Commons:秀逸な画像の推薦

現在の候補へスキップ 現在の除外候補へスキップ

ここにある画像は秀逸な画像への候補画像です。 今日の一枚とは異なりますのでご注意ください。

下記へスキップ：

• 作品を推薦する
• 画像のガイドライン
• 現在の秀逸な画像の候補
• 秀逸な画像からの除外
• 現在の除外候補
• 秀逸な画像の候補での方針
• 目次

概要

推薦にあたって

推薦者のためのガイドライン

まずはじめに、『秀逸な画像ガイドライン』、『画像のガイドライン』をお読みください。

ここでは推薦画像の評価を受ける・する際の必要事項を要約して紹介します。

• 解像度 - 200万ピクセル以下の写真画像は、特別な理由が無い限り却下されます。1,600 x 1,200 ピクセル（1.92メガピクセル）は200万ピクセルには届いていない事にご注意ください。

コモンズに置かれた画像は一般的なＰＣモニターのみで閲覧されるとは限らず、プリントアウトや高解像度モニターで表示される可能性もあります。将来的にもどのような機器が用いられるようになるかは誰にも予想出来ないので、推薦画像が可能な限り高い解像度を保っている事は重要な事なのです。

• スキャン画像 - 公式な方針ではありませんが、Help:スキャニングページで各種様々な画像を準備するための有用なアドバイスが提供されています。

• フォーカス - 通常、重要な被写体は全て焦点が合っていなければいけません。

• 前景と背景 - 前景や背景に主題ではない物が写り込むと、それは“余計なもの”になり得ます。前景にある物が主題の重要な部分を隠していないか、背景にあるものが構図を損ねていないか（例：後ろの街灯が人物の頭の上から生えているように見える、等）を確認しましょう。

• 全体品質 - 推薦される画像には高い技術品質が要求されます。

• デジタル補正 - 見る人を欺いてはいけません。写真画像のキズ・ホコリ等を修正する、良い編集、故意に人を騙す目的でない限り、デジタル補正は一般的に歓迎されます。例を挙げると、色合い/露出補正、シャープ/ボカシ、遠近感歪み補正、トリミング（切り取り）等がこれにあたります。背景に写り込んだ余計な物を取り除く等のさらに大がかりな修正は、{{Retouched picture}}テンプレートを画像ページへ貼付け、修正した旨を記述しましょう。記述漏れや記述ミスがある等、主題を不正確に見せる編集は決して受け入れられません。

• 価値 - 『全ての画像の中でも特に際立ち、最も価値のある画像』が我々の大きな目標です。秀逸な画像はそれぞれの分野の中でも別格でなけらばならず、故に次の点に留意して下さい。
  • たいていの夕日は美しく見えますが、そういう画像のほとんどは他の夕日画像と大差ありません。
  • 夜景は美しいですが、普通は日中に撮影された写真の方がより詳細を見せてくれます。
  • 必ずしも『美しさに価値がある』わけではありません。

技術的側面では『露出』、『構図』、『動感表現』、『被写界深度』等を見ます。

• 露出とはシャッタースピードと絞りとの組み合わせの事を言い、適切なトーンカーブが見せる陰影〜ハイライトが有用なディティールを描写します。これをラティチュード（露光寛容度）と言い、このラティチュードの陰影〜ハイライトの領域内において、画像を暗め、中庸、明るめに作る事が出来ますが、デジタルカメラ及びデジタル画像はこのラティチュードの範囲がフィルムに比べて狭いです。ディティールの欠損した影部分は必ずしも「悪い」わけではなく、実際にその様な効果が望ましい場合（部分）もあります。ただしディティールの欠損したハイライト部分が大きく面積を占めるのは良くありません。

• 構図とは画像画面内での各要素の配置の事を言います。“三分割法”は構図作成には良い方法で、美術学校でも教えられています。まず、画像に水平線と垂直線をそれぞれ２本引き、画像を水平・垂直方向とも３分割します。主題を中央に配置するとたいていは画面に面白味を欠き、水平線と垂直線が交差する４つの交点の内どれか１つに主題を置いた方が良い画面になるでしょう。地平線は画面を半分に切ってしまうので、通常は地平線を中央に配置するべきではありません。上寄り、若しくは下寄りに配置させる方が良いでしょう。主たる考え方としては空間を上手に使い、躍動感・臨場感のある画面を作るという事です。

• 動感表現 - ここでは被写体の「動き」を表現する手法を紹介します。動きのある被写体は止まって見えるか、もしくはブレて写りますが、これらはどちらの方が良いとは必ずしも言えず、どのような表現意図を持っているかによります。「動感」は主題と共に写り込んでいる他の背景等との関係で表現されます。例えばレーシングカーの撮影。車と背景とが共に止まって見えては、見る側にスピード感は伝わってきません。　なので撮影手法によって車は画面内で止まっているように写り、かつ背景をブレさせることでスピード感が表現され、このような手法を「パンニング（流し撮り）」と呼びます。一方で、背景と共に止まって撮られた高く跳躍したバスケットボール選手は、これは決定的瞬間の「不自然」なポーズになり、これも良い写真になり得るでしょう。

• 被写界深度（DOF）とは主題の前側から後ろ側までのフォーカスエリアの事を言います。被写界深度は全ての画像で明解な意図のもと選択され、深い、または浅い被写界深度は、画像に品質を与えもし、また損なわせもします。浅い被写界深度は、主題を他の被写体から切り離し、見せたい被写体に注目を集めることが出来ます。深い被写界深度は空間を強調させる事が出来ます。広角（短焦点）レンズは深い被写界深度、逆に望遠（長焦点）レンズは浅い被写界深度が得られる傾向があります。また絞りを絞り込むと被写界深度は深く、解放すると浅い被写界深度が得られます。

グラフィック要素では形状、ボリューム、色、テクスチャー、遠近感、バランス、比率 等を見ます。

• 形状とは主題に対する輪郭線、及び形状を言います。

• ボリュームとは主題の立体感に対する品質を言います。立体感は横からのライティングで表現出来、反対に正面からのライティングは被写体を平坦に見せる傾向があり、不向きとされています。自然光の中でベストな光を得るには、早朝か、もしくは夕方の日の光が良いでしょう。

• 色は大変重要で、強すぎる色合いは好ましくありません。

• テクスチャーとは主題の表面材質の描写性に於ける品質を言います。表面材質は横からのライティングにより強調され、手に触れて伝わるかのような質感を与えます。

• 遠近感とは、画像の画面内若しくは外にある消失点で繋がる放射状の直線、これに沿った形で現れる「角度」により表現されます。

• バランスでは画像の画面内での重心が左右均衡か、若しくは片方に寄る等適切な配置が成されているかを見ます。

• 比率では画面の大きさに対する被写体の大きさを見ます。一般的に、小さな被写体は小さく写真に表現してしまう傾向にありますが、相応しい撮影手法により小さな被写体を実寸とは逆に大きく見せる事が可能です。例えば、小さな花を大きな山よりも大きく見る事が出来ます。この手法を指して「倒置法」と呼びます。

主題の全ての要素を画像に盛込む必要はありません。多くの写真はそれぞれの個性で評価出来ます。すなわち、画像の色やテクスチャー等々により判断出来ます。

• 『象徴性か妥当性か』　ー　『秀逸な画像』ではしばしばこのようなテーマで意見論争が起こる傾向にあります。技術的・品質的には出来の悪い写真でも極めて撮影困難な被写体を捉えた写真は、凡庸な被写体を写した品質的に良い写真よりも評価されます。もちろん撮影困難な被写体を写し、かつ品質も良い写真は極めて価値の高い写真と言えます。

画像は時に撮影者と評価者、若しくはどちらか片方の文化的な偏りが見られます。画像の意図は画像そのものの文化的背景により評価されるべきであり、評価者の文化的背景に依存してはいけません。イメージは人に語りかけ、そして慈しみ、怒り、拒絶、幸せ、悲しみ等の感情を喚起させる力を持っています。良い写真から与えられる心地よさには限りがありません。

画像のガイドラインを事前に読めば、あなたの推薦が成就する可能性を最大限に引き伸ばしてくれるでしょう。

新規推薦

推薦に値する価値があると考えられる画像を作った、または見つけたならば、その画像に適切な説明とライセンスが与えられているかを確認し、以下に従ってください。

ステップ１：画像名（接頭Image:を含む）を下のテキストボックス内の文字列の後にコピー＆ペースト、正しく Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg と記入されているかを確認し、続いて『作品を推薦』ボタンをクリックします。

ステップ２：ページ編集画面上にある指示に従い必要箇所を付記、ページを保存してください。

ステップ３：ステップ２で作成したページへのリンクをFeatured picture candidates/candidate listへ手動で挿入します。ページ編集をクリックし、候補リスト最上部に以下の書式で推薦画像へのリンクを加えます。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg}}

投票

投票には以下のテンプレートを使用します：

• {{支持}}または{{Support}} （ Support、 Support),
• {{反対}}または{{Oppose}} （ Oppose、 Oppose),
• {{中立}}または{{Neutral}} ( Neutral、 Neutral),
• {{コメント}}または{{Comment}} ( Comment、 Comment),
• 情報：{{Info}} ( Info),
• 質問：{{Question}} ( Question).

テンプレート{{FPX|理由}}を用いて、推薦画像が秀逸な画像の推薦に相応しくない旨を指摘出来ます。テンプレートの「理由」部分に、秀逸な画像には明確に値しない事の説明を書き加えます（可能ならば英語で）。

あなたが何故その画像を好むか、または好まないか、特に( Supportや( Opposeの投票をする際は簡単な理由を加えましょう。また署名（~~~~）も忘れずに。匿名投票は受け付けられません。

秀逸な画像からの除外

時も経ればやがて『秀逸な画像』の基準も変わります。かつては“充分に価値に値する”と決定されたであろう画像も、その価値は普遍ではありません。ここでは「もはや『秀逸な画像』に値しない」と考えられる画像をリストアップします。リストされた画像へは、{{Keep}}  Keep 及び {{維持}}  Keep （＝『秀逸な画像』に値する）、または{{Delist}}  Delist 及び {{除外}}  Oppose （＝『秀逸な画像』に値しない）を投票します。

あなたが『秀逸な画像』の価値基準に値しないと考える画像があれば、除外候補として提出できます。除外したい画像の画像名（接頭Image:を含む）を下のテキストボックスの文字列の後にコピー＆ペーストします。

あなたが作成した新規除外候補のページに以下を加えます。

• 画像の作者、投稿者等の出所情報。
• その画像の“過去の秀逸な画像への推薦”ページへのリンク（画像ページの「リンク節」に表示されています）。
• あなたが除外と考える理由とあなたの署名。

次に、Commons:Featured picture candidates/removalを編集し、下記の書式で作成した除外候補のページのリンクを手動で最上段に挿入します。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:除外画像名.jpg}}

秀逸な画像の候補での方針

総則

1. 投票期間を終えた後、結果は推薦日時から数えて10日後（下記タイムテーブル参照）に決定します。投票期間は推薦日時から数えて9日と23時間59分です。１０日、またはそれを超えた投票はカウントされません。
2. 匿名寄稿者による推薦を歓迎します。
3. 匿名寄稿者による議論への参加を歓迎します。
4. 匿名寄稿者による投票はカウントされません。
5. 推薦者票は投票へはカウントされません。支持は明示的かつ言明される必要があります。
6. 推薦者は自身の推薦をいつでも取り下げる事が出来ます。推薦を取り下げるには "I withdraw my nomination" （推薦を取り下げます）と書くか、テンプレート {{withdraw|~~~~}} を加えます。
7. ウィキメディア・コモンズのプロジェクトの目的は、全てのウィキメディアプロジェクト（将来的なプロジェクト含む）に於いて自由に利用可能な画像を集積するセントラル・データベースを提供することである、ということを忘れないでください。セントラル・データベースは単純にウィキメディアの保管庫と言うわけではなく、また『秀逸な画像』等のプロジェクトに応じた判断をされるべきではありません。
8. 推薦日から数えて５日間支持を受けられなかった画像（推薦者票含まず）は候補リストから外されます。（下記タイムテーブル参照）
9. テンプレート{{FPX}}が貼られた画像は、テンプレート{{FPX}}の適用後は推薦者以外の支持票が無い限り、48時間後に候補リストから外されます。

秀逸と除外のルール

候補画像は下記必要事項に準じて秀逸な画像に認定されます。

1. 適切なライセンス情報が添付されている。
2. 最低５票以上の支持票を得ている。
3. 支持：反対比率が2:1 (賛成が3分の2の過半数)以上である。
4. ２つの同様な画像での異なったバージョンは同時に『秀逸な画像』へは認定されず、より支持票の多かった一枚を認定します。

除外ルールでは、投票期間、及びリストから外される期間は秀逸ルールと同じ期間を取ります。除外候補提出後５日間で提出者以外の  Delist （ Oppose）票が得られなかった候補は、５日間ルールが適用され、候補リストから外されます。

常連ユーザーが推薦・投票の完了方法に従って、推薦投票を閉じることがあります。終了方法に関してはCommons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finishedを参照。

何よりも礼儀を忘れずに

どうか、あなたが評価するその画像が「人の作品」であることを忘れないでください。「これはヒドイ」、「こんなのキライだ」と言ったような表現は避けましょう。もしあなたが『反対』に票を投じなければならないのなら、思いやりを忘れずに。また、あなたの話す英語は、また誰か他の人の話す英語とは同じではないでしょう。慎重に言葉を選んでください。

それでは良い評価を。そして、全てのルールは壊すことが出来るという事を忘れないでください。

関連項目

• 候補リストの編集はこちら：Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
• 日付順秀逸な画像リスト：Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological
• 秀逸な画像候補アーカイブ：Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log
• 推薦・投票の完了方法：Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished
• 基礎英語による写真・画像用語解説
• 秀逸な画像の候補リスト
• Photography critiques（画像評論）
• Help:スキャニング

秀逸な画像の候補

purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates

File:Webysther 20170619072151 - Pedra do baú e a direita Vale do Paiol Grande.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 03:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20170619072151 - Pedra do baú e a direita Vale do Paiol Grande.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20170619072151 - Pedra do baú e a direita Vale do Paiol Grande.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Webysther (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great!--Ermell (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support impressive. Charles (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per others. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20150906183737 - Rio São Francisco, Xique-xique - Bahia.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 02:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20150906183737 - Rio São Francisco, Xique-xique - Bahia.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20150906183737 - Rio São Francisco, Xique-xique - Bahia.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by User:Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Webysther (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just a sunset. Charles (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Umeda Sky Building, Osaka, November 2016 -01.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 20:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Umeda Sky Building, Osaka, November 2016 -01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Umeda Sky Building, Osaka, November 2016 -01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Japan
•  Info Umeda Sky Building, designed by Hiroshi Hara and completed in 1993, is the nineteenth-tallest building in Osaka Prefecture, Japan, and one of the city's most recognizable landmarks. It consists of two 40-story towers (173m) that connect at their two uppermost stories, with bridges and an escalator crossing the wide atrium-like space in the center. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Really cool! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very good.--Ermell (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Image:Junge Kohlmeise (Parus major) kurz nach dem Verlassen des Nistkastens.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Junge Kohlmeise (Parus major) kurz nach dem Verlassen des Nistkastens.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Junge Kohlmeise (Parus major) kurz nach dem Verlassen des Nistkastens.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info created by W. Pfahler - uploaded by W. Pfahler - nominated by Naturbild -- W. Pfahler (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- W. Pfahler (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 00:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - The top and bottom crops could be more generous, but I like the bird and the composition, otherwise, and it's especially nice to see its talons curled around the branch. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very tight crop and a not very charming illumination.--Ermell (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunate pose, crop too tight, blown highlights, very noisy background. Charles (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per other opposers. --Cayambe (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Piéride du réséda ( Pontia daplidice) au Lac sud de Tunis.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 12:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Piéride du réséda ( Pontia daplidice) au Lac sud de Tunis.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Piéride du réséda ( Pontia daplidice) au Lac sud de Tunis.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info Pontia daplidice (Bath white) created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by El Golli Mohamed -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like it a lot but we have to do something about that vivid CA on his legs (Or is that natural?) Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not at all sharp anywhere. Charles (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nationalmuseum -- 2017 -- 1473-9.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 10:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nationalmuseum -- 2017 -- 1473-9.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nationalmuseum -- 2017 -- 1473-9.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm sorry, but the cloud spoils the symmetry. --A.Savin 15:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• May be we have different opinions. ;-) IMO the clouds are like a cream hood. They show, it is natural. --XRay ^talk 16:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 00:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per A. Savin; also there's this sort of HDR halo effect visible. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Cloud is a good reference point Albertus teolog (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20160207091237 - Jiboia Boa constrictor constrictor.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 23:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20160207091237 - Jiboia Boa constrictor constrictor.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20160207091237 - Jiboia Boa constrictor constrictor.jpg

1326

897

346

321

3952

2470

Unnatural blue fringe.

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
•  Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing extraordinary here. Yann (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very visible chromatic aberration on the body of the snimal, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Cayambe, That is not CA but Structural coloration on the snake's scales, which is caught rather well here. --cart-Talk 15:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• @ cart: ok for this. But it looks very unnatural and unattractive here. See my annotation in the image. --Cayambe (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Its is really natural, serious. Is a skin condition affects some snakes exposed to sun. [1] -- Webysther (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not saying if it looks attractive or not, just explaining what it is. Some may find it cool and others may think it ruins the photo, that is up to the individual viewer. --cart-Talk 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose The surroundings are too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Zebra 2013 10 06 1274.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 05:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Zebra 2013 10 06 1274.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zebra 2013 10 06 1274.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
•  Info All by me -- Alandmanson (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alandmanson (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 09:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice, but small. Yann (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info Oops! Sorry; high-res version uploaded --Alandmanson (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    •  Question Have more than high? ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      •  Info Nope - this is a full-res crop. --Alandmanson (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I like it. --Ermell (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support PumpkinSky talk 17:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I like the symmetry. Charles (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Drinking buddies at the watering hole ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Panoramic view of Kata-Tjuta in the early morning.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic view of Kata-Tjuta in the early morning.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic view of Kata-Tjuta in the early morning.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
• Kata Tjuta, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Northern Territory, Australia
•  Info created & uploaded by Dimageau (Wiki Loves Earth 2017 in Australia) - nominated by Seb26 -- seb26 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- seb26 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but this looks more like a painting than a photograph.--Peulle (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support nice light, interesting colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC) I change my vote to  Oppose, because quality. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Alchemist-hp, can you tell me why this nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lagangarbh cottage with Buachaille Etive Mòr.jpg got an oppose from you for a tiny amount of sharpening halo, and yet this mobile-phone-panorama, which is one of the poorest technically I've seen in a very long while at FPC, gets your support? Please can you look at it again, so we can FPX this. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Colin: you are right. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Strong posterisation, quality problem, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Terrible technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Aleksander Uurits. Portrait of a Lady. TKM 0088M.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aleksander Uurits. Portrait of a Lady. TKM 0088M.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aleksander Uurits. Portrait of a Lady. TKM 0088M.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
•  Info created by Aleksander Uurits - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Info Artwork by A. Uurits (1888-1918). "Portrait of a Lady" (1917).
•  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares).jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 22:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blurred a bit and not so sharp. Just average quality, no WOW for me, sorry. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

another revenge vote from George. Charles (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, don't take offense. There is no "revenge" anyway. You can see my support votes of Your nominations here and here and here and more. Very friendly, -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, George. I'm too touchy today! Charles (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

All OK now, have a good day! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Lack of sharpness. Sorry. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 09:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support What's sharp is what needs to be sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Moheen El Golli Mohamed (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Turbo sarmaticus 01.JPG

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 21:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Turbo sarmaticus 01.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turbo sarmaticus 01.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones,_shells_and_fossils#Class_:_Gastropoda
•  Info created by User:Llez - nominated by User:Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support The depth and sharpness are excellent, the lighting is good and it illustrates the subject matter well.-- Peulle (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for the nomination --Llez (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. Interesting subject, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Peblinge-See, Søpavillonen -- 2017 -- 1453.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kopenhagen (DK), Peblinge-See, Søpavillonen -- 2017 -- 1453.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kopenhagen (DK), Peblinge-See, Søpavillonen -- 2017 -- 1453.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support A nice image with colours and the reflections give a suitable wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Isn't there a better viewpoint to eliminate the horrible building on the right? Charles (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but the "white" of the building is too bright (burned out) and unsharp for me, otherwise very nice. Can you try please to rework this image from the raw? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed @Alchemist-hp: Thank you for your hint. I just made some improvements in the white areas. --XRay ^talk 05:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• ha, thanks, now  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Another good water-reflection pic. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support. Lovely, and I think that cropping out the building on the right wouldn't improve the picture, because of what you'd have to cut off to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Пешна (4862122015).jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 10:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Пешна (4862122015).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Пешна (4862122015).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Nikolovskii - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice idea and composition. Please upload a better resolution. --XRay ^talk 15:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I have uploaded a version with higher resolution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose I can't see any reason to feature this. Charles (talk)
•  Oppose the white edges ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Clearly oversharpened, per Alchemist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Morning in Langtang.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 09:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Morning in Langtang.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morning in Langtang.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Q-lieb-in - uploaded by Q-lieb-in - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice composition and colors. Please add geo location and upload a better resolution. --XRay ^talk 15:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, although it would be nice to see a slightly larger version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Stunning image - but then I am a sucker for repeated mountain ridges! For me the pixel number is not an issue, but I would love to fly to the spot on Google Maps - geo location would definitely add to the value of the image. --Alandmanson (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose At only 3.7MP, 40% linear resolution compared to 24MP camera, this is too small imo for a landscape FP in 2017. Please upload a full size image for FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Alandmanson (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.12.-11-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 05:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.12.-11-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.12.-11-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata# : Aeshnidae (Hawker dragonflies)
•  Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hockei (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm biased of course, but does this image File:Southern hawker dragonfly (Aeshna cyanea) female.JPG not show the dragonfly better? Charles (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much random shadows everywhere. We don't have so much of them in other FPs of this type. -- Pofka (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Pofka. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 04:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 02.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural The Netherlands
•  Info Walking tour of the Balloërveld. Cycle path next to the sandpath. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but boring and uninteresting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I also think that it looks like a casual shot with a B&W effect. -- Pofka (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Araçari-poca.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 00:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Araçari-poca.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Araçari-poca.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  weak support technically not perfect but impressive enough --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support Quality of the bird is doubtful, but probably could fit minimum requirements. -- Pofka (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Background is working at cross-purposes to the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  weak support per Martin -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment It's too dark at the moment and the bits of tree, as Daniel says, are off-putting. Charles (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment What about categorization, location, things like that?--Peulle (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mouette rieuse en vol au lac sud de Tunis.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 22:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mouette rieuse en vol au lac sud de Tunis.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mouette rieuse en vol au lac sud de Tunis.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info Chroicocephalus ridibundus ( Black-headed Gull ) created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by User:El Golli Mohamed -- El Golli Mohamed (talk)-- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's not very sharp for a very common bird. The sky is dull. There are better images in the category gallery. Charles (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, pace Charles, who has a reasonable argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Reminds me of my gull. --A.Savin 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  weak oppose Sorry, but the most important part, the head, as well as the upper front body, are a bit too washed out. PumpkinSky talk 17:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose there seem to be better images of that bird. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Harebells by a road.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 21:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Harebells by a road.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harebells by a road.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
•  Info A "star" harebell with its "chorus line". Last attempt with a more innovative way of photographing plants, after this I'll go back to the old "safe" style. All by me, --cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'd go back to the old "safe" style! Composition/background doesn't work. Charles (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Январское побережье.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 18:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Январское побережье.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Январское побережье.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created and uploaded by Андрей Кровлин - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 19:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Looks extraterrestrial. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support This image definitely has huge wow factor for me - it also looks to have been taken under challenging conditions.--Peulle (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Tones and textures… ♥ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Lovely. For this kind of camera a better resolution would be nice. And it looks like JPEG artifacts or unsharpness (at the right). --XRay ^talk 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral It saddens me not to support this, but at least author could have used a better downsampling algorithm (which I think are the JPEG artefacts mentioned above)... Looks like a simple "mean value" one... - Benh (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Is it just me or the colors seem rather unnatural. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per others, in spite of the criticisms, which may be valid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:De la floraison à la fructification (2).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 15:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:De la floraison à la fructification (2).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:De la floraison à la fructification (2).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Asterales
•  Info All by Deniev Dagun (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose; just doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image is unique in a way, as it seems to focus on imperfection rather than the typical crop-photo-esque exactness often strived for by many photographers. Despite this, the photograph technical flaws that can't be overlooked. The depth of field is too shallow, resulting in too much area being out of focus, and the area that is in focus still could be sharper. Along with that, the colors and exposure aren't quite right: there are several places with notable clipping, and IMO the blue sky is a bit dominating over the subject (though that is hard to control). Overall it was a good concept, but with subpar execution. Sorry. WClarke 02:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Interesting, but not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -09.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 14:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -09.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -09.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Maldives
•  Info A last summer greeting from Thudufushi, a vacation resort in the Ari Atoll, Maldives. This time a deliberately touristy motif with pretty much everything the tired westerner desires - a white beach, the azure sea, a shady palm, and a cocktail bar (the large stilt house)... :-) All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak, regretful oppose Seems to have involved a lot of thought and effort, but ... still looks like the average website background image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 00:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mezquita Shah, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 06:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita Shah, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita Shah, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
•  Info Interior view of the Shah Mosque, renamed to Imam Mosque, after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, located in the northern section of the Grand Bazaar in Tehran, Iran. It was built to the order of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar of Persia during the Qajar period, as one of several such symbols of legitimacy for the new dynasty. At the time of completion, the mosque was considered to be the most significant architectural monument in Tehran. All by me, Poco² 06:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 06:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Fascinating details.--Ermell (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great detail. Unusual position (to one side rather than central). -- Colin (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 07:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• I  Support another of your beautiful pictures of a great Iranian mosque, as usual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support impressive! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very subtle in some ways. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. -- Pofka (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 15:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.10.05.-05-Lauten-Weschnitz--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 05:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2016.10.05.-05-Lauten-Weschnitz--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.10.05.-05-Lauten-Weschnitz--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata# : Aeshnidae (Hawker dragonflies)
•  Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hockei (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Background not as good as your exisiting FP File:2013.07.01-21-Wustrow-Neu Drosedow-Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg Charles (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles; the background is too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe you're right. I was sceptical before I've nominated it. But not because of the background but of the dry leaves.  --Hockei (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Polaroid Lightmixer 630 SL BW 2017-07-01 18-44-42.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 13:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Polaroid Lightmixer 630 SL BW 2017-07-01 18-44-42.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polaroid Lightmixer 630 SL BW 2017-07-01 18-44-42.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support an obsolete technology -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Very weak oppose I would like to like it but that crop of the strap in the background gets in the way. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think the choice of base/background grey is a poor one. Generally pure white is most useful for a wide variety of purposes, though many photo images also enjoy a pure black background for such items too. The result is an image that just looks under exposed. It isn't very clean either -- if you examine our best photo/game FPs then you'll see they are meticulously clean. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  weak oppose I actually like the grey background, as it interplays nicely with the several different types of grey of the camera. It's good enough on a technical level – including lighting, which turns out to be a problem in similar nominations quite often. The problem is: I am not Wow-ed. To my mind, there is a certain level of perfection required to bring a very good product photograph like this to "wow, this is awesome" level. For example, cleaning your subject thoroughly can be quite tedious, but it's definitely worth the effort (compare e.g. the works by User:Evan-Amos). The strap should be either made a feature of the image or hidden behind the camera. The crop is too tight for me, especially at the top and bottom. There are some blown highlights on the top. These are of course details that could be unavoidable in most other kinds of photographs. But in a controlled studio environment the photographer has the chance to spend some extra-time on perfection, and that's what I personally expect from a Commons FP (but not necessarily Wikipedia FP) in this category. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 03.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 04:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 03.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 03.jpg

344

115

3142

1792

3824

1913

suggestion for crop if in color

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural Netherlands
•  Info Dredged wood that has lain for years underwater.

The wood on this image has been under water for years. It has been removed from the lake during dredging operations. created All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose A more selective crop (see note) might work better here and B&W is not doing this documentation photo any favors. With color, the waterlogged logs might have contrasted well with the green(?) grass and plants and giving the viewer a clue as to what this is. In B&W it looks to much like ordinary burnt firewood. --cart-Talk 09:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Done. Photo cut out. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Question: this picture is better? --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's better, but the plants were not as interesting as I hoped for. I think that for such an image to work, you need some extraordinary feature in the wood, dramatic light or something beside the log that is beautiful, creating a contrast. Sort of like this log. --cart-Talk 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose why B&W??? Boring. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak  Support IMO a good idea to use black-and-white to improve the structures. --XRay ^talk 15:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.09.-07-Bossee Felde--Gemeine Becherjungfer-Maennchen.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 18:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.09.-07-Bossee Felde--Gemeine Becherjungfer-Maennchen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.09.-07-Bossee Felde--Gemeine Becherjungfer-Maennchen.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Coenagrionidae (Narrow-winged damselflies)
•  Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support High quality, except I don't like the crop - too tight at the right and too much at the bottom and top. Charles (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support as per Charles. Daphne Lantier 19:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Following the positive votes above @Hockei:, do you wish to change the crop? Charles (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 Info The raw photo is currently not present for me. Independent from that I like the crop as it is. The stem waving in the wind shows the fragility of everything. I don't know at the moment what exists right and left. Either disturbing thinks or uninteresting emptiness. --Hockei (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, but a little wider crop would improve it. -- Pofka (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I agree that the crop could be slightly better, but this is still of high quality.--Peulle (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lucanus cervus male 2017 G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 16:52:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lucanus cervus male 2017 G1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lucanus cervus male 2017 G1.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support--Peulle (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose This seems a strange angle to take the photo with the ends of the pincers out of focus. Charles (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just doesn't wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Probably wrong angle, which doesn't create wow effect. -- Pofka (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 07:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info Bottom view of one of the iwans of the Agha Bozorg mosque, a historical mosque in Kashan, Iran. The mosque, located in the center of the city, was built in the late 18th century by master-mimar Ustad Haj Sa'ban-ali. The mosque consists of two large iwans, one in front of the mihrab and the other by the entrance and the courtyard in the middle. All by me, Poco² 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --SDKmac (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now: I see chromatic aberrations on the wires up by the blue sky. Come on, Poco, you're such a good 'tog I expected you to fix stuff like that ... :P --Peulle (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

   CA removed Peulle, just didn't see it... Poco² 12:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you got it all? I'm still seeing some green. Maybe the cache is not refreshed; I'll wait and check again this evening.--Peulle (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I got it all at 100% view, but saw room for improvement at 200%, so there you are :) Poco² 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good. :)  Support.--Peulle (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Peulle, the FPC page reminds voters not to judge the photographer. We are here to review the image, which at 44 MP with sub-pixel CA in the original image, is really imo quite a petty reason to oppose. If this image was a Flickr upload, where minor issues generally don't get fixed, would you have opposed? I would hope not. Please leave such pixel peeping "improvements" as a polite request rather than a oppose. Your oppose clearly interrupted the flow of support votes, so is not without harm, and it encourages other voters to pixel peep themselves. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your question is 'yes'. I oppose any image that has such clear CA.--Peulle (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only suggest you read some books on what makes a great photograph. You might then notice that (absence of) CA does not figure in the criteria. Please consider that your oppose votes on such will actually deter good photographers from participating here, and that is not good for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Under the "color" section of the QI/FP guidelines, CA is listed as one of the issues/common problems and I have seen images rejected from both QIC and FP for this reason. In FP, this should of course be weighed against the criterion "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." On the voting issue, I have looked at the FP voting section and see that while there is a "request" template I admittedly could have used, you are contradicting yourself: you give the example that problems with flickr images would not be fixed, so how do you expect a "request" to have any effect in such circumstances? As for whether my vote would deter others from voting to support, I feel I cannot oblige you; I must have faith in other users' ability to judge for themselves. I vote the way I see fit, others will hopefully do the same. --Peulle (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

While chromatic aberration is indeed a flaw, we are not robots nor is the any requirement that an image is technically perfect, whatever that might mean. The "wow factor" get-out for low technical quality is intended for images far lower in technical quality than this. The kind of flaw you point out here is irrelevant. It's a kind of nit picky "improvement only visible if pixel peeping very closely on a 100dpi monitor at 100%". Stick a High DPI monitor on your desk for all our sakes and you might appreciate how utterly irrelevant a faint blue tinge on the edge of a black line on a 42mp image really is. I don't "contradict myself": I was rather assuming you were a reasonable person, and were only pointing out the CA because you knew Poco would fix it. My Flickr question was supposed to be rhetorical. Your response, that you feel the need to oppose a great image because of sub-pixel CA, is quite remarkable. I have seen, over the years, good photographers leave this project over votes like yours. So there's nothing theoretical about that. Don't base your judgement of makes a great image is based only on Commons Image Guidelines: buy some books. Digging your heals in and saying "I vote the way I see fit" is no attitude to have. I'm not asking you to follow my opinion on what is great, there are plenty great resources on photography, and absolutely none of them focus on CA. Please leave CA issues for when you next choose what prime lens to buy, and not for when selecting great images. At 44MP, this sort of nit picking just makes Commons look foolish, and really is a huge turn off for proper photographers. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't like your reasoning: it sounds like you're trying to pressure a fellow Commoner to vote the way you want, which is something I cannot accept. On the one hand, you're saying you don't want me to follow your opinion, but your whole line of reasoning definitely does: you want me to think the way you do - and I don't. As the Guidelines point out, different users may have a difference of opinion, which is the purpose of the voting system. I also disagree with your evaluation: these were not tiny CA barely visible by means of "pixel peeping", but clearly definable streaks of colour visible at 100% view. As for sources you want me to study, I use only one: the Commons FP/QI Guidelines. CA is listed as a possible problem and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Whether photography books say otherwise is simply not relevant to me. If you're suggesting that any Commoner who has not actively studied photography should not participate in this project, well, I disagree with you on that as well.--Peulle (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"visible at 100% view" == "pixel peeping". That's the definition. And it isn't a compliment. Peulle, the guidelines were written when many images uploaded to Commons were barely 2MP, and many from that age, if you view on a HD screen, will not even fill the monitor. So, worrying about people viewing at 5x magnification wasn't in the minds of that guideline. This image is 1.4 metres tall if viewed at 100dpi. And you are juding something only visible from close up. Do you think, if Poco got this on the cover of National Geographic, that you could see the CA even with a magnifying glass? There is more CA (and colour moire) in your last FP than in this one, and it is only 6MP (from a 24MP camera) vs this 44MP. So, downsizing and CA. Are you willing to delist your own 6MP FP, or accept you are being ridiculously and harmfully picky on a 44MP image? If that's a downsized image you got to FP, then you are being hypocritical to pick faults on Poco's generously full-size upload. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, now, among us, and if I've to be honest I do consider the CA comment (specially the second one) pixel-picking for such a big image. I've already participated in similar discussions of whether it is fair and healthy for the project to use oppose votes as pressure measure to get a fix for small flaws, and I still believe that this is not a good practice, specially when you all now that I'll fix all quality issues anybody addresses here. Poco² 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no CA that I can see in my bridge photo - it was removed in PS. Nor is it downsampled, it's cropped to get rid of the disturbing trees. Oh and @Poco: I didn't mean to pressure you; if the photo had gained enough votes even with my oppose that would have been fine by me - this is a democracy. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There is CA and colour moire to similar degree to Poco's earlier uploads. But to be completely fair here, you need to blow yours up to 250% so it is 41MP also. Then pixel-level flaws just jump out at you and there is no need to squint at the screen, whereas at 44MP Pocos's image is great. You believe in judging the images equally don't you? I magnify both images to same size on my desktop. Or do you think your 6MP image should not be examined as closely as a 44MP image? Perhaps you should judge Poco's image at 40% so it is similar size to yours? In other words, you are unfairly criticizing an image because (a) it was taken by a higher resolution camera and (b) generously uploaded at full size. If instead, we judge all images at FP equally, you need to find a balance between merely looking at it full screen and looking at it 100%. If you view everything at 100% then (a) you are only looking at a tiny part of the picture and (b) you are more likely to oppose technically superior images like this one simply because they are offered in higher resolution. And that's just daft, and quite harmful to this project. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point about high resolution possibly weighing up for flaws, but if you're saying we should not judge images at 100% anymore that's news to me. Oh and since you're a pro perhaps you can tell me what is the difference between CA and the remains of CA; I did remove it from my photo using software, so what wer're seeing is traces of the CA that used to be there. ...--Peulle (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think most people have worked this out, but clearly not everyone (especially at QI). Photographers often point out minor details that are only visible at 100% as suggestions for fixing because many of us are perfectionists and improve techniques, but that doesn't translate to those issues being something to oppose over. If you notice the FPC page only requires photos are of a "high technical quality" and goes on to list various aspects (focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field) to consider -- nowhere does it say that images must be judged at 100%. The "complete guidelines" are just that, guidelines, and mostly aimed at beginners in photography and are generally a bit out-of-date. Really I think the page should be archived and replaced with something shorter, and with separate teaching pages for beginners who don't know about JPG compression or CA. The CA/moire in your photo is getting out-of-scope for this FPC so ping me if you are interested. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Interesting image and great technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Almost an abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I like the thing with making the hanging lights appear like a coronet instead. --cart-Talk 09:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 07:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Eduard Wiiralt, Põrgu (1932).jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 22:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Eduard Wiiralt, Põrgu (1932).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eduard Wiiralt, Põrgu (1932).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
•  Info created by Eduard Wiiralt - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Info Eduard Wiiralt (1898–1954) is the most remarkable Estonian graphic artist and his etching Hell is one of his iconic works. Rights of that work are owned by Estonian Ministry of Culture who allowed the work under CC BY-SA 4.0. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Peulle (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 20:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info |c|u|n| by Laitche (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support As always! ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Clearly.--Peulle (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 21:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

 Support Excellent! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 07:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}}
•  Comment Not very much definition. The lens I guess is the limitation. Charles (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Benh (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Don't understand the voting here compared to this current nomination which has comparable sharpness and size of birds in pixels. Yet the other photo is a great picture and this one is not. The tree trunk is distracting and diagonal intersects the birds head. We already have a better FP: File:Kingfisher eating a tadpole.jpg with no distracting background at all. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree. This cannot compare with existing FP. Charles (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Really sorry but I agree completely with Colin. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Colin Poco² 22:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin. It's a pity because the quality is good and the right side of the image is optimal. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Question This is the part of FP I'm still unsure of; when images are similar. Should this be a "delist/replace" discussion? We have had several images of the same species of bird promoted before - just how similar do they have to be before they overlap?--Peulle (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's been an ongoing debate. People will never agree. In this case, I think they are dissimilar enough for both to be listed. PumpkinSky talk 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I guess we'll have to settle it democratically, then. Thanks to Colin for pointing it out and then people can decide for themselves.--Peulle (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Disputa de galho entre duas fêmeas de Saí-azul - Dacnis cayana.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 08:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Disputa de galho entre duas fêmeas de Saí-azul - Dacnis cayana.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Disputa de galho entre duas fêmeas de Saí-azul - Dacnis cayana.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info created and uploaded by Renato Augusto Martins, nominated by Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Another great work of yours Renato! Poco² 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I cannot find the focus point. You can correct me, but as far as I can see it isn't on the birds. --Hockei (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice shot, but out of focus and partly over-exposed. Charles (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. And we've got supports on less sharp OOF still ceilings, so I'm personally fine when there's slight issues on action shots. - Benh (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support Beautiful but out of focus. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per Benh. Too many votes looking at the pixels and not the picture imo. -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per Benh although I prefer downsampling(8MP) in this case. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I'm totally fine with an action shot not being perfect. It's good enought for me as FP. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Caminho das pedras.JPG

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 01:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Caminho das pedras.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caminho das pedras.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created and uploaded by Carolach - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - Sky is a little blotchy. Certainly OK for QI, but is it good enough for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose The view is nice but not outstanding comparing it many other FPs that make a difference thank to great ligthing or spectacular view. I don't see any of both here. The picture is also tilted in cw direction Poco² 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Pleasant but not outstanding as noted by Poco2. I think QI would be fine for it. -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 18:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info Sant'Andrea in Campo is a Romanesque style, Roman Catholic church in Montefiascone, province of Viterbo, Italy. he church is mentioned in documents from the year 853 as a church in Campo or in a rural location. The church while narrow and later within the town walls, had three naves. The portal and internal columns are Romanesque. All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- I like the colors. --Pine^✉ 05:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 06:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, although slightly asymmetrical --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Measured support per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not symmetrical, distortion on the left lamp ;), blown highlights, barrel distortion, over NRed. Below the church standard generally speaking. - Benh (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support though not exactly symmetrical (the photograph has its center between the 2nd and the 3rd row of tiles in the central aisle); that apart the photographs keep good resolution of details even with zoom it at its fullest. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Benh. Folks, do you really think this merits being featured along with the church interiors of people like Diliff? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Quai d'Alger, Sète cf01BW.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Quai d'Alger, Sète cf01BW.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quai d'Alger, Sète cf01BW.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose At first I thought this was an old classic photo, maybe from the 50s ... but it's not. That loses the wow factor for me. QI, sure. FP? Not for me, sorry. --Peulle (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support At first I thought this was just an old classic photo, maybe from the 50s ... but, hey, surprise, it's not! ;-) Great work! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Per Martin. PumpkinSky talk 14:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support With everything going on in this photo, B&W is definitely the right choice in this light. The artistic 'old school' feel to this is very nice. --cart-Talk 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 19:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose I like B&W sometimes, but the composition here doesn't wow me. --Pine^✉ 05:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support--XRay ^talk 19:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose. The bright left side of the tower at the bottom left ruins it for me. It's generally not a good idea to put eye-catching things at the edge of a composition, and the heightened contrast due to the B&W conversion makes it worse. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Peulle. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, this is just too busy for me: Busy cityscape, busy sky and high contrast. The signal-to-noise ratio is too low for me so to speak, I'm missing a clear subject. In this case, I think I'd prefer the color version, as the colors help me to separate the different elements of the scene. I'm certainly not opposed to B&W images at FPC in general – I'd love to see more of them being nominated here so by all means please keep them coming. --El Grafo (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Without B&W effect it would have absolutely no chance. It looks pleasant with that effect but still the scene is not exceptional. -- Pofka (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• A good photo, to be sure, but weak  Oppose per other opposers' remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Bisontea - Aizpitarteko leizeak.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bisontea - Aizpitarteko leizeak.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bisontea - Aizpitarteko leizeak.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created by Diego Garate Maidagan / Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Theklan (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacking in detail and sharpness - I know such shots are difficult but still. --Peulle (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral Certainly has some WOW, but it's a bit weak in terms of sharpness. I don't really understand the camera settings (F20 @ 1/80, ISO 200). Sure, the wall looks slightly curved, but I don't think it was necessary to stop down to F20 to get sufficient depth of field at 10mm? I'd certainly support it over at VIC, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp, and dark area at right is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Exceptional but lacks technical quality. Pity as it really had potential. -- Pofka (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Namibie Himba 0712a.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 10:09:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Namibie Himba 0712a.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Namibie Himba 0712a.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
•  Info created by Yves Picq - uploaded by Yves Picq - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- JukoFF (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Support I like this a lot; good capture as she looks at the camera just as she exits the hut.--Peulle (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

•  weak oppose The composition looks unbalanced to me. I think it would benefit from additional Lead room on the right, or at least a tighter crop on the other sides. Otherwise very nice! --El Grafo (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  weak oppose El Grafo is right - the lighting is also a bit unfortunate --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment We have very few images of this kind. So it is a pity that this picture has shortcomings (it looks tilt, left crop is not OK, etc.). Yann (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support Indeed it has issues but we really lack this kind of pictures and I think it could fit minimum requirements as the composition is really nice and quality is tolerable. -- Pofka (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Жизнь и Смерть у оз. Ожогино.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 10:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Жизнь и Смерть у оз. Ожогино.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Жизнь и Смерть у оз. Ожогино.jpg

2729

373

230

176

3288

4520

Bug

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info Sakha Republic - Russia. Created by Виктор Габышев - uploaded by Виктор Габышев - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- JukoFF (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral Can we get rid of that giant bug on the lens (at least, that's where I hope it is) between the upper tree branches? And do we really need to have such a dramatic title? "Life and death by Lake Ozhogino" ... OK, I get it, and it sort of fits the mood, but I think it's too much for this forum. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support --Laitche (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --AM (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel, and I also don't like the crops. The motif is great, however, so I'd love to see a somewhat wider view of it without an insect on the lens. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Woman fishing for shore crabs 5.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 08:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Woman fishing for shore crabs 5.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woman fishing for shore crabs 5.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
•  Info A woman fishing for shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) in Brofjorden at Holländaröd, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. Her technique is simple but effective. She has bait in small net bags on strings in the shallow water under a makeshift jetty. The bait attracts crabs and as soon as they climb onto the bag, she hauls all of it up and into her landing net. The crabs are collected in a bucket, later to be cooked and eaten. The complete series can be seen in the file's page. She is not bundled up to cover her identity in the photos, it was cold and windy on the fjord and this is how she looked. All by me, -- cart-Talk 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

* Oppose I'm sorry cart, the image's really interesting (I've never seen anyone fishing like that) and somehow also quite funny - but the main subject is just not very sharp... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, capturing a moment with a moving target, handheld, strong wind and light conditions changing all the time due to clouds, this is about as good as I can make it. Anyway, some additional Lightroom sharpness added. --cart-Talk 16:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

•  weak support Thanks for the explanation - and for adding a tad additional sharpness --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Weak support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support -- Pofka (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The sharpness problems exclude this photo as a FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 00:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates

File:Webysther 20170619072151 - Pedra do baú e a direita Vale do Paiol Grande.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 03:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20170619072151 - Pedra do baú e a direita Vale do Paiol Grande.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20170619072151 - Pedra do baú e a direita Vale do Paiol Grande.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Webysther (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great!--Ermell (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support impressive. Charles (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per others. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20150906183737 - Rio São Francisco, Xique-xique - Bahia.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2017 at 02:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20150906183737 - Rio São Francisco, Xique-xique - Bahia.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20150906183737 - Rio São Francisco, Xique-xique - Bahia.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by User:Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Webysther (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just a sunset. Charles (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Umeda Sky Building, Osaka, November 2016 -01.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 20:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Umeda Sky Building, Osaka, November 2016 -01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Umeda Sky Building, Osaka, November 2016 -01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Japan
•  Info Umeda Sky Building, designed by Hiroshi Hara and completed in 1993, is the nineteenth-tallest building in Osaka Prefecture, Japan, and one of the city's most recognizable landmarks. It consists of two 40-story towers (173m) that connect at their two uppermost stories, with bridges and an escalator crossing the wide atrium-like space in the center. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Really cool! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very good.--Ermell (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Image:Junge Kohlmeise (Parus major) kurz nach dem Verlassen des Nistkastens.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Junge Kohlmeise (Parus major) kurz nach dem Verlassen des Nistkastens.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Junge Kohlmeise (Parus major) kurz nach dem Verlassen des Nistkastens.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info created by W. Pfahler - uploaded by W. Pfahler - nominated by Naturbild -- W. Pfahler (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- W. Pfahler (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 00:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - The top and bottom crops could be more generous, but I like the bird and the composition, otherwise, and it's especially nice to see its talons curled around the branch. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very tight crop and a not very charming illumination.--Ermell (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunate pose, crop too tight, blown highlights, very noisy background. Charles (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per other opposers. --Cayambe (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Piéride du réséda ( Pontia daplidice) au Lac sud de Tunis.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 12:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Piéride du réséda ( Pontia daplidice) au Lac sud de Tunis.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Piéride du réséda ( Pontia daplidice) au Lac sud de Tunis.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info Pontia daplidice (Bath white) created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by El Golli Mohamed -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like it a lot but we have to do something about that vivid CA on his legs (Or is that natural?) Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not at all sharp anywhere. Charles (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nationalmuseum -- 2017 -- 1473-9.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 10:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nationalmuseum -- 2017 -- 1473-9.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kopenhagen (DK), Nationalmuseum -- 2017 -- 1473-9.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 10:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm sorry, but the cloud spoils the symmetry. --A.Savin 15:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• May be we have different opinions. ;-) IMO the clouds are like a cream hood. They show, it is natural. --XRay ^talk 16:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 00:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per A. Savin; also there's this sort of HDR halo effect visible. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Cloud is a good reference point Albertus teolog (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20160207091237 - Jiboia Boa constrictor constrictor.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 23:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20160207091237 - Jiboia Boa constrictor constrictor.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20160207091237 - Jiboia Boa constrictor constrictor.jpg

1326

897

346

321

3952

2470

Unnatural blue fringe.

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
•  Info created and uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing extraordinary here. Yann (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very visible chromatic aberration on the body of the snimal, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Cayambe, That is not CA but Structural coloration on the snake's scales, which is caught rather well here. --cart-Talk 15:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• @ cart: ok for this. But it looks very unnatural and unattractive here. See my annotation in the image. --Cayambe (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Its is really natural, serious. Is a skin condition affects some snakes exposed to sun. [2] -- Webysther (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not saying if it looks attractive or not, just explaining what it is. Some may find it cool and others may think it ruins the photo, that is up to the individual viewer. --cart-Talk 16:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose The surroundings are too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Zebra 2013 10 06 1274.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 05:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Zebra 2013 10 06 1274.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zebra 2013 10 06 1274.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
•  Info All by me -- Alandmanson (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alandmanson (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 09:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice, but small. Yann (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info Oops! Sorry; high-res version uploaded --Alandmanson (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    •  Question Have more than high? ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      •  Info Nope - this is a full-res crop. --Alandmanson (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I like it. --Ermell (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support PumpkinSky talk 17:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I like the symmetry. Charles (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Drinking buddies at the watering hole ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Panoramic view of Kata-Tjuta in the early morning.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic view of Kata-Tjuta in the early morning.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic view of Kata-Tjuta in the early morning.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
• Kata Tjuta, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Northern Territory, Australia
•  Info created & uploaded by Dimageau (Wiki Loves Earth 2017 in Australia) - nominated by Seb26 -- seb26 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- seb26 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but this looks more like a painting than a photograph.--Peulle (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support nice light, interesting colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC) I change my vote to  Oppose, because quality. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Alchemist-hp, can you tell me why this nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lagangarbh cottage with Buachaille Etive Mòr.jpg got an oppose from you for a tiny amount of sharpening halo, and yet this mobile-phone-panorama, which is one of the poorest technically I've seen in a very long while at FPC, gets your support? Please can you look at it again, so we can FPX this. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Colin: you are right. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Strong posterisation, quality problem, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Terrible technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Aleksander Uurits. Portrait of a Lady. TKM 0088M.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2017 at 00:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aleksander Uurits. Portrait of a Lady. TKM 0088M.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aleksander Uurits. Portrait of a Lady. TKM 0088M.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
•  Info created by Aleksander Uurits - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Info Artwork by A. Uurits (1888-1918). "Portrait of a Lady" (1917).
•  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares).jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 22:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heath fritillary (Melitaea athalia lachares).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blurred a bit and not so sharp. Just average quality, no WOW for me, sorry. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

another revenge vote from George. Charles (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, don't take offense. There is no "revenge" anyway. You can see my support votes of Your nominations here and here and here and more. Very friendly, -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, George. I'm too touchy today! Charles (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

All OK now, have a good day! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Lack of sharpness. Sorry. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 09:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support What's sharp is what needs to be sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Moheen El Golli Mohamed (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Turbo sarmaticus 01.JPG

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 21:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Turbo sarmaticus 01.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turbo sarmaticus 01.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones,_shells_and_fossils#Class_:_Gastropoda
•  Info created by User:Llez - nominated by User:Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support The depth and sharpness are excellent, the lighting is good and it illustrates the subject matter well.-- Peulle (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for the nomination --Llez (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. Interesting subject, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kopenhagen (DK), Peblinge-See, Søpavillonen -- 2017 -- 1453.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 15:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Kopenhagen (DK), Peblinge-See, Søpavillonen -- 2017 -- 1453.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kopenhagen (DK), Peblinge-See, Søpavillonen -- 2017 -- 1453.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support A nice image with colours and the reflections give a suitable wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Isn't there a better viewpoint to eliminate the horrible building on the right? Charles (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but the "white" of the building is too bright (burned out) and unsharp for me, otherwise very nice. Can you try please to rework this image from the raw? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed @Alchemist-hp: Thank you for your hint. I just made some improvements in the white areas. --XRay ^talk 05:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• ha, thanks, now  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Another good water-reflection pic. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support. Lovely, and I think that cropping out the building on the right wouldn't improve the picture, because of what you'd have to cut off to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Пешна (4862122015).jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 10:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Пешна (4862122015).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Пешна (4862122015).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Nikolovskii - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice idea and composition. Please upload a better resolution. --XRay ^talk 15:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I have uploaded a version with higher resolution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose I can't see any reason to feature this. Charles (talk)
•  Oppose the white edges ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Clearly oversharpened, per Alchemist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Morning in Langtang.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 09:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Morning in Langtang.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morning in Langtang.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Q-lieb-in - uploaded by Q-lieb-in - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice composition and colors. Please add geo location and upload a better resolution. --XRay ^talk 15:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, although it would be nice to see a slightly larger version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Stunning image - but then I am a sucker for repeated mountain ridges! For me the pixel number is not an issue, but I would love to fly to the spot on Google Maps - geo location would definitely add to the value of the image. --Alandmanson (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose At only 3.7MP, 40% linear resolution compared to 24MP camera, this is too small imo for a landscape FP in 2017. Please upload a full size image for FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Alandmanson (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.12.-11-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 05:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.12.-11-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.12.-11-Flemhuder See Quarnbek--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Weibchen.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata# : Aeshnidae (Hawker dragonflies)
•  Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hockei (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm biased of course, but does this image File:Southern hawker dragonfly (Aeshna cyanea) female.JPG not show the dragonfly better? Charles (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much random shadows everywhere. We don't have so much of them in other FPs of this type. -- Pofka (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Pofka. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 04:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 02.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural The Netherlands
•  Info Walking tour of the Balloërveld. Cycle path next to the sandpath. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but boring and uninteresting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I also think that it looks like a casual shot with a B&W effect. -- Pofka (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Araçari-poca.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2017 at 00:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Araçari-poca.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Araçari-poca.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info created and uploaded by Jairmoreirafotografia - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  weak support technically not perfect but impressive enough --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support Quality of the bird is doubtful, but probably could fit minimum requirements. -- Pofka (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Background is working at cross-purposes to the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  weak support per Martin -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment It's too dark at the moment and the bits of tree, as Daniel says, are off-putting. Charles (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment What about categorization, location, things like that?--Peulle (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mouette rieuse en vol au lac sud de Tunis.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 22:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mouette rieuse en vol au lac sud de Tunis.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mouette rieuse en vol au lac sud de Tunis.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info Chroicocephalus ridibundus ( Black-headed Gull ) created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by User:El Golli Mohamed -- El Golli Mohamed (talk)-- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's not very sharp for a very common bird. The sky is dull. There are better images in the category gallery. Charles (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, pace Charles, who has a reasonable argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Reminds me of my gull. --A.Savin 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  weak oppose Sorry, but the most important part, the head, as well as the upper front body, are a bit too washed out. PumpkinSky talk 17:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose there seem to be better images of that bird. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Harebells by a road.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 21:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Harebells by a road.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harebells by a road.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
•  Info A "star" harebell with its "chorus line". Last attempt with a more innovative way of photographing plants, after this I'll go back to the old "safe" style. All by me, --cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'd go back to the old "safe" style! Composition/background doesn't work. Charles (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Январское побережье.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 18:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Январское побережье.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Январское побережье.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created and uploaded by Андрей Кровлин - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 19:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Looks extraterrestrial. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support This image definitely has huge wow factor for me - it also looks to have been taken under challenging conditions.--Peulle (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Tones and textures… ♥ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Lovely. For this kind of camera a better resolution would be nice. And it looks like JPEG artifacts or unsharpness (at the right). --XRay ^talk 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral It saddens me not to support this, but at least author could have used a better downsampling algorithm (which I think are the JPEG artefacts mentioned above)... Looks like a simple "mean value" one... - Benh (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Is it just me or the colors seem rather unnatural. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per others, in spite of the criticisms, which may be valid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:De la floraison à la fructification (2).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 15:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:De la floraison à la fructification (2).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:De la floraison à la fructification (2).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Asterales
•  Info All by Deniev Dagun (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose; just doesn't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image is unique in a way, as it seems to focus on imperfection rather than the typical crop-photo-esque exactness often strived for by many photographers. Despite this, the photograph technical flaws that can't be overlooked. The depth of field is too shallow, resulting in too much area being out of focus, and the area that is in focus still could be sharper. Along with that, the colors and exposure aren't quite right: there are several places with notable clipping, and IMO the blue sky is a bit dominating over the subject (though that is hard to control). Overall it was a good concept, but with subpar execution. Sorry. WClarke 02:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Interesting, but not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -09.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 14:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -09.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diamonds Thudufushi Beach and Water Villas, May 2017 -09.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#Maldives
•  Info A last summer greeting from Thudufushi, a vacation resort in the Ari Atoll, Maldives. This time a deliberately touristy motif with pretty much everything the tired westerner desires - a white beach, the azure sea, a shady palm, and a cocktail bar (the large stilt house)... :-) All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak, regretful oppose Seems to have involved a lot of thought and effort, but ... still looks like the average website background image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 00:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mezquita Shah, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 06:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita Shah, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita Shah, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
•  Info Interior view of the Shah Mosque, renamed to Imam Mosque, after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, located in the northern section of the Grand Bazaar in Tehran, Iran. It was built to the order of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar of Persia during the Qajar period, as one of several such symbols of legitimacy for the new dynasty. At the time of completion, the mosque was considered to be the most significant architectural monument in Tehran. All by me, Poco² 06:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 06:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Fascinating details.--Ermell (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great detail. Unusual position (to one side rather than central). -- Colin (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 07:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• I  Support another of your beautiful pictures of a great Iranian mosque, as usual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support impressive! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very subtle in some ways. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. -- Pofka (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 15:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.10.05.-05-Lauten-Weschnitz--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2017 at 05:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2016.10.05.-05-Lauten-Weschnitz--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.10.05.-05-Lauten-Weschnitz--Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata# : Aeshnidae (Hawker dragonflies)
•  Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hockei (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Background not as good as your exisiting FP File:2013.07.01-21-Wustrow-Neu Drosedow-Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpg Charles (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles; the background is too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe you're right. I was sceptical before I've nominated it. But not because of the background but of the dry leaves.  --Hockei (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Polaroid Lightmixer 630 SL BW 2017-07-01 18-44-42.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 13:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Polaroid Lightmixer 630 SL BW 2017-07-01 18-44-42.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polaroid Lightmixer 630 SL BW 2017-07-01 18-44-42.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support an obsolete technology -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Very weak oppose I would like to like it but that crop of the strap in the background gets in the way. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think the choice of base/background grey is a poor one. Generally pure white is most useful for a wide variety of purposes, though many photo images also enjoy a pure black background for such items too. The result is an image that just looks under exposed. It isn't very clean either -- if you examine our best photo/game FPs then you'll see they are meticulously clean. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  weak oppose I actually like the grey background, as it interplays nicely with the several different types of grey of the camera. It's good enough on a technical level – including lighting, which turns out to be a problem in similar nominations quite often. The problem is: I am not Wow-ed. To my mind, there is a certain level of perfection required to bring a very good product photograph like this to "wow, this is awesome" level. For example, cleaning your subject thoroughly can be quite tedious, but it's definitely worth the effort (compare e.g. the works by User:Evan-Amos). The strap should be either made a feature of the image or hidden behind the camera. The crop is too tight for me, especially at the top and bottom. There are some blown highlights on the top. These are of course details that could be unavoidable in most other kinds of photographs. But in a controlled studio environment the photographer has the chance to spend some extra-time on perfection, and that's what I personally expect from a Commons FP (but not necessarily Wikipedia FP) in this category. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 03.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2017 at 04:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 03.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opgebaggerd hout (Langweerderwielen) 03.jpg

344

115

3142

1792

3824

1913

suggestion for crop if in color

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural Netherlands
•  Info Dredged wood that has lain for years underwater.

The wood on this image has been under water for years. It has been removed from the lake during dredging operations. created All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose A more selective crop (see note) might work better here and B&W is not doing this documentation photo any favors. With color, the waterlogged logs might have contrasted well with the green(?) grass and plants and giving the viewer a clue as to what this is. In B&W it looks to much like ordinary burnt firewood. --cart-Talk 09:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Done. Photo cut out. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Question: this picture is better? --Famberhorst (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's better, but the plants were not as interesting as I hoped for. I think that for such an image to work, you need some extraordinary feature in the wood, dramatic light or something beside the log that is beautiful, creating a contrast. Sort of like this log. --cart-Talk 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose why B&W??? Boring. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak  Support IMO a good idea to use black-and-white to improve the structures. --XRay ^talk 15:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.07.09.-07-Bossee Felde--Gemeine Becherjungfer-Maennchen.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 18:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.09.-07-Bossee Felde--Gemeine Becherjungfer-Maennchen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.09.-07-Bossee Felde--Gemeine Becherjungfer-Maennchen.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Coenagrionidae (Narrow-winged damselflies)
•  Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support High quality, except I don't like the crop - too tight at the right and too much at the bottom and top. Charles (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support as per Charles. Daphne Lantier 19:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Following the positive votes above @Hockei:, do you wish to change the crop? Charles (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 Info The raw photo is currently not present for me. Independent from that I like the crop as it is. The stem waving in the wind shows the fragility of everything. I don't know at the moment what exists right and left. Either disturbing thinks or uninteresting emptiness. --Hockei (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, but a little wider crop would improve it. -- Pofka (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I agree that the crop could be slightly better, but this is still of high quality.--Peulle (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lucanus cervus male 2017 G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 16:52:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lucanus cervus male 2017 G1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lucanus cervus male 2017 G1.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support--Peulle (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose This seems a strange angle to take the photo with the ends of the pincers out of focus. Charles (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just doesn't wow me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Probably wrong angle, which doesn't create wow effect. -- Pofka (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 07:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info Bottom view of one of the iwans of the Agha Bozorg mosque, a historical mosque in Kashan, Iran. The mosque, located in the center of the city, was built in the late 18th century by master-mimar Ustad Haj Sa'ban-ali. The mosque consists of two large iwans, one in front of the mihrab and the other by the entrance and the courtyard in the middle. All by me, Poco² 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --SDKmac (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now: I see chromatic aberrations on the wires up by the blue sky. Come on, Poco, you're such a good 'tog I expected you to fix stuff like that ... :P --Peulle (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

   CA removed Peulle, just didn't see it... Poco² 12:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you got it all? I'm still seeing some green. Maybe the cache is not refreshed; I'll wait and check again this evening.--Peulle (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I got it all at 100% view, but saw room for improvement at 200%, so there you are :) Poco² 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good. :)  Support.--Peulle (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Peulle, the FPC page reminds voters not to judge the photographer. We are here to review the image, which at 44 MP with sub-pixel CA in the original image, is really imo quite a petty reason to oppose. If this image was a Flickr upload, where minor issues generally don't get fixed, would you have opposed? I would hope not. Please leave such pixel peeping "improvements" as a polite request rather than a oppose. Your oppose clearly interrupted the flow of support votes, so is not without harm, and it encourages other voters to pixel peep themselves. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your question is 'yes'. I oppose any image that has such clear CA.--Peulle (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I can only suggest you read some books on what makes a great photograph. You might then notice that (absence of) CA does not figure in the criteria. Please consider that your oppose votes on such will actually deter good photographers from participating here, and that is not good for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Under the "color" section of the QI/FP guidelines, CA is listed as one of the issues/common problems and I have seen images rejected from both QIC and FP for this reason. In FP, this should of course be weighed against the criterion "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." On the voting issue, I have looked at the FP voting section and see that while there is a "request" template I admittedly could have used, you are contradicting yourself: you give the example that problems with flickr images would not be fixed, so how do you expect a "request" to have any effect in such circumstances? As for whether my vote would deter others from voting to support, I feel I cannot oblige you; I must have faith in other users' ability to judge for themselves. I vote the way I see fit, others will hopefully do the same. --Peulle (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

While chromatic aberration is indeed a flaw, we are not robots nor is the any requirement that an image is technically perfect, whatever that might mean. The "wow factor" get-out for low technical quality is intended for images far lower in technical quality than this. The kind of flaw you point out here is irrelevant. It's a kind of nit picky "improvement only visible if pixel peeping very closely on a 100dpi monitor at 100%". Stick a High DPI monitor on your desk for all our sakes and you might appreciate how utterly irrelevant a faint blue tinge on the edge of a black line on a 42mp image really is. I don't "contradict myself": I was rather assuming you were a reasonable person, and were only pointing out the CA because you knew Poco would fix it. My Flickr question was supposed to be rhetorical. Your response, that you feel the need to oppose a great image because of sub-pixel CA, is quite remarkable. I have seen, over the years, good photographers leave this project over votes like yours. So there's nothing theoretical about that. Don't base your judgement of makes a great image is based only on Commons Image Guidelines: buy some books. Digging your heals in and saying "I vote the way I see fit" is no attitude to have. I'm not asking you to follow my opinion on what is great, there are plenty great resources on photography, and absolutely none of them focus on CA. Please leave CA issues for when you next choose what prime lens to buy, and not for when selecting great images. At 44MP, this sort of nit picking just makes Commons look foolish, and really is a huge turn off for proper photographers. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't like your reasoning: it sounds like you're trying to pressure a fellow Commoner to vote the way you want, which is something I cannot accept. On the one hand, you're saying you don't want me to follow your opinion, but your whole line of reasoning definitely does: you want me to think the way you do - and I don't. As the Guidelines point out, different users may have a difference of opinion, which is the purpose of the voting system. I also disagree with your evaluation: these were not tiny CA barely visible by means of "pixel peeping", but clearly definable streaks of colour visible at 100% view. As for sources you want me to study, I use only one: the Commons FP/QI Guidelines. CA is listed as a possible problem and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Whether photography books say otherwise is simply not relevant to me. If you're suggesting that any Commoner who has not actively studied photography should not participate in this project, well, I disagree with you on that as well.--Peulle (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"visible at 100% view" == "pixel peeping". That's the definition. And it isn't a compliment. Peulle, the guidelines were written when many images uploaded to Commons were barely 2MP, and many from that age, if you view on a HD screen, will not even fill the monitor. So, worrying about people viewing at 5x magnification wasn't in the minds of that guideline. This image is 1.4 metres tall if viewed at 100dpi. And you are juding something only visible from close up. Do you think, if Poco got this on the cover of National Geographic, that you could see the CA even with a magnifying glass? There is more CA (and colour moire) in your last FP than in this one, and it is only 6MP (from a 24MP camera) vs this 44MP. So, downsizing and CA. Are you willing to delist your own 6MP FP, or accept you are being ridiculously and harmfully picky on a 44MP image? If that's a downsized image you got to FP, then you are being hypocritical to pick faults on Poco's generously full-size upload. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, now, among us, and if I've to be honest I do consider the CA comment (specially the second one) pixel-picking for such a big image. I've already participated in similar discussions of whether it is fair and healthy for the project to use oppose votes as pressure measure to get a fix for small flaws, and I still believe that this is not a good practice, specially when you all now that I'll fix all quality issues anybody addresses here. Poco² 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no CA that I can see in my bridge photo - it was removed in PS. Nor is it downsampled, it's cropped to get rid of the disturbing trees. Oh and @Poco: I didn't mean to pressure you; if the photo had gained enough votes even with my oppose that would have been fine by me - this is a democracy. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There is CA and colour moire to similar degree to Poco's earlier uploads. But to be completely fair here, you need to blow yours up to 250% so it is 41MP also. Then pixel-level flaws just jump out at you and there is no need to squint at the screen, whereas at 44MP Pocos's image is great. You believe in judging the images equally don't you? I magnify both images to same size on my desktop. Or do you think your 6MP image should not be examined as closely as a 44MP image? Perhaps you should judge Poco's image at 40% so it is similar size to yours? In other words, you are unfairly criticizing an image because (a) it was taken by a higher resolution camera and (b) generously uploaded at full size. If instead, we judge all images at FP equally, you need to find a balance between merely looking at it full screen and looking at it 100%. If you view everything at 100% then (a) you are only looking at a tiny part of the picture and (b) you are more likely to oppose technically superior images like this one simply because they are offered in higher resolution. And that's just daft, and quite harmful to this project. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point about high resolution possibly weighing up for flaws, but if you're saying we should not judge images at 100% anymore that's news to me. Oh and since you're a pro perhaps you can tell me what is the difference between CA and the remains of CA; I did remove it from my photo using software, so what wer're seeing is traces of the CA that used to be there. ...--Peulle (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think most people have worked this out, but clearly not everyone (especially at QI). Photographers often point out minor details that are only visible at 100% as suggestions for fixing because many of us are perfectionists and improve techniques, but that doesn't translate to those issues being something to oppose over. If you notice the FPC page only requires photos are of a "high technical quality" and goes on to list various aspects (focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field) to consider -- nowhere does it say that images must be judged at 100%. The "complete guidelines" are just that, guidelines, and mostly aimed at beginners in photography and are generally a bit out-of-date. Really I think the page should be archived and replaced with something shorter, and with separate teaching pages for beginners who don't know about JPG compression or CA. The CA/moire in your photo is getting out-of-scope for this FPC so ping me if you are interested. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Interesting image and great technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Almost an abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I like the thing with making the hanging lights appear like a coronet instead. --cart-Talk 09:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support as per Colin. Daphne Lantier 07:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Eduard Wiiralt, Põrgu (1932).jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 22:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Eduard Wiiralt, Põrgu (1932).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eduard Wiiralt, Põrgu (1932).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
•  Info created by Eduard Wiiralt - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Info Eduard Wiiralt (1898–1954) is the most remarkable Estonian graphic artist and his etching Hell is one of his iconic works. Rights of that work are owned by Estonian Ministry of Culture who allowed the work under CC BY-SA 4.0. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Peulle (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 20:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info |c|u|n| by Laitche (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support As always! ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Clearly.--Peulle (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 21:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

 Support Excellent! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 07:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}}
•  Comment Not very much definition. The lens I guess is the limitation. Charles (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Benh (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Don't understand the voting here compared to this current nomination which has comparable sharpness and size of birds in pixels. Yet the other photo is a great picture and this one is not. The tree trunk is distracting and diagonal intersects the birds head. We already have a better FP: File:Kingfisher eating a tadpole.jpg with no distracting background at all. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree. This cannot compare with existing FP. Charles (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Really sorry but I agree completely with Colin. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Colin Poco² 22:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin. It's a pity because the quality is good and the right side of the image is optimal. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Question This is the part of FP I'm still unsure of; when images are similar. Should this be a "delist/replace" discussion? We have had several images of the same species of bird promoted before - just how similar do they have to be before they overlap?--Peulle (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's been an ongoing debate. People will never agree. In this case, I think they are dissimilar enough for both to be listed. PumpkinSky talk 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I guess we'll have to settle it democratically, then. Thanks to Colin for pointing it out and then people can decide for themselves.--Peulle (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Disputa de galho entre duas fêmeas de Saí-azul - Dacnis cayana.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 08:59:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Disputa de galho entre duas fêmeas de Saí-azul - Dacnis cayana.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Disputa de galho entre duas fêmeas de Saí-azul - Dacnis cayana.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info created and uploaded by Renato Augusto Martins, nominated by Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Yann (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Another great work of yours Renato! Poco² 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I cannot find the focus point. You can correct me, but as far as I can see it isn't on the birds. --Hockei (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice shot, but out of focus and partly over-exposed. Charles (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. And we've got supports on less sharp OOF still ceilings, so I'm personally fine when there's slight issues on action shots. - Benh (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support Beautiful but out of focus. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per Benh. Too many votes looking at the pixels and not the picture imo. -- Colin (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per Benh although I prefer downsampling(8MP) in this case. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I'm totally fine with an action shot not being perfect. It's good enought for me as FP. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 00:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Caminho das pedras.JPG

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 01:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Caminho das pedras.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caminho das pedras.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created and uploaded by Carolach - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - Sky is a little blotchy. Certainly OK for QI, but is it good enough for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose The view is nice but not outstanding comparing it many other FPs that make a difference thank to great ligthing or spectacular view. I don't see any of both here. The picture is also tilted in cw direction Poco² 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Pleasant but not outstanding as noted by Poco2. I think QI would be fine for it. -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 18:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chiesa di Sant’Andrea in Montefiascone.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info Sant'Andrea in Campo is a Romanesque style, Roman Catholic church in Montefiascone, province of Viterbo, Italy. he church is mentioned in documents from the year 853 as a church in Campo or in a rural location. The church while narrow and later within the town walls, had three naves. The portal and internal columns are Romanesque. All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- I like the colors. --Pine^✉ 05:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 06:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, although slightly asymmetrical --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Measured support per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not symmetrical, distortion on the left lamp ;), blown highlights, barrel distortion, over NRed. Below the church standard generally speaking. - Benh (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support though not exactly symmetrical (the photograph has its center between the 2nd and the 3rd row of tiles in the central aisle); that apart the photographs keep good resolution of details even with zoom it at its fullest. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Benh. Folks, do you really think this merits being featured along with the church interiors of people like Diliff? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Quai d'Alger, Sète cf01BW.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Quai d'Alger, Sète cf01BW.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quai d'Alger, Sète cf01BW.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose At first I thought this was an old classic photo, maybe from the 50s ... but it's not. That loses the wow factor for me. QI, sure. FP? Not for me, sorry. --Peulle (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support At first I thought this was just an old classic photo, maybe from the 50s ... but, hey, surprise, it's not! ;-) Great work! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Per Martin. PumpkinSky talk 14:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support With everything going on in this photo, B&W is definitely the right choice in this light. The artistic 'old school' feel to this is very nice. --cart-Talk 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 19:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose I like B&W sometimes, but the composition here doesn't wow me. --Pine^✉ 05:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support--XRay ^talk 19:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose. The bright left side of the tower at the bottom left ruins it for me. It's generally not a good idea to put eye-catching things at the edge of a composition, and the heightened contrast due to the B&W conversion makes it worse. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Peulle. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, this is just too busy for me: Busy cityscape, busy sky and high contrast. The signal-to-noise ratio is too low for me so to speak, I'm missing a clear subject. In this case, I think I'd prefer the color version, as the colors help me to separate the different elements of the scene. I'm certainly not opposed to B&W images at FPC in general – I'd love to see more of them being nominated here so by all means please keep them coming. --El Grafo (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Without B&W effect it would have absolutely no chance. It looks pleasant with that effect but still the scene is not exceptional. -- Pofka (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• A good photo, to be sure, but weak  Oppose per other opposers' remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Bisontea - Aizpitarteko leizeak.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 11:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bisontea - Aizpitarteko leizeak.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bisontea - Aizpitarteko leizeak.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created by Diego Garate Maidagan / Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Theklan (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacking in detail and sharpness - I know such shots are difficult but still. --Peulle (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral Certainly has some WOW, but it's a bit weak in terms of sharpness. I don't really understand the camera settings (F20 @ 1/80, ISO 200). Sure, the wall looks slightly curved, but I don't think it was necessary to stop down to F20 to get sufficient depth of field at 10mm? I'd certainly support it over at VIC, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp, and dark area at right is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Exceptional but lacks technical quality. Pity as it really had potential. -- Pofka (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Namibie Himba 0712a.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 10:09:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Namibie Himba 0712a.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Namibie Himba 0712a.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
•  Info created by Yves Picq - uploaded by Yves Picq - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- JukoFF (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Support I like this a lot; good capture as she looks at the camera just as she exits the hut.--Peulle (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

•  weak oppose The composition looks unbalanced to me. I think it would benefit from additional Lead room on the right, or at least a tighter crop on the other sides. Otherwise very nice! --El Grafo (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  weak oppose El Grafo is right - the lighting is also a bit unfortunate --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment We have very few images of this kind. So it is a pity that this picture has shortcomings (it looks tilt, left crop is not OK, etc.). Yann (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support Indeed it has issues but we really lack this kind of pictures and I think it could fit minimum requirements as the composition is really nice and quality is tolerable. -- Pofka (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Жизнь и Смерть у оз. Ожогино.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 10:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Жизнь и Смерть у оз. Ожогино.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Жизнь и Смерть у оз. Ожогино.jpg

2729

373

230

176

3288

4520

Bug

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info Sakha Republic - Russia. Created by Виктор Габышев - uploaded by Виктор Габышев - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- JukoFF (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral Can we get rid of that giant bug on the lens (at least, that's where I hope it is) between the upper tree branches? And do we really need to have such a dramatic title? "Life and death by Lake Ozhogino" ... OK, I get it, and it sort of fits the mood, but I think it's too much for this forum. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support --Laitche (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 12:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --AM (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel, and I also don't like the crops. The motif is great, however, so I'd love to see a somewhat wider view of it without an insect on the lens. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Woman fishing for shore crabs 5.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2017 at 08:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Woman fishing for shore crabs 5.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woman fishing for shore crabs 5.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
•  Info A woman fishing for shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) in Brofjorden at Holländaröd, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. Her technique is simple but effective. She has bait in small net bags on strings in the shallow water under a makeshift jetty. The bait attracts crabs and as soon as they climb onto the bag, she hauls all of it up and into her landing net. The crabs are collected in a bucket, later to be cooked and eaten. The complete series can be seen in the file's page. She is not bundled up to cover her identity in the photos, it was cold and windy on the fjord and this is how she looked. All by me, -- cart-Talk 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 08:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

* Oppose I'm sorry cart, the image's really interesting (I've never seen anyone fishing like that) and somehow also quite funny - but the main subject is just not very sharp... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, capturing a moment with a moving target, handheld, strong wind and light conditions changing all the time due to clouds, this is about as good as I can make it. Anyway, some additional Lightroom sharpness added. --cart-Talk 16:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

•  weak support Thanks for the explanation - and for adding a tad additional sharpness --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Weak support per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support -- Pofka (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The sharpness problems exclude this photo as a FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support HalfGig talk 00:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

タイムテーブル (推薦から5日後)

Sun 16 Jul → Fri 21 Jul
Mon 17 Jul → Sat 22 Jul
Tue 18 Jul → Sun 23 Jul
Wed 19 Jul → Mon 24 Jul
Thu 20 Jul → Tue 25 Jul
Fri 21 Jul → Wed 26 Jul

タイムテーブル (推薦から10日後)

Tue 11 Jul → Fri 21 Jul
Wed 12 Jul → Sat 22 Jul
Thu 13 Jul → Sun 23 Jul
Fri 14 Jul → Mon 24 Jul
Sat 15 Jul → Tue 25 Jul
Sun 16 Jul → Wed 26 Jul
Mon 17 Jul → Thu 27 Jul
Tue 18 Jul → Fri 28 Jul
Wed 19 Jul → Sat 29 Jul
Thu 20 Jul → Sun 30 Jul
Fri 21 Jul → Mon 31 Jul