Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates:
Featured picture candidates ![]() Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Simple tutorial for new usersAdding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
|
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 1 May 2025 at 23:08:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#India
- Info created and uploaded by Bernard Gagnon – nominated UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting landscape and good composition although the colours are a bit washed out. But very poor image quality unfortunately, nothing is really sharp and there's not much detail. I wouldn't have passed this as QI personally. Cmao20 (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 May 2025 at 13:22:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Aurora
- Info (No, not a scene from Wicked...) Despite the less colorful aurora, this is one of my own favorite aurora photos because of its spooky composition, incidentally shot during Halloween season. The aurora was rather faint, making it appear dark green against the black sky in a way that didn’t overwhelm the stars or the little settlement below, the wispy clouds adding to the atmosphere. And of course, the meteorite that made a perfect appearance for a couple of seconds.
- The photo is made as a panorama, a trick I learned from another aurora photographer, and I thought I’d share with people here who might like to try similar shots. When you photograph the aurora, your camera is almost always tilted upward which results in leaning buildings and trees. Correcting that, you get those big pesky empty triangles in the lower corners. So you take your main photo and then add one on each side of it to fill in those triangles. That way you get a decent composition too. This is not something you need to think about if you shoot auroras in a landscape that doesn’t require perspective correction. For newbie aurora hunters, I always recommend starting at a beach or on a hill, where you can enjoy the show instead of thinking about the technicalities. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Cart (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
* Oppose Only two active FP nominations per user are allowed. AVDLCZ (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
{{FPD}}
- Comment Sorry AVDLCZ, you are quite new to FPC, so you don't know all the rules yet. This nom was made after the Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gold chain with gemstones and enamel, late 16th century, The Royal Armoury, Sweden.jpg was closed as a 5th day closing (please read the rules), and it's quite legal. ;-) I suggest that you do not make radical edits like this while you are still learning how the FPC works. You might also consider striking you vote since it was made on faulty grounds. --Cart (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies, I didn't notice the other nomination was just closed. AVDLCZ (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's ok, we've all been eager newbies here and learned from our mistakes. :-) --Cart (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies, I didn't notice the other nomination was just closed. AVDLCZ (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Meteorite makes this one special. Cmao20 (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Indeed. Suitable for Halloween. Yann (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --imehling (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support very beautiful and the shooting star is the icing on the cake. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm glad only the owls saw my little silly victory dance after I saw it falling while I had the shutter open. :-) --Cart (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Spooky and beautiful - and the shooting star is really the cherry on the top. Wonderfully captured! -- Radomianin (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 20:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 May 2025 at 09:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Cypraeidae
- Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Educative, high quality and very appealing color scheme. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Radominian. --Seewolf (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Radominian. --Terragio67 (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support An especially pretty one Cmao20 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --imehling (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Geom (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 May 2025 at 01:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Men
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The technical quality is truly impressive - especially the sharpness and overall execution. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Request At the same time, I find version 104A8815 from the same series even more compelling in terms of composition and expression. Though the eye is not quite as crisply defined, the overall presence feels stronger to me. Would you consider it as an alternative for the nomination? Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Seewolf (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this one. --imehling (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I prefer this one as well, crossed arms make subjects seem closed off to me. __UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Moheen (keep talking) 19:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
- Info (c/u/n) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Thank you very much for the alternate version, Frank - while the first image of the nomination now enjoys strong support (deservedly so), I'm happy to support this one as well. Both are excellent! -- Radomianin (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2025 at 23:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Clothing_and_Textiles
- Info The final room of the Camp: Notes on Fashion exhibit at The Met. I took some shots of individual exhibits, but keep coming back to this one, with the top row of colorful looks mirrored in a case (and the top of the big pink hat it contains). Maybe an unusual composition, and I know there are some imperfections (a dark room packed with people), but I like it enough to give it a shot. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 23:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 23:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Striking image with great use of light and color - it captures the essence of the subject very well. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Seewolf (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support Cool image, the 'weak' is because the bright reflection bugs me a bit. IMO darkening the lower half somewhat would bring better balance to the photo. --Cart (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Radomianin Cmao20 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2025 at 21:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Morocco
- Info created by Mounir Neddi – uploaded by Mounir Neddi – nominated by Mounir Neddi -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Mounir Neddi (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Very nice mood and a good representation, but the unfortunate top crop with abruptly cut off tree and ridge, ruins the image for me, sorry. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but I agree with some of what UnpetitproleX says. The cut of tree top is unavoidable, but too many other elements could be used better in frame. I keep wanting to move the camera a bit to the right and up, to avoid the partial tree, include a little more of the stream's bank on the right side and clear the ridge of the hill. --Cart (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2025 at 20:48:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Otididae (Small Bustards)
- Info Kori bustard (Ardeotis kori), Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Note: Surprisingly this candidate could be the first FP in the whole order Otidiformes. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support High resolution and great quality photo of an interesting bird in the wild Cmao20 (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, while this has good quality and is a strong QI, the light is unexceptional, the background drab and the top-down perspective doesn't work for me. It's valuable image for the species, but I don't think FP. --Cart (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2025 at 18:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Turdidae_(Thrushes)
- Info Hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus). Happy to finally get some good shots of this regular, but skittish migrant. Wasn't sure whether to nominate this one or File:Hermit thrush (10793).jpg. Same individual -- I like the pose and little flower in that shot, but the background is much cleaner in this one. We'll see what others think. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 18:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 18:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The feet are unfortunately not quite sharp but otherwise the picture is a FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per Ermell. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2025 at 13:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1940-1949
- Info created by Ray Platnick, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
- Support -- Yann (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Important photo worth a feature. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per Rhododendrites. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Seewolf (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2025 at 13:03:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
- Info created by Dario Pignatelli – uploaded by Zio27 – nominated by RodRabelo7 -- RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment It should be renamed. Yann (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment My instinct is that following the death of an important figure beloved by so many, we should perhaps wait a little bit before we decide what are truly the strongest images we have of him. I think it would be easy to promote this as we wish to commemorate his passing, but also I'm not convinced that the image quality is what I'd want it to be (blur, noise, plus distracting cropped people in the background). Cmao20 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Je partage l'avis de Cmao20 ,la qualité monstrueusement faible de l'image et la pose très crispée me semble contre productif pour l'illustration d'un hommage posthume décent Mariondelouhans (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Cmao20 about the reasoning and Yann re the name, this is a clear equivalent of the Wikipedia:Too soon. And in my very personal opinion, rushing to FPC to score some point with a nom as soon as a famous person has died is also a bit tasteless. We are not in any hurry here. --Cart (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't see any problem with the timing of the nomination -- this just is not among the best photos I've seen of the person. PS: For anyone who hasn't seen it -- as it is now quite timely -- Conclave might be the best movie I've seen this year. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2025 at 04:44:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Rail_tracks
- Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice shot, certain QI, but otherwise I cannot find anything special about it. Sorry --A.Savin 09:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but I think I agree with A.Savin here. The central vanishing point is not very interesting, it's all quite a bland composition. I also think the picture doesn't seem to have many shadowed regions, everything is quite bright and I'm not sure this suits the subject. Image quality is of course as high as ever and I like the motif but it doesn't feel like a featured picture to me. Cmao20 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2025 at 21:32:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Bhutan
- Info created by Nina R – originally uploaded by Юрий Д.К. – edited and nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support edited to fix tilt and slightly sharpen from the original. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Your edit removed almost all camera metadata (ISO, f-number, shutter speed etc.), please fix. AVDLCZ (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm unsure how to do that, sorry UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Here is your version of the photo, but merged with the full EXIF from the original. Use it if you like. (You can just upload it over the version in this nom. EXIF is always displayed from the latest version, the system can't display it from previous versions.) --Cart (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Cart, I’ve uploaded that version. Should be good now. :) UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Here is your version of the photo, but merged with the full EXIF from the original. Use it if you like. (You can just upload it over the version in this nom. EXIF is always displayed from the latest version, the system can't display it from previous versions.) --Cart (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm unsure how to do that, sorry UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Good composition, solid quality, and the monastery is nicely highlighted by a patch of sunlight against the shady background. Hard to believe that we do not yet have a FP of this famous view, but indeed we have only very few good photo of Paro Taktsang (1, 2 are good QIs but this one is clearly better). – Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Really cool view! Nice light on the monastery, nice clouds in the background Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2025 at 15:31:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Photographers
- Info created by Federal Office of Topography, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
- Support -- Yann (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Argenberg (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2025 at 14:31:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail_vehicles#United_Kingdom
- Info Kabelleger kindly uploaded some beautiful photos of Scottish trains on my request. I like this one because of the dramatic composition and the stark, beautiful, isolated landscape. created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Stark indeed, hard to imagine that most of this used to be forests. --Cart (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support the bright blue of the train contrasts beautifully with the uninspiring surrounding landscape. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per UnpetitproleX. —Bruce1eetalk 07:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support — BRKOSLAV SEVERNÍ(talk) 12:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per UnpetitproleX. – Aristeas (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2025 at 13:38:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family : Pinguipedidae (Sandperch)
- Info Portrait of a reticulated sandperch (Parapercis tetracantha), Anilao, Philippines. This sandprech is found in the Bay of Bengal to seas around Japan and Indonesia throughout the Indo-West Pacific region and can reach a total length of 26.0 centimetres (10.2 in). Note: we have no FPs of this species. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality and composition Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating eye.--Ermell (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 and Ermell. – Aristeas (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2025 at 16:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Colubridae_(Colubrids)
- Info created by Bjørn Christian Tørrissen – uploaded by Bjørn Christian Tørrissen – nominated by BRKOSLAV SEVERNÍ -- BRKOSLAV SEVERNÍ (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- BRKOSLAV SEVERNÍ (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment @BRKOSLAV SEVERNÍ You should add Category, i hope Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Colubridae_(Colubrids) is correct. --Mile (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Děkuji, ano je to správně BRKOSLAV SEVERNÍ (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Great green. --Seewolf (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot, good composition + detail. Focus/quality is not the best but it's okay for me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the colors and composition are good, but it's 15 years old photo taken with a bridge camera so there are a lot of chroma noise and artifacts. Unfortunately those are things that aren't easy to fix, so the quality doesn't measure up to a current FP for me. --Cart (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful photo. Technical quality is not the best but still acceptable. AVDLCZ (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 07:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Marvelous. --Mile (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support - I tend to have higher standards for photos of captive animals, and agree with some of cart's criticisms, but the light/colors are just so good I wind up a little on this side of support. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per AVDLCZ and Rhododendrites. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2025 at 11:02:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
- Info created and uploaded by Holud.himu.kalo.rab – nominated by Kaim Amin -- Kaim (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Kaim (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment the scene is a bit cluttered, the upper and lower crops (perhaps even right) are not satisfactory and I'm also not sure of the angle. That said, I understand that this must not have been easy to photograph. But I'm not convinced for FP here. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
File:Wrocław - Jahrhunderthalle6.jpg (delist)
Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2025 at 01:24:24
- Info Top of the spine digitally modified to fit in the frame. Non-accurate proportions. Compare here or with the previous version in the history of the file page. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Info You could mention the author: Taxiarchos228 --Mile (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delist because of undeclared digital manipulations at the time of nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delist --Yann (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delist At the first glance one could think that only a tiny part of the spine is missing; but comparing several photos (e.g. 1, 2, 3 …) shows that a complete significant part of the spine is missing. If the editing would have been declared properly and if only a tiny part of the spine was missing, one could discuss this; but making us think that the spine is a whole lot smaller and not even declaring this questionable edit is indeed very problematic. Even more because the spine is not an arbitrary element in the photo, but a central part of it. – Aristeas (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. AVDLCZ (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delist --Thi (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delist modifications such as these can only be overlooked if duly revealed at the time of nom, and even then this may be too much of a modification to be an accurate depiction of the subject. --UnpetitproleX (Talk)09:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2025 at 22:49:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Metro stations
- Info Two trains simultaneously leaving the Hůrka metro station in Prague, created and nominated by me. This is my first FP submission, I appreciate any suggestions for improvements (this was shot in RAW, so changes can be made easily). -- AVDLCZ (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- AVDLCZ (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support the technical quality looks OK to me, though I'm sure it would be better judged by the other, more experienced (and professional) photographers here. The image definitely has a wow factor for me. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 23:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Perfect.--Ermell (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Successful capture with a Wow. (I took the liberty of adding the missing Short Description). -- Radomianin (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Nice Whooosh! effect. --Cart (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Welcome to FP, looks great to me Cmao20 (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Radomianin. As a user of a similar camera I think it could be even a bit sharper; you might consider manually fine-tuning the focus when you take the next shot; or maybe all what is missing is a little bit more sharpening during raw image development. But it’s totally OK as it is, and congrats for the perfect framing and timing! – Aristeas (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. I don't shoot that much RAW and didn't notice until today that the camera produces sharper JPEGs than RAWs, which have to be sharpened manually. I've uploaded a new version. AVDLCZ (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the improvement! Yes, the camera automatically sharpens all JPEG images (you can adjust the strength of the sharpening in the camera settings), but it does not sharpen the raw image date. This is correct because raw data often undergo extensive processing (e.g. correcting distortion and perspective, adjusting exposure etc.) and sharpening is best applied only at the end of this processing. Therefore we need to set the sharpening in the raw image processor. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. I don't shoot that much RAW and didn't notice until today that the camera produces sharper JPEGs than RAWs, which have to be sharpened manually. I've uploaded a new version. AVDLCZ (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral For me a bit too much floor in relation to the ceiling, otherwise good. --A.Savin 09:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- I did think about cropping out some of the floor, but ultimately decided against it. The composition feels more vertically balanced this way, and it allows anyone who prefers a cropped version to make one themselves. AVDLCZ (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Time should be biger. --Mile (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Rolf Kranz (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Geom (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2025 at 20:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Ranunculales#Family : Ranunculaceae
- Info Columbine flower. Focus stack of 10 frames. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Great quality, beautiful symmetrical composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Always happy to see your focus stacks Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Gallery fixed to the new gallery. This is what I 'pinged' you about earlier when the gallery was created. ;-) --Cart (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support with placement of the stem along the darker part of the background, the flower almost appears to be floating :) --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Appealing smooth background and excellent focus stacking creation -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Excellent and beautiful, thank you especially for this one as I love Aquilegia flowers. – Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I appreciate not "fixing" the downward-facing composition -- winds up with an unusual look. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2025 at 18:31:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements#Italy
- Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely beautiful light and composition! Cmao20 (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is a great capture with convincing light and exemplary composition, thank you very much for the nomination. (Only the few remnants of trees on the right edge of the picture could be removed by cropping to refine the composition.) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thx, followed your advice. --Plozessor (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 and Radomianin. – Aristeas (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 18:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2025 at 15:21:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits (raw)
- Info Ivar has done a few good focus stacks of appealing and unusual fruits. This is a small South American fruit with a tart flavour, there are no FPs of it and I think it is depicted attractively. In my opinion the equal of other focus stacks by Ivar I have nominated e.g. here. created by Iifar – uploaded by Iifar – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Very detailed and sharp - the usual high Ivar quality. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I will confess that I hate these "autopsy-room-style" photos where food-related items are dissected, but I know they are good for the encyclopedia so I'll support them. --Cart (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- I get where you’re coming from for sure. I like Ivar’s fruit because they always make me want to learn what this kind of fruit is like, and because the detail is so good. But as you say it’s more illustrative/encyclopedic rather than artistic/imaginative. Cmao20 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Educational and clean background -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I see Ivar’s fruit photos as worthy successors of baroque biology illustrations which always combined encyclopedic curiosity with artistic beauty (random example; note the cut fruit and the artificial combination of various stages of development of the insect in one image). Insofar I see no conflict here; for me they are excellent illustrations and excellent photographs. – Aristeas (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2025 at 15:20:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures indoors
- Info The baroque crucifix in the protestant church of Bonfeld, Bad Rappenau, Germany, seen in candlelight. All by – Aristeas (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I have always admired the courage of those who dare to nominate also ‘strange’ photos which break with some of our rules and habits. Well, it’s Good Friday and so I dare to nominate my favourite crucifix photo, knowing well that there are good reasons to call this a very bad photo. I wanted to photograph this crucifix in pure candlelight because I had the impression that this would make it look much more impressive and alive. But when I tried this (as usual) from a certain distance and with a straight perspective (similar to this photo), the sculpture looked stiff and dead. Only when I took the perspective of a person standing directly in front of the altar and focussed the lens only on the face did the sculpture come to life, so to speak. I know that perspective and crop are completely at odds with our usual conventions here; but somehow the leaning verticals and the narrow framing also seem to fit the motif of the suffering Christ. – Aristeas (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support Great, creative way to depict this work of art Cmao20 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I find this image truly moving - precisely because it deliberately breaks with convention. The unusual perspective and warm light convey an intensity and closeness that does justice to the suffering and dignity of Christ in a very special way. As someone who believes, it's this kind of depiction that speaks more deeply than any "technically perfect" image ever could. It feels alive. And it speaks. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support By others.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Good light and angle, brings out the intent of the statue rather than just a lifeless object. Well done! --Cart (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Rolf Kranz (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Good sharpness for a handheld photo, but the harsh shadows and the poor light on the left part of the photo are not successful to me. It is an ordinary sculpture of a common subject present in all churches, basilica and cathedrals (another example). Due to the shallow depth of field, the focus draws the eye to the blood, painted in a not-so-subtle manner. Sorry, I know it's Easter weekend in Western countries, but it is better to leave the calendar aside when judging this kind of images potentially loaded with a strong symbolic connotation. (Hopefully the chocolate eggs will be no less tasty :-)) -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support While I wish for less shadows on the left, the image conveys strong emotions that a different light would not be able to convey. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Seewolf (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2025 at 07:00:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Playing (having fun)
- Info Children weave through towering rice-drying cones, transforming a rice mill in Brahmanbaria, Bangladesh, into their playground. This derivative has been edited by me to correct the underexposure of the original and improve the detail. I aimed to preserve the warm light atmosphere by applying tonal corrections, without making the image too cool. Original created and uploaded by Azimronnie – Derivative retouched and uploaded by -- Radomianin (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 09:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Moheen (keep talking) 12:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Cart (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Seeing what a dull gallery this would have been forced into, I realized we are sometimes far too serious here. We had completely forgotten to make room for Homo Ludens! That is now fixed and the gallery is corrected accordingly. Let's make that section grow, I think we all need a bit of that. --Cart (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This is an excellent idea, Cart, thank you very much for creating the new gallery section. As the German poet Schiller has put it, people “are only fully human where they play.” – Aristeas (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with Aristeas - thank you, Cart, for creating this new gallery section. As Homo Ludens, we discover who we are, process experiences, and unfold our personalities through play. It's good to see that spirit given a place within the gallery. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Wouldn't be surprised to see this do well at POTY Cmao20 (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support This photo was the deserved winner of Wiki Loves Folklore 2024 and I always wanted to nominate it here, but hesitated because of some technical slips. Your edits have made the photo perfect. Thank you very much for your improvements and for the nomination! – Aristeas (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The crop is a bit random, but still... --Yann (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support has wow. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Artistic photo with a great composition and an interesting environment -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Jakubhal 04:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- SupportЮ. Данилевский (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Seewolf (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Felino Volador (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support — Rhododendrites talk | 18:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 15:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
File:A Hundred Steeds.jpg (delist)
Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2025 at 09:25:52
- Info I came across a new scan File:100 Horses by Giuseppe Castiglione.jpg and would like delist and replace advice. I can see that the new version has better transitions between the newly-obtained compiled scans at thumbnail size, with higher stated resolution and filesize but can't evaluate further on my phone. (Original nomination)
- Unsure. As nominator, I will rely on those with proper monitors and eye for detail. I did message Yann, and I will let the uploader know. Sorry if I messed up the nomination, fix at will. -- Commander Keane (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Delist and replace Much better. Yann (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep The new one is cropped (look at the mountains in the top left), appears to be oversaturated, and loses quite a lot of the fine detail. MER-C 16:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong keep per MER-C. The pixel-level detail in the proposed replacement is much worse, and the colours are too bright for my taste - the current FP may look dull in thumbnail but all the detail is there Cmao20 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Keep The new one is badly cropped and oversaturated. MZaplotnik(talk) 16:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2025 at 09:23:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Denmark
- Info The Ertholmene archipelago near Bornholm. From left to right: Græsholm, Frederiksø, and Christiansø. All by me --A.Savin 09:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 09:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Excellent view of these picturesque islands with their manifold coastline. The settlement and buildings remind me of a lovingly arranged toy train landscape. – Aristeas (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I can't imagine it is possible to depict these islands any better in a single frame. Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support A clear, striking aerial view of Ertholmene with great contrast between the islands and the sea. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Moheen (keep talking) 18:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice compo and lighting but low res / too much denoising, bent horizon and cw tilt Poco a poco (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 07:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose At least solve horizon, and put some Light. --Mile (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2025 at 10:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
- Info created by Shai Franco – uploaded by שעה טובה – nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Great composition, you can see the music. --Seewolf (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Very nice! Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Bottom crop is not good and top crop too tight, but the main issue is the focus. With f/9 I would expect the face not to be so unsharp. Poco a poco (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2025 at 22:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
- Info People using the revolving doors of the entrance to Torp shopping mall, Uddevalla Municipality, Sweden. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Cart (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Innovative nomination but heavy contrasts. I also find the cars of the parking and the "Kundvagnar" stand distracting, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- The chaos of people going to and from their cars and using shopping carts (kundvagnar) is part of what shopping malls are up here in the north, this is not Singapore. --Cart (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure to understand why "Singapore", but there are too many dark parts, from my point of view, especially the top of the image completely black. Everything here is silhouetted, not just the people. And the image looks over-processed -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see anything remarkable which would lead to FP status. 50% of the picture is only black. Yann (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I’m still undecided, but it’s actually a clever feature that most people are just silhouettes without any recognizable features. Otherwise the people in the revolving doors would be very easily recognizable and it would be a severe infringement of their personality rights to publish a photo without their explicit consent (cf. the European GDPR). There are exceptions for press photographs, but Commons is not press photography, and therefore the legal status of the photo would be quite problematic. By hiding their faces in the shadows Cart has completely worked around this problem while still showing the revolving doors in full action. – Aristeas (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- However you decide (or not) I'm really glad that someone has recognized what I'm trying to do in many of my photos with people. I love street photography and to document everyday life, hopefully in a cool or artistic way. But to comply with the rules on Commons, you need to be creative in how you depict people, especially for FPC. Using silhouettes is a clear favorite for me. I don't see the problem with the percentage of black in the photo, we have other FPs using the same technique, examples. --Cart (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I am rather hesitant. But it does fit. I had to look for a long time to see what was so appealing about the photo. At first it looks a bit restless, but the strong contrast is the real strength of the photo. --XRay 💬 18:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per XRay (and my own reasoning). After looking for a while at it I find the composition and the strong contrast quite impressive. The latter also even adds a touch of mystery to the image. – Aristeas (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Per XRay en Aristeas. To me, on closer inspection, this is a sophisticated photo where the dark areas are important details.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support It took me a while, but yeah, I see why this should be FP now. It's the fact that each of the silhouetted figures is framed within the 'openings' in the revolving doors. It's one of those moments that isn't easy to replicate, takes an artist to see (I don't think most photographers would have taken this shot at all), and it conveys quite a dynamic impression. Each of the figures is doing something a little bit different too - one has her back to us so we can't see, but of the others, one is carrying an ordinary plastic shopping bag, one has what looks like a gift bag, and one is looking at (I think her) phone. It's those little details that make this a piece of photographic art, not just a photo. Cmao20 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I understand the artistic intent, but it just doesn't work for me. Top third is almost entirely black pixels, the cluttered background breaks any hope for a pleasing symmetry, there are a lot of unintended reflections and glare, and the image is overall not very sharp. Side note, in many countries and Sweden specifically, you don't need consent to take and publish photographs of people in public places. AVDLCZ (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- I know about not needing consent here in Sweden, I'm just trying to treat other people in a respectful way. I have some personal experience with how you can be treated if other people think they are entitled to do things, just because it's not against the law. Besides, photos uploaded on Commons are allowed for commercial use, and you do need consent for that in Sweden. --Cart (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Yann, I see nothing here that makes my heart beat faster Poco a poco (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral While I see the intent and the innovative way to capture people, the picture as a whole doesn't appeal to me. The contast would have worked for me with a less cluttered background, but of course that is out of the photographer's control. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2025 at 20:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Cycling
- Info created by Shougissime – uploaded by Shougissime – nominated by Shougissime -- Shougissime (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Shougissime (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Cool use of DoF. It's similar to this FP of chess where the DoF is used to single out one piece. Here we get the focus on the guy in the yellow leader shirt. It mirrors the focus a biker needs to have in such a race, and let everything distracting around him fade out, just like the focus in the photo. --Cart (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the only two runners in focus have their bicycles cropped out at the bottom. The level of blur of the foreground is distracting, in my view. And the background cluttered with vehicles make the composition busy -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I think this is a good dynamic shot but I do take Basile's points. The out of focus cyclists in the foreground don't bother me but the cluttered background does Cmao20 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
File:Sur En-Sent. Sculpture Negativ - Positive. Artwork by Peter Gredig. 17-10-2024. (actm.) 01.jpg, featured
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2025 at 04:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors
- Info Sur En/Sent, municipality of Scuol, kanton Graubünden. Sculpture Negativ - Positive. Artwork by Peter Gredig. Switzerland is trying to connect art and nature in public outdoor spaces. This sculpture stands with many others along a mountain path near Sur En in the canton of Graubünden.
All by me -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC) - Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Interesting artwork Cmao20 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Cmao20 --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a QI to me. Quality is fine, the subject is interesting but not extraordinary to overcompensate the simple composition and ordinary lighting/detail level, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I like that the sculpture nicely stands out from the green background, but still fits ‘naturally’ into its surrounding, being made just from wood and stones. The soft light nicely emphasizes the relief on the sculpture. – Aristeas (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --imehling (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2025 at 22:10:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Alaudidae (Larks)
- Info created by SVKMBFLY – uploaded by SVKMBFLY – nominated by Moheen -- Moheen (keep talking) 22:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Moheen (keep talking) 22:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and composition Cmao20 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Detail just ok, but the lighting is not good with the whole subject in shadow Poco a poco (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Seewolf (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The light is not perfect, but somehow it works for me, adding three-dimensionality to the bird and giving a nice mood to the photo. A bonus is that this photo has not been sharpened too much (which is, alas, quite common with wildlife photos), but looks very natural and realistic. – Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support To me the bird stands out beautifully against the background.--Famberhorst (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 01:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 16:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
File:Gandhi Bhawan, Chandigarh.jpg, featured
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2025 at 21:41:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#India
- Info A modernist building designed by Pierre Jeanneret, the lesser-known cousin of Le Corbusier. The building sits on a raised plinth in a large P-shaped shallow pool, with an angular and curved three-part pinwheel roof, designed to evoke a floating lotus flower. The white colour of the building was chosen so to contrast with the red of the Fine Arts Museum designed by Corbusier, visible on the right. Picture taken after an intense thunderstorm during late monsoon, when the pool was filled with rainwater. Created, uploaded and nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful, restful composition. I really dislike this kind of architecture but this manages to make it look quite pleasant. Cmao20 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The light is not particularly good and the image quality is not at FP level for me. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ermell: Thanks for the review. It was taken mid-day, I've adjusted the exposure and light. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the improvements. But I'm also missing the wow effect here. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Ermell: Thanks for the review. It was taken mid-day, I've adjusted the exposure and light. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The local brush is really too obvious in the new version, and gives a feeling of over-processing, with an odd white part behind the trees. Interesting mirror image but I would say the lighting conditions and heavy sky were not really so cooperative at the beginning -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment after @Ermell and Basile Morin: reviews I realised the structure looks a bit too warm/yellow for the time it was taken and the light conditions - turns out I had reduced the highlights way too excessively early on while editing the image, causing the unnatural colour. I went back to the original raw image to re-edit it to preserve the while colour of the structure. Pinging also @Cmao20: in case they wish to reconsider their support vote after this significant re-edit. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Also adding that the pool is never filled artificially, so this view is only ever possible after heavy rain, which is why I nom'ed it. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification - still fine for me. Cmao20 (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Detail resolution etc. could be better, but I really like the composition – it was a clever move to put the main subject mostly in the left half of the image, this adds tension and interest to the image. The light is not thrilling, yes, but it nicely shows the depth of the building without adding any harsh shadows. And indeed the fact that the pond is filled and provides a nice reflection is a big plus. – Aristeas (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per Aristeas for the improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per Aristeas en Radomianin for the improved version.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Fri 18 Apr → Wed 23 Apr Sat 19 Apr → Thu 24 Apr Sun 20 Apr → Fri 25 Apr Mon 21 Apr → Sat 26 Apr Tue 22 Apr → Sun 27 Apr Wed 23 Apr → Mon 28 Apr
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Mon 14 Apr → Wed 23 Apr Tue 15 Apr → Thu 24 Apr Wed 16 Apr → Fri 25 Apr Thu 17 Apr → Sat 26 Apr Fri 18 Apr → Sun 27 Apr Sat 19 Apr → Mon 28 Apr Sun 20 Apr → Tue 29 Apr Mon 21 Apr → Wed 30 Apr Tue 22 Apr → Thu 01 May Wed 23 Apr → Fri 02 May
Closing a featured picture promotion request
The bot
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
featured or not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
'''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2025.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.