the tasteful use of Clarity and Vibrance? Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- It looks to me like how my pictures look if I lift the shadows too far in Camera RAW, so that the picture has no pure black left. Cmao20 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Thu 24 Apr → Tue 29 Apr Fri 25 Apr → Wed 30 Apr Sat 26 Apr → Thu 01 May Sun 27 Apr → Fri 02 May Mon 28 Apr → Sat 03 May Tue 29 Apr → Sun 04 May
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Sun 20 Apr → Tue 29 Apr Mon 21 Apr → Wed 30 Apr Tue 22 Apr → Thu 01 May Wed 23 Apr → Fri 02 May Thu 24 Apr → Sat 03 May Fri 25 Apr → Sun 04 May Sat 26 Apr → Mon 05 May Sun 27 Apr → Tue 06 May Mon 28 Apr → Wed 07 May Tue 29 Apr → Thu 08 May
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.
- 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/April 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- 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/April 2025.
- 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
- 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/April 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.