Commons:Featured picture candidates

Other featured candidates:

Media 

Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

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

Formal things Nominating Guidelines for nominators Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates: Scope – In addition to falling within the Commons scope, candidates must be static two-dimensional images. All other types of files should be nominated at Commons:Featured media candidates. Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses. Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information. Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful. General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality. Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates. For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful color adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison. Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, beautiful does not always mean valuable. Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable: Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy. Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art. Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject. Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards. Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field. Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp. Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element. Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image. Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head). Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph. Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF. On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc. Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects. Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon. Color is important. Over saturated colors are not good. Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch. Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image. Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side. Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales. Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or color AND texture, etc. Noise refers to unwanted corruption of color brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition. Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations … You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominations If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types: Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist. A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same). A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes. A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that). Simple tutorial for new users Tutorial: Nominate on COM:FPC How to nominate in 8 simple steps STEP 1 STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 7 STEP 8 STEP 8 (last step) NOTE: You don't need to worry if you are not sure, other users will try their best to help you. Adding a new nomination If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2 All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination". Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page. Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list: {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}} Strongly recommended: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~. Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters. Voting Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates: {{Support}} ( Support), {{Oppose}} ( Oppose), {{Neutral}} ( Neutral), {{Comment}} ( Comment), {{Info}} ( Info), {{Question}} ( Question), {{Request}} ( Request). You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: No reason "I don't like it" and other empty assessments "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote: Text to use Displays as Meaning {{Keep}}  Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture {{Delist}}  Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore. This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote: Text to use Displays as Meaning {{Keep}}  Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as a FP. {{Delistandreplace}}  Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement. If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include: Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader); A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page); Your reasons for nominating the image and your username. After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policy General rules The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{Withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5) Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator). Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum. Featuring and delisting rules A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions: Appropriate license (of course) At least seven  Support votes (or 7  Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page. The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be polite Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. See also To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished Basic list of photography-related terms Quality image candidates Valued image candidates Photo challenge Photography critiques Help:Scanning

Table of contents

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity). Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates

File:Beacon Stawa Młyny, Świnoujście.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2021 at 15:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Beacon Stawa Młyny, Świnoujście.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beacon Stawa Młyny, Świnoujście.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Poland
•  Info Maritime sign "Stawa Młyny" in Świnoujście, Poland. It serves as a beacon for ships and is also part of the official logo for the city and tourist region of Świnoujście. Created, uploaded and nominated by Radomianin -- Radomianin (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Scilla siberica flower - Keila.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2021 at 06:18:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Scilla siberica flower - Keila.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scilla siberica flower - Keila.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Asparagaceae
•  Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely background, especially -- Dey.sandip (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Malaspina-panorama-meters.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2021 at 22:47:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Malaspina-panorama-meters.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Malaspina-panorama-meters.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of North America
•  Info detailed 3D render of Malaspina Glacier and surrounding area. This image has two other versions that can be alts - File:Malaspina-panorama-feet.jpg displays elevation in ft and File:Malaspina-panorama-no-type.jpg has no labels but is slightly smaller - created by Tom Patterson (released PD at website) - uploaded & nominated by eviolite -- eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice and detailed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per KoH, and let's feature it now, before the figures in it become inaccurate from continued warming and resulting ice melt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Malaspina panoramas

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2021 at 22:10:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

• 

  No labels, slightly lower resolution than the others

• 

  Labelled, elevations are in m

• 

  Labelled, elevations are in ft

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps
•  Info PD-author 3D rendered panoramas of area around Malaspina Glacier; only difference is in resolution (slightly) and labelling. Since they're so similar I understand if I have to split this up and just choose one; created by Tom Patterson - uploaded & nominated by eviolite -- eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination actually, looking around at some archived FPCs such as this one, it seems that this is unacceptable as a set and may be better as "alternatives". I will nominate the meters one by itself, mentioning the others, promptly. eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Batalha September 2021-31a.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2021 at 19:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Batalha September 2021-31a.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Batalha September 2021-31a.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info Monastery of Batalha, Portugal: cloister of D. João I. The building was started in 1386 and finished around 1517. The columns and decoration of the gothic arcs were added in the 16th century. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very nice layout but on closer inspection the blown highlights interfere enormously.--Ermell (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question On what? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    • A bit of blown sky coming through the openings is not the end of the world, but the lack of detail on the ground outside is a problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment In addition to Ermell's comment about overexposure: Would you happen to have any frames from further down? Right now it looks a bit top-heavy with so much vertical space at the top and no floor at the bottom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• You are right, it would be better with a bit more space at the bottom. But I don't have it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose it’s a pity but the blown ground (plus the blown parts of the columns) and the vertically unbalanced composition spoil it. Even if you crop the top quarter out, the foreground bottom would still be missing. --Kreuzschnabel 10:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination I think you are right about the ground being overexposed and I apologize for not having valued the issue. But I still think this is a gorgeous view. Thanks for the comments. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree it is a great view, just a shame about the exposure. I assume you don't have another shot with lower exposure? -- Colin (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Batalha September 2021-4.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2021 at 19:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Batalha September 2021-4.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Batalha September 2021-4.jpg

4162

958

3749

5488

12435

6472

Blurred frame -- Colin (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info Main façade of Monastery of Batalha, Portugal. It was built from 1386 to 1517, to celebrate the victory over the Spanish army in the battle of Aljubarrota (1385). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice angle, motif, and resolution, but the harsh shadows from mid-day lighting don't work for me. Btw the recorded time seems wrong. --Trougnouf (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Le Jules Verne, salle Quai Branly, Paris 2019.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2021 at 08:01:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Le Jules Verne, salle Quai Branly, Paris 2019.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Le Jules Verne, salle Quai Branly, Paris 2019.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#France
•  Info created by Stephan Juillard - uploaded by Lisacastelsdxo - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:White-throated sparrow (94058)2.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 22:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:White-throated sparrow (94058)2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:White-throated sparrow (94058)2.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Passerellidae_(New_world_sparrows)
•  Info White-throated sparrow, seemingly deep in thought. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Maybe the bird is being reflective; we don't know, but I do know this is a fine portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak  Support The bright OOF area in the bottom left is a bit distracting at thumbnail size, but at close-up the expression is too good not to support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Boy wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt - Inbound8844811027769309500.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 21:59:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Boy wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt - Inbound8844811027769309500.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boy wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt - Inbound8844811027769309500.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Children
•  Info I've been meaning to nominate some pictures from the most recent Wiki Loves Africa competition, and thought I'd start with this one. A boy wearing a protective mask during the COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt. It's straightforward high-contrast drama, with an expression that could be fearful or hopeful. Created and uploaded by Eman arab, nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I saw this one, and I thought to nominate it too. Great portrait. Yann (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Striking, and a portrait for our times. I could easily see this taking off as a crystallization of the moment and being reproduced years later to represent the COVID plague years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive photo for me. --Famberhorst (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Strong support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 06:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support but please consider renaming the file after the completion of this nom --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Martin Falbisoner: I renamed it before nominating. :) It was just "Inbound8844811027769309500". When there's some combination of letters/numbers in the filename, I usually retain them when renaming just in case the photographer uses them for anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Per nom. Clearly "hopeful" rather than "fearful" for me due to the lighting. --El Grafo (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Aussichtsturm Bistumshöhe, 1901201452, ako-2.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 19:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aussichtsturm Bistumshöhe, 1901201452, ako-2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aussichtsturm Bistumshöhe, 1901201452, ako-2.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
•  Info Looking upwards at the inside of an observation tower in Germany. Nice composition and something a little different. created by Code - uploaded by Code - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful inner spiral.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Famberhorst. Good composition and perfect light. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support 61.69.172.53 00:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• ?? Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Kronleuchter -- 2021 -- 6715 (bw).jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 14:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Kronleuchter -- 2021 -- 6715 (bw).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Kronleuchter -- 2021 -- 6715 (bw).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 14:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay 💬 14:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Image of great quality. I like the B&W here. It is a pity than the statue needs a bit of cleaning (spider webs). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. I think it highlights the age of the figure. The whole room was full of dust and cobwebs. In my opinion, it would be an unsightly falsification to remove dust from a single detail. --XRay 💬 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my nomination May be it's not interesting enough for an FPC. Thank you. --XRay 💬 06:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Korfu (GR), Korfu, Alte Festung -- 2018 -- 1137.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 14:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Korfu (GR), Korfu, Alte Festung -- 2018 -- 1137.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Korfu (GR), Korfu, Alte Festung -- 2018 -- 1137.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Greece
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 14:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay 💬 14:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Great but simple composition with strong visual impact on the viewer, imho. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Radomianin. Cmao20 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Nice colors, i would clear that spot (above left). Lamp could be more sharp but compo/colors made it. --Mile (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Both done/improved. Thank you. --XRay 💬 09:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support The light/shadows on the ceiling really make this IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Unfortunately the light bulb is not exactly centered ;-) --Llez (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:The Montreal Observation Wheel.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 12:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:The Montreal Observation Wheel.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Montreal Observation Wheel.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
•  Info created & uploaded by Maksimsokolov - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Could be a bit brighter. Though I am quite surprised that f/2.8 on full frame could be so sharp corner to corner... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition and obvious wow-factor but I feel like the colours are way too saturated to be honest, it looks a bit garish. Cmao20 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessed, per Cmao20. Saturation and contrast. -- Colin (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Hm, well, indeed. But IMHO this photo is too nice. Maksim, could you have a look? --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose The colors could be toned down a bit, but they don't bother me as much as the very busy composition. Feels like it would make a good postcard, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Verticals leaning in (background, both sides). And please turn the contrast/saturation slider a few light years to the left, yes. --Kreuzschnabel 19:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Wall Graffiti Bangalore.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 06:48:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wall Graffiti Bangalore.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wall Graffiti Bangalore.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Frescos and murals
•  Info All by me -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Interesting composition, unfortunately 1/160 s was a bit too long to freeze the walker. The difference in sharpness with the background is explicit. The cables and rubble on the ground are distracting for me. Although one can see these wires as an extension of the painting, they're also kind of ugly in themselves -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The wires are part of the graffiti. They are restraining the vehicle from running over the scared looking figure below -- Dey.sandip (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Wires", I'm talking about those on the ground. Real wires, not painted -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• I like the photo. Whether it's right for FP, I don't know. My question is whether this is COM:GRAFFITI or COM:MURAL (not all of it appears to be in the frame), given COM:FOP India. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a graffiti on a public wall by a public road. I don't much about the COM:FOP India, so whatever is decided based on that is OK with me -- Dey.sandip (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak support Weak because the walker is blurred, otherwise good composition and colours. Cmao20 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I have proposed another gallery link: IMHO this would fit better into the “Frescos and murals” section than into the “Places” gallery. (We have no “Graffiti” gallery, therefore this does not mean a decision regarding the question whether this is COM:GRAFFITI or COM:MURAL ;–).) --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Well-done, deservedly a QI and a good VI candidate, but like Rhododendrites I don't see an FP here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Viviparus georgianus shells

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 06:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

• 

  Shell of an extant specimen

• 

  Shell of a fossil specimen from the Pleistocene

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Viviparidae
•  Info The set shows a shell of an extant specimen of the freshwater snail Viviparus georgianus and a fossil shell of the same species from the Lower Pleistocene (about 1 - 2 Million years old); created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- As good as other shell images by Llez :) -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Even better than most. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Good set. Cmao20 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support – Ivar (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Sgt. Samuel Smith, African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2021 at 19:13:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sgt. Samuel Smith, African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sgt. Samuel Smith, African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
•  Info created by unknown photographer, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk)
•  Support -- Yann (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Very detailed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose not FP for me. More space is taken up by the ornate frame than the old photograph (whereas most reproductions we see here of a painting/photograph have the frame cropped out, to focus on the subject.) The old photograph itself is not exceptional quality for the era it's made in, or otherwise extraordinary, so I don't see what makes this FP quality. Buidhe (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Buidhe has made a good case against this image. Well, I see it the other way around ;–). The detailed reproduction of the ornate frame which fits the old photograph perfectly in style and size makes this photo special. The old photograph itself is of good quality, I guess it is just (because of the thick glass) a bit out of focus. The theme is also important: the old photograph with its nostalgic frame reminds us of how long how many African Americans have served their country faithfully, but are still not fully respected and acknowledged by many of their fellow citizens. --Aristeas (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ambrotypes (also modern ones) are never really in focus by our standards that are based on totally different technical expectations and possibilities --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Martin, thank you very much for the explanation! --Aristeas (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support per Aristeas --Kritzolina (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support After comparison with the original, I think the restoration was well handled. Very expressive faces. Good quality in my opinion for the period, except the girl at the right a bit blurry, but that's not crippling, since the three other people are okay. Concerning the huge black and gold frame, I just find it great -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas and Falbisoner. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas and Basile -- Radomianin (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support for the historical interest. Cmao20 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I actually like it with the frame shown. It shows this portrait is treasured. Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for the explanation, Martin. A very striking portrait and I like the historic frame, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Question @Yann: the description says unidentified yet about a week ago you changed it to Sgt Samuel Smith of the 119th USCT. How did you figure that out? The description is wrong in other ways, it says likely one of the Maryland regiments, but the 119th was organized in Kentucky, early 1865. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Seven Pandas: See the description in other versions: File:Unidentified African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.png, File:Unidentified African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters LCCN2010647216.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Afgevallen kastanje van een paardenkastanje (Aesculus) 10-10-2020 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2021 at 16:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Afgevallen kastanje van een paardenkastanje (Aesculus) 10-10-2020 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Afgevallen kastanje van een paardenkastanje (Aesculus) 10-10-2020 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Sapindaceae
•  Info Fallen chestnut from a Aesculus . Focus stack of 12 photos.
  All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Well done -- Radomianin (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support ==Michielverbeek (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Ah, that’s autumn! --Aristeas (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Next POTY finalist? 🌰 :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent colours Cmao20 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support – Ivar (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Bad Rappenau - Heinsheim - Burg Ehrenberg - Ansicht von Norden (1).jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2021 at 15:25:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bad Rappenau - Heinsheim - Burg Ehrenberg - Ansicht von Norden (1).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bad Rappenau - Heinsheim - Burg Ehrenberg - Ansicht von Norden (1).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
•  Info Ehrenberg Castle near Heinsheim, Bad Rappenau, Germany, seen from the north. Ehrenberg Castle is situated on a hill overlooking the Neckar valley (left) and is said to have been founded in the early 12th century. The Bergfried (keep) was built in 1235 and is still 50 m high today; note the tree growing on it ;–). Around the keep is the inner bailey from the 12th and 13th centuries, which today (with the exception of the high gable on the left) has fallen into ruins. The outer bailey was built in the 17th and 18th centuries, has been preserved and is still partly inhabited. – This is certainly not the most magnificent castle in Germany, but it was a respectable castle and I like the combination of buildings from different eras and in different states. All by me, --Aristeas (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Aristeas (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful composition.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 18:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Famberhorst -- Radomianin (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 16:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak support Works better in full-res. Sky color seems a little overdone, but I've seen a lot worse. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Nice motif and strong image quality. Cmao20 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Agree with Daniel Case; calming motif and colors, nothing oversharpened, i would just put temp of sky a bit lower. --Mile (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Daniel, Mile: Thank you for your reviews! However fullfilling that request is much more difficult than one may expect. The colour of the sky is at least partly due to the polarizer I had to use. When I dial down the temperature of the sky the colour does not become better, as one may expect, but much more unrealistic. After several unsuccessful attempts I have now (1) moved the colour balance of the sky a bit more towards magenta and (2) reduced the saturation and contrast in the topmost part of the sky. The result seems at least reasonable to me. Is the result going into the direction you mean? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Aristeas i thought Cyan went down. Now at least more realistic for me. At the end, the photographer must enjoy his own shot, don't suffer for FP. --Mile (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Llez (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Convento de Jesús, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 75-77 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 20:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Convento de Jesús, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 75-77 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Convento de Jesús, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 75-77 HDR.jpg

1292

30

5959

4358

7601

4404

4:3 crop here

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Portugal
•  Info View of the Cruzeiro de Setúbal (Wayside cross of Setúbal) and the Monastery of Jesus, Setúbal, Portugal. The wayside cross dates from the 16th century, while the monastery, founded in 1490, is one of the oldest buildings in Manueline style (Portuguese version of Gothic) and served as a monastery of Poor Clare nuns. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful light and colors, only slight damage from the bit of modern building on the right (but that's reality). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan, good composition, quality and light. Cmao20 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Neutral Composition is awkward with features on the left and right that detract from the image. The nearby cross looms large, emphasised by the wide-angle perspective. The colourspace is wrong (ProPhotoRGB) and should be sRGB. ProPhotoRGB is too huge for 8-bit JPG leading to posterising and incorrect colour and nobody has a display that wide anyway. The scene could probably have benefited from HDR to retain some detail on the highlighted bricks. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• The file name would imply that HDR has in fact been used. But I guess you could argue the scene could have benefited from *more* HDR :) Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, as now two of you complain about the building on the right, I cropped it out along with a chunck on the left (and I used sRGB to export it). Thanks for the hints. Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also added an additional version with a new HDR merge, detail is better for highlights now, does it also apply to the overall result? --Poco a poco (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I did complain slightly about the building on the right, but I think the more generous crop on the right was better, even with the bit of the modern building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks for elaborating your point. I'd like to hear other opinions before I offer an alt version Poco a poco (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Looking again at it I would second Ikan’s view. The building at the right was ugly, but overall the more generous crop was more balanced. But more voices are welcome ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Regretful oppose Love the colors and the work that went into this, but like Colin I find the composition awkward. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Llez (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Castillo de Óbidos, Óbidos, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 33.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 20:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Castillo de Óbidos, Óbidos, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 33.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castillo de Óbidos, Óbidos, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 33.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Portugal
•  Info Castle of Óbidos,, Portugal. The well preserved medieval castle is the result of the fortification undertaken by Muslims in the 8th century and later expansions over the centuries. I nominate this image as FP because the subject is spectacular and the perspective seen from this angle over the hill and the wide angle is strong IMHO. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose High-quality, but not FP with that sky, in my opinion. I'd love it if you had a chance to reshoot in more appealing conditions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I was on the fence about this one but I agree with Ikan, great composition and quality but the sky is so dull. I am not insisting that all shots have to be under a bright blue sky, but this isn't a dark brooding sky either, it's just grey. Strong QI but I honestly feel like it shouldn't be FP seeing someone could easily reshoot under better light. Cmao20 (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Striking this, I'm going to think more carefully about whether I see this image as FP or not. I am beginning to see the composition as good enough to outweigh the light. Cmao20 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Neutral It is good, but I am still not 100% convinced it is an FP. Cmao20 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support actually, I like the lighting/sky. Buidhe (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support The sky is good here, with all the clouds leading towards the center. An effective composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per King of Hearts. – There is a blue FFP1 mask hanging on the rocks almost in the centre. I don’t mind it, but maybe you want to clone it out ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Maybe my opinion kind of doesn't matter because I've opposed on other grounds, but I would oppose cloning that out, as it shows the times. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment OK, sorry, so please forget my hint. I had pointed out that mask because I remember people opposing to FP candidates because of some minor items of waste here or there on the ground and I wanted to avoid that. --Aristeas (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with cloning out occasional litter or birds in the sky (sometimes they just look like streaks). These things are not the subject and are here one moment and blown away the next. If the subject was about tourist mess, or "the times" we live in, then of course we'd keep that stuff, but the subject is an old castle. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Ikan. --Ivar (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan. Photography is about light. The light here is meh. Plus the entrance track on the right is unappealing. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Schlosskirche, Bad Mergentheim, Southwest view 20150727 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 14:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Schlosskirche, Bad Mergentheim, Southwest view 20150727 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schlosskirche, Bad Mergentheim, Southwest view 20150727 1.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
•  Info IMO an amazingly detailed and beautiful photo of a church facade with rich colours and outstanding image quality. created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Underexposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think I see your point in that the sky is quite a deep, dark blue. But I have checked the histogram and there is no loss of detail in the shadows (which I think you can see when you zoom in), so I would say it is maybe a tad on the dark side but not underexposed. Let's see what others think. DXR, I am pinging you in case there are any changes you'd like to make Cmao20 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  This scene has somewhat low dynamic range, so there is a range of exposures which would not cause clipping on either end. It doesn't mean that all those exposures should be subjectively considered "correct". A bright facade should be much lighter than this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose Just a QI. I agree the sky looks oddly dark. I think "under exposed" is technically incorrect as one may well expose to avoid clipping or to reduce shadow noise and indent to adjust afterwards to produce an image that appears how one perceived it. The actual exposure isn't really that important outside of extremes. -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with your point about exposure. What would an FP image of a church facade look like to you? I feel like it's superior to many photos already in the category, compare here or here which are both less sharp and detailed at full size and IMHO are less interesting motifs. Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• One of the problems with photographing tall facades is getting far enough back. This seems there isn't enough room to breath, and the sky clouds just seem to add to the feeling for me. The photos you linked are quite old and I don't think the Warsaw photo would scrape through today. The other one has more interesting features. But maybe tastes vary about what is appealing. -- Colin (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your fair review. Cmao20 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment I comprehend Colin’s “there isn't enough room to breath”, but it could make a difference if one would brighten up the image a bit, as King of Hearts has suggested – IMHO this would give the photo also a lighter, more relaxed mood. So I would suggest to DXR to try it out. --Aristeas (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Many thanks for the nomination and reviews. I have brightened the picture by 0.4 EVs, which indeed looks a bit more appropriate on my screen. The facade can only be photographed from a courtyard, so naturally there is a limit to how far back you can move for the photo. I feel that there isn't too much distortion, but personally, I would think of this as a good QI, not necessarily a FP. --DXR (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• KoH, is this change enough for you to support? Cmao20 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• DXR I could withdraw if you really don't see it as FP, but seeing support currently outnumbers opposition I intend to let it run for now unless you tell me otherwise. Cmao20 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support I like the clouds, which look like cotton balls. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Beautiful in my eyes. --Aristeas (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. Also, pretty but not a great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Llez (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I like the clouds. --Yann (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:여주 영릉과 영릉 세종 영릉 재실.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 13:43:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:여주 영릉과 영릉 세종 영릉 재실.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:여주 영릉과 영릉 세종 영릉 재실.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#South_Korea
•  Info created by w:Cultural Heritage Administration - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent drone photo. Cmao20 (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Good illustrative viewpoint. -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support It’s great that South Korea has got a Cultural Heritage Administration which publishes good photos of cultural heritage monuments under a free license. I wish we would have something like this e.g. here in Germany. Germany is a rich country, but nevertheless most photos published or used by the offical departments are mediocre, and they (almost) never use free licenses (they use them for some statistical data and other stuff, but AFAIK almost never for photos). --Aristeas (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. In German there are very enthusiastic users and thanks to them their cultural heritages are uploaded in great quality. I always thank for your great contributions. Sincerely,— Sadopaul 💬 📁 07:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I thought I wasn't going to like it because of the big brown area at lower right but ... wow! What detail on the buildings! They look almost like a model. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Llez (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Titian - Venus with a Mirror - Google Art Project.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2021 at 21:43:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Titian - Venus with a Mirror - Google Art Project.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Titian - Venus with a Mirror - Google Art Project.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Nudes
•  Info created by Titian - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Andrei (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment I know it is an old discussion, but I still don’t understand what we are supposed to judge here (and same for the nomination below). Should I vote against a work by Tiziano ? Should I say NO because I dislike cubism (below) ? Ridiculous. As the picture is taken by a bot with the maximum technical but automatic quality available (ok, there are men behind the machine blablabla), it is obviously excellent. Furthermore, I don’t understand why such a picture would benefit of a FP star. Of course I understand and agree with the upload in Commons of GoogleArt Project pictures, but they don’t need labels IMO. Do we have « nominated but not promoted as FP » GoogleArt Project pictures ? I cannot support, I cannot oppose, I can even not remain neutral. So I  Abstain .--Jebulon (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

   Info see here an example of a fail --Andrei (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

   Info its sometimes about technical quality of reproduction. google art does not mean its great. curating skills and common sense are also applicable. for example, this institution has 80 items but i would consider nominating five. --Andrei (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support. I think my answer, Jebulon, is that photography is partly for documentation, and this humongous, sharp reproduction is a great document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support according to Ikan's argumentation. Sometimes I like a painting more, sometimes less. When I like it, the support is very clear. If I don't like it so much, but the resolution is outstanding, then I also support it because I have respect for the art and I am grateful that Commons is enriched with these works. Great art deserves a feature, regardless of personal taste. It is part of the cultural identity of mankind. This is just my humble opinion and an evaluation of the above comment. This painting I like, as well as the cubist work of Leo Gestel. Many regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Further  Comment on Jebulon's thoughts: Yes, I do take into account my regard for an artwork and whether it's important in some way. I won't vote against a reproduction of a famous painting because I dislike the painting, but there are a lot of situations in which I don't vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive resolution, I enjoy the level of details and the paint cracks at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Commonists 09:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Incredible resolution, very useful to study Titian’s brushwork and the aging of the painting. --Aristeas (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely painting. Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Leo Gestel - Mallorca, Terreno - Google Art Project.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2021 at 20:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Leo Gestel - Mallorca, Terreno - Google Art Project.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leo Gestel - Mallorca, Terreno - Google Art Project.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Towns
•  Info created by Leo Gestel - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Andrei (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Valuable for commons and worth a feature, imho. More art, please :) -- Radomianin (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Abstain for the reasons above.--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Radomianin. The reproduction does not feature the extreme resolution some other Google art reproductions have, but is still very good. --Aristeas (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Not my style, but FP for sure. Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Royal Albatross - east of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania.jpg

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2021 at 13:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Albatross - east of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Albatross - east of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Diomedeidae_(Albatross)
•  Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strong  Support As a big wave seen the northern royal albatross, but great shot and very good quality -- Aichi Message me 13:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Impressive looking image at first glance especially with the water droplets around. I have a bit of reservation regarding the DoF used, and also the overall color palette which makes the image a bit dull -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive that you aligned the two on one focal plane. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Exciting! I don't mind the colors - at first, I thought from the thumbnail that this was a black & white photo, and it would have been fine that way, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per others above. Striking! -- Radomianin (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Please notice we have two types of drops, some in the air, but some on the glass or lens too. They are different and this is visible. But I could not oppose for this !--Jebulon (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support wow. it's always humbling to see a shot that I don't think I could reproduce if I tried. Some of it may be that JJ's equipment is at least six times as expensive as mine, but a lot of skill, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent angle and nice composition with the wave, very good catch -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Even with an overcast day, this is an exceptional image. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --IamMM (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support On looking at it further, there is enough wow, so I'll override minor reservations -- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per King of Hearts and Ikan. -Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 16:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support A nice shot. --Laitche (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Good bird. --Trougnouf (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Dragon on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana).jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2021 at 10:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dragon on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dragon on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Slovenia
•  Info Dragon on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana). Windy, rainy day + ND filter. Tripod shot. All by --Mile (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment There is a “glow” around the dragon’s tongue which looks like an error, I would remove it. --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like that he's got wet spots from the rain. But the composition with the background isn't ideal, and you are missing his tail. The light isn't spectacular. If I look at File:Dragon on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana).jpg, I wonder about some other composition choice. Perhaps a focal length and angle-of-view could get the wing to point at the spire and achieve as much to the right of the dragon as possble, while avoiding the street sign. -- Colin (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition issue. The building near the tail of the dragon is distracting -- Dey.sandip (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others – quality as such is really good but the dull light, distracting background and cut-off tail spoil it I’m afraid. May I ask what you used the ND filter for, what benefit did you get from the longer exposure time? --Kreuzschnabel 15:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Info Compo is "ideal" to the degree we have (trafic, people, signs). For beter i would need higher position. Tail goes behind at that spot, it not possible to get it all from that spot. Glow at tongue - i highlighted mouth. Kreuz benefit of wind+clouds+ND - you get soft and nice back, clouds dont appear as sharp structure, easier to stay focused on main subject - dragon. Light-dull, i wanted that way. --Mile (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I’d say to soften the clouds you’d need exposure times of one minute or so, they really don’t move that far within 0,8 s. --Kreuzschnabel 20:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Honestly a bit surprised this is not doing better, a very striking composition and the light isn't so much dull as brooding, which really helps the atmosphere. A blue sky would not work as well for this motif. Cmao20 (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Cmao20. Looking at some of the other shots in Category:Dragons on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana), blue sky and the harsh shadows that come with it don't really work with this subject, imho. Those are happy tourist snaps of a statue, while this one shows a dragon. --El Grafo (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Commonists 16:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Mile, you are very careful about small details of photos, something I appreciate very much. So could you please have a look at my hint given 3 days ago? I would like to support the photo, but I cannot do so as long as the “glowing” tongue looks like an editing error. --Aristeas (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Aristeas i covered that glow. --Mile (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you! –  Support per El Grafo. --Aristeas (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Ocean City beach and pier MD2.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2021 at 20:36:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ocean City beach and pier MD2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ocean City beach and pier MD2.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#United States of America
•  Info The beach at Ocean City, Maryland at first light, created by Acroterion - uploaded by Acroterion - nominated by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Acroterion (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Gallery link was not working. I would suggest (and have changed it to) the “Bridges” gallery page because most FPs of piers etc. are on that page, too. Of course if the beach is more important than the pier, the link would be Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States (no Maryland section yet). --Aristeas (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak support Painterly composition with subtle light and nice textures in the waves. But the image quality is IMO a little on the low side. Cmao20 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose A good QI indeed, but not outstanding for my taste.--Jebulon (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak support per Cmao20. The waves are beautiful, the lonely pier is nice. --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Jebulon. Perhaps if the people on the beach were more purposeful. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Has a great mood, but per others that's not enough to carry it. Reminds me of one of those paintings you study in an art history class to gain an understanding of how the artist or style developed but that isn't one of his/her/its recognized masterpieces. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with the other views. One or two figures with purpose on the beach could have elevated the photo. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Jebulon. -- Karelj (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Porto Covo March 2020-10a.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2021 at 12:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo March 2020-10a.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo March 2020-10a.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Lamps
•  Info Minimalism again: just a street lamp at night. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 13:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Balanced and simple beauty. The delicate sky gives the image the wow, in my humble opinion. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm all for beautiful shots of ordinary objects, interesting shapes/patterns found in banal subjects, and minimalism, but I'm having trouble seeing the "wow" here. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose same reason as Rhododendrites Buidhe (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Minimalism is nice, but editing should not be so minimal. You have a lot of chroma noise and few dust spots to clean. --Mile (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for noticing, Mile. Editing was careful but dust spots are very difficult to discern in such a dark background. I will fix them later today. As for chroma noise, what I can see are very faint clouds on a very dark sky. But I'll give another try with a better monitor later. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Info A new version was uploaded with the dust spots removed (thanks to your microscope!). No significant chrominance noise that I can see at 100%... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Info I tried this yesterday, i croped to third, so center of bulb is on a third line, it works better. But i removed "o". --Mile (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Weak support Good thoughtful photo but I can't say the subject really holds any interest for me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Typically alvesgasparian. I like.--Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't mind blown lights in general when they occur as part of a larger scene since they're very hard to avoid, but when it is the actual subject I think a better job could be done to control the highlights (e.g. HDR). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment I respectfully disagree, a light is a light is a light. If anything on a photo is supposed to be blown, that should be … a light. In fact, being blown is the very nature of a light! Blown subjects are undesirable on a photo because they hide the detail. As far as I know, no present-day light sources have any kind of detail except, maybe, the old filament bulbs. Even in those cases, you would have to compensate so much that the light would no longer look like a light. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think if it's a small speck in the middle it's fine - the blown-out area here is a bit too large for my tastes. Also the lamp does have detail, as you can see in the bumpy surface in the non-blown-out parts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Rhododendrites. If the background were dark blue, perhaps. Wrt the blown area, I disagree with King of Hearts. When looking directly at a light source, the DR will exceed a JPG and the human eye would only perceive the bumpy surface away from the strongest glow. So I don't have a problem with the central area being blown. However, I'd expect it to be at FF in at least one colour channel rather than paper-white. Have the highlights been reduced in post, or Nikon's JPG capped the brightness? -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, Colin. Yes, the highligths were very slightly reduced. But not too much, for the reason you invoked about the (non)response of the human eye. I could have manipulated the background to look like dark blue, instead of almost black. That possibility crossed my mind but I felt guilty with just the thought... By the way, I was scared to death by the number of characters in your comment (666), as if the devil himself had joined the discussion... :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I shall take more care over my byte count in future! I only suggested blue if it was indeed the blue hour, and not to fake it. I think we have a tendency on Commons to be terrified of the blown areas (Lightroom makes them too easy to spot with red warning) and think reducing the highlights to eliminate that angry red warning will somehow improve the image. Of course highlight reduction can help at times, but I think we should let light sources burn brightly. I'd rather my screen was shining as bright as it could than some odd paper white. Maybe one day we'll see JPG replacement that can do HDR get adopted for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Single-channel clipping would be fine for me as well, but not such a huge white area. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Regretful weak oppose Compositionally it's great; I like the abstraction and the symbolism it creates when you consider when it was taken, at the beginning of a dark time. That said, I think it would have worked better with the sky behind it not quite so dark. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Rhododendrites. If there was a little something extra, perhaps. Black on dark gray is also quite unappealing in my view. I made a similar shot two years ago, but never uploaded it (before today) because the wow is weak -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Rhododendrites. -- Karelj (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Titian - Pope Paul III with his Grandsons Alessandro the young and Ottavio Farnese - WGA22985.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2021 at 21:34:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Titian - Pope Paul III with his Grandsons Alessandro the young and Ottavio Farnese - WGA22985.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Titian - Pope Paul III with his Grandsons Alessandro the young and Ottavio Farnese - WGA22985.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
•  Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Commonists 21:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Abstain -- Commonists 21:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I assume the cut heel on the bottom right is original.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• sure, you can see the other copies for confirmation. thanks--Commonists 09:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support I have taken the liberty to propose another, more specific gallery page. --Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Question I haven't been to the Capodimonte for years. Can anyone confirm that these colors and brightness are of greater or equal accuracy than those in other photos in Category:Pope Paul III and His Grandsons (Titian, National Museum of Capodimonte)? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• I corrected the colours a bit, the other versions exaggerate the contrast a bit, but consider that it is an unfinished work, thank you. --Commonists 23:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I'll  Support. I didn't realize it was unfinished. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Support --IamMM (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

File: Pesona Burung Merak Hijau.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2021 at 12:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File: Pesona Burung Merak Hijau.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File: Pesona Burung Merak Hijau.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridges, Pheasants, Quail, Turkeys)
•  Info created by Pratechno - uploaded by Pratechno - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Very beautiful photo but I am unsure that the image quality is at FP level especially seeing that peacocks are fairly common. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support OK, not huge, but kind of mesmerizing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Cmao. Gets unacceptably unsharp and noisy at right. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Cmao. -- Karelj (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Wed 13 Oct → Mon 18 Oct
Thu 14 Oct → Tue 19 Oct
Fri 15 Oct → Wed 20 Oct
Sat 16 Oct → Thu 21 Oct
Sun 17 Oct → Fri 22 Oct
Mon 18 Oct → Sat 23 Oct

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

Sat 09 Oct → Mon 18 Oct
Sun 10 Oct → Tue 19 Oct
Mon 11 Oct → Wed 20 Oct
Tue 12 Oct → Thu 21 Oct
Wed 13 Oct → Fri 22 Oct
Thu 14 Oct → Sat 23 Oct
Fri 15 Oct → Sun 24 Oct
Sat 16 Oct → Mon 25 Oct
Sun 17 Oct → Tue 26 Oct
Mon 18 Oct → Wed 27 Oct

Closing a featured picture promotion request

The bot

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

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
   featured or not featured
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
   becomes
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
3. Save your edit.
4. If it is featured:
   • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
   • Also add the picture to an appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
   • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
     • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
     • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
     • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
     • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
     • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
   • Add == FP promotion ==
     {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
   {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
   Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2021), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
   '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
   (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
   delisted or not delisted
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2021.
4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
   1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
   2. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
      2. Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night shots, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
   3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}}

2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
   not featured
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
   becomes
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
3. Save your edit.
4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
   {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
   Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2021), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.