Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

COM:FPC/CL

Featured picture candidates

File:Femme en chemise, André Derain, 1906.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 20:55:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by André Derain, uploaded and nominated by Yann
Support No FP by Derain yet. Public domain since January this year. -- Yann (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vivid colors, bold brushwork - pure Fauvist fascination for me. A masterpiece that now belongs to everyone. Thank you for the nomination, Yann! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Focas grises (Halichoerus grypus), playa de Horsey, Norfolk, Inglaterra, 2022-11-20, DD 11.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 18:27:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Phocidae (Earless Seals)
Info Mother grey seal (Halichoerus grypus atlantica) with her one-day-old pup, Horsey Beach, Norfolk, England. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super cute Cmao20 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:DC3 Skå June 2017 05.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 18:51:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Objects
Info High contrast black and white image of a historic DC3 (SE-CFP) at Skå airfield, Stockholm County. The captain oversees maintenance work between flights. I chose black and white to draw attention to all the beautiful details in the aircraft and I think it suits this historic aircraft. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The people working on the plane is what makes it special Cmao20 (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cinnamon flycatcher (Pyrrhomyias cinnamomeus pyrrhopterus) San Isidro.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 14:18:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Tyrannidae#Genus : Pyrrhomyias
Info No FPs of this genus. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery fixed. It's great that you added the genus section, you just missed the 'Family' step in the code here on the nom. --Cart (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Aaaaaww... fluffball. Artistic compo too. --Cart (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support very cute bird. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 16:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 20:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Cmao20 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Multicoloured monkey grasshoppers (Homeomastax sp.) Sumaco.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 14:25:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Eumastacidae (Monkey grasshoppers)
Info No FPs of this family of grasshoppers. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Looks like creatures dreamed up in a Japanese toy factory. --Cart (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support These look like out of some sci-fi movie. Yann (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The right rear knee of the right hopper is blurred and there are these stacking halos around the left front knee. Can you fix this? --Ermell (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not for the knee. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 20:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support They definitely look like animatronic creations! Cmao20 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Stunning colors! - ERcheck (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyles dahlii

Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 11:23:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Male dorsal
Male ventral
Female dorsal
Female ventral

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Sphingidae (Hawk Moths)
Info Hyles dahlii mounted specimen male and female created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus – nominated by Olivier LPB -- Olivier LPB (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Olivier LPB (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the set. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Воздушен поглед на Струмичкото Поле.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 05:50:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#North Macedonia
Info created by Деан Лазаревски – uploaded by Деан Лазаревски – nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too blurred even for a drone shot. It also looks underexposed. I like the motif.--Ermell (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It is a big file, but even when I downsize to 4000px across it still doesn't look fully sharp to me, so unfortunately despite the nice composition I side with Ermell here Cmao20 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Телефонска говорница во Стиник.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 05:30:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Electronics
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting motif, but imo the composition will look more balanced with the phone box a bit centered. Slight more crop on the left. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 06:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've uploaded a cropped version.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Horses grazing at Trunkol meadow, Jammu and Kashmir, India (crop).jpg

Voting period ends on 15 May 2025 at 05:14:59 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/In their habitats#Mammals
Info created, uploaded and nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Serene and tranquil scene, and you have framed it very nicely. Quality is good – it could be a tiny bit sharper, but this is much better and more realistic than the terrible artificial oversharpening we see everyday from most smartphones. – Aristeas (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition. Quality is okay Cmao20 (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Selyavnoe-Vtoroe-003.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 May 2025 at 21:51:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Central_Federal_District
Info A striking photo and an interesting site with some cultural importance. Created by Alexander Novikov – uploaded by Alexander Novikov – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting landscape, dramatic sky. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per UnpetitproleX. – Aristeas (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nomination; well composed scene. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Front Sacred Heart Cathedral Ooty Mar25 A7CR 05528.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 May 2025 at 10:12:13 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#India
Info The juxtaposition of the flowering plants in the foreground with the stark white cathedral appeals to me. There are no FPs of church exteriors in India. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree. This is a very nice composition. Cmao20 (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination – interesting juxtaposition, and the sky is very good, too. – Aristeas (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian Peacock courtship display at Pench national park (April, 2024) 08.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 May 2025 at 09:55:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridges, Peafowl, Pheasants, Quail, Turkeys)
Info created by Rohit14400 – uploaded by Rohit14400 – nominated by Rohit14400 -- thewanderersthirdeye (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- thewanderersthirdeye (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking symmetry. --Tagooty (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support light could have been better, but arguably better composed that both of the other two FPs. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And both the other two FPs have already appeared on the main page. So this is a timely upgrade, and a delist for the smaller of the two older ones might be in order. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Beautiful and well composed but the image quality is no more than okay Cmao20 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with previous comments about the image's quality, but it's mostly color noise, normal noise, light and a tiny amount of sharpening, all very easy to fix. It's a beautiful photo, so thewanderersthirdeye, Tagooty, UnpetitproleX, Cmao20, if you want a version with these issues fix you got one here. Best, --Cart (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter Thank you for fixing these issues. New version looks better to me. This is my first submission to the FP list. How should I proceed now? Should I withdraw the current nomination and submit a new one for the edited image? thewanderersthirdeye (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thewanderersthirdeye, I forgot to say welcome to FPC. :-) I didn't realize you were new here. The easiest thing is to add it as an 'Alternative' to this nom. Because it's a reviewed QI, we can't simply upload the improved version over the old file per COM:OVERWRITE, that is otherwise an option for small changes. No need to withdraw and begin again. I will fix this for you, you can just look at my edits here on the nomination and remember how this is done for future references. You can also support the new alternative if you like, support both or strike the support for the original, it's up to you. --Cart (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Edited version with some of the issues corrected, see above. Also 'pinging' previous voters about this change: Tagooty, UnpetitproleX, Cmao20.
Support Beautiful bird. --Cart (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the improvements. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking symmetry --Tagooty (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bottle Imp

Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 21:06:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed#Book illustrations in black and white
Info created by William Hatherell – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is the complete set of illustrations, from I think the second or third printing of the work with, notably, the caption for the second changed to be a more accurate line for what's seen compared to the first printing. Otherwise it's the same image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chico Wildflower Century (2025)-104A9764.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 21:02:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Cycling
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp details and dynamic perspective, convincing depiction of sporting exertion in natural surroundings. Excellent work, well captured. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin, and might I also add, a good-looking man. A personality rights warning should probably be added though. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 10:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin Cmao20 (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. – Aristeas (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ScotRail 43 012 and 43 132 Drumochter Summit.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 12:10:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail_vehicles#United_Kingdom
Info Another Scottish railway. I really liked the sign in this one, and felt that it elevated the composition to something really special. created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree about the sign, it's like having text in the image while not having added any text. Good way to dodge the image guidelines. ;-) --Cart (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition with the mountain on the left. "Usual" Kabelleger quality. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hut is the cherry on the cake. --Yann (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great photo from Kabelleger, Vulcan's favourite nomination of the week–Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut lorikeet

Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 06:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Three Coconut lorikeet are sleeping
Three Coconut lorikeet wake up

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The 'sleeping' is a clear FP for me, but in the 'awake' photo the middle bird didn't cooperate. I'll wait for some comments from other bird photographers, but perhaps you should break this up and do separate noms. The 'awake' photo is timestamped before the 'sleeping', so are they really waking up or were they falling asleep or simply preening. --Cart (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were indeed waking up, W.carter — or possibly startled. These two images are the final frames from a longer sequence, and I selected the ones with the highest overall quality for nomination, see: https://ibb.co/LdvKt78c

As for the "awake" photo: you're right, the eye of the middle bird could be a bit sharper. Still, I think the contrast between the sleeping and the alert states is what gives the composition its unique appeal. I'm also curious to hear what other (bird) photographers think — perhaps a separate nomination would be worth considering. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also additional funny picture: only one out of the three loris shortly startled, see: File:Allfarblori-Vogelpark-Marlow-2025-03.jpg --Tuxyso (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't think the image on the right is an FP, due to the slight motion blur on the middle bird. The left, on the other hand, is sharp and crisp.--Peulle (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weißstorch-am-Wasser-Vogelpark-Marlow-2025.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 06:25:42 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White stork in bird park Vogelpark Marlow wading through a pond

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Ciconiidae (Storks)
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery fixed on both nominations. Please, it would be great if you could learn to add the section to your noms too, instead of relying on us other to go searching and do it for you. --Cart (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
W.carter, Thank you for your help. I did make a serious effort to find a suitable gallery, but unfortunately the page Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds isn't working correctly — as you can see in this screenshot: https://ibb.co/rGvp6B9f. I also tried clicking on "Other Birds," but instead of reaching the correct section where "Other Birds" begin, I was redirected back to the top of gallary page and not the beginning of the stork's gallery as the preview image might suggest. Additionally, the page lacks a proper table of contents, so I have to guess the anchor links based on the section headings. That’s why I wasn’t able to add the gallery myself. I really appreciate your assistance! Tuxyso (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photos used for the galleries are selected from one of the orders/families or genus on that page. Having a stork as representative for 'Birds' in general does not mean that the photo goes directly to the stork section, any more than say the image of the Golden Gate bridge for 'Bridges' at Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications going specifically to 'San Fransisco'. When you are on the right bird page, you just go to the 'Table of contents' on the upper left and select the appropriate section. --Cart (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will remember for the next time, thanks! Tuxyso (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the section headings are the anchors. When designing these pages, we can't rely on all users knowing about such sophisticated things as anchors. It needs to be as simple as just copying the section heading. Also, introducing {{Anchor}} in the galleries would confuse the FPCBot no end. It would place photos in the wrong section. Or we would have to do all the sorting and tasks done by the FPCBot by hand, and I don't think anyone here wants to go back to those dark days. Aristeas, with some help from me is just in the process of cleaning up the galleries and making the code for FPCBot better (see his talk page), so that there will be no more photos in wrong sections. --Cart (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Cart for the help. If I may add this: the little box for the table of contents (TOC) at the top of the gallery pages is empty (as shown in your screenshot) because after some changes to the default “skin” of Wiki pages in 2022 the TOC is displayed in bigger style at the left of every page now (the exact location and format depend on the “Appearance > Skin” settings in your preferences). If this big TOC is not visible, there is some confusion or conflict between the “skin” settings and the browser which you are using right now; this would be annoying, but AFAIK it would not be related to the gallery pages but would be a general technical problem. – Aristeas (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ support for now. Looking at the reflection, this is a little bit tilted, but I'm sure you can correct that. Very nice otherwise. --Cart (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your thorough review! I've corrected the tilt — I'd really appreciate it if you could take another look, W.carter. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thank you for fixing this. :-) --Cart (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and light Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the backlight emphasizes the bird’s outline, and the mirror image is very nice. – Aristeas (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Groot koeienoog (Telekia speciosa) 16-03-2025 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 May 2025 at 04:26:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Seed pod of a Telekia speciosa Focus stack of 20 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellently handled, you've come a long way since the first time I explained focus stacking to you. :-) --Cart (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote. I still have your explanation of 21 July 2019 in my possession. another remark: I think the new category Asterales is not activated yet.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: the link (category) works now, I have applied a little tweak. – Aristeas (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay 💬 10:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. I would be tempted to crop a tiny bit off the bottom so the lines finish in the left corner. Cmao20 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Cart (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful. – Aristeas (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb focus stacking bringing out minute details. --Tagooty (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like compo and subject, i think background on left isnt favorable, i would crop a bit, but s anyway. Small mistake anoted. Colors + --Mile (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for your vote. small error has been fixed.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ermell (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support could be a featured set with File:Groot koeienoog (Telekia speciosa) 16-03-2025 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg Olivier LPB (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canon EOS R50 (52694437103).jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 21:03:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical devices
Info created by Henry Söderlund on Flickr – uploaded by Tm – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality photo at high resolution. -- JayCubby (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the seeming simplicity. And the very small dashes of colour, that break the illusion of a black and white photo. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the light is very good and the comp works, but as a studio photo, I'm not impressed by this. Naturally, not every object photo needs to be focus stacked, but the DoF is rather shallow and not very well placed. The bar for photos like this is very high on FPC. --Cart (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think what bothers me is that the lens is out of focus. I don't mind a shallow DoF too much but it feels like the wrong parts of this picture are in focus. I agree with Kriztolina's review, which nearly persuaded me to support. Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tulpe 'Dance Line' im botanischen Garten in München 04.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 19:24:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Liliaceae
Info all by Kritzolina – nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stunning flower and bud, but the cut bud in the background is drawing attention away from the main subject. You don't happen to have another shot, taken a little higher and not cutting that bud? That way you get the 2-1-3 (1=main subject, 2=secondary subject, 3=background subject) compo that always works well with flowers, now it's at 2-1-2.84. --Cart (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review - unfortunately I don't have exactly the shot you describe. This would be perfect, I know. I have two similar shots, but I personally prefer this one, as one can see into the open flower. The other shots would be this one and this one. Kritzolina (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steinerlebnispfad Zeilberg, Hütte im Wald im Osten.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 19:03:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know if others will think it has insufficient wow-factor but this interesting case study of a building being reclaimed by nature appeals to me. I enjoy the rich colours, the patterns cast by the shadows, and the branch that juts out to touch the roof of the old hut almost like the forest is claiming it as its own. Cmao20 (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the interplay between light and shadow and the lost place look of the photo. Definetely enough wow-factor for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a sucker for old derelict buildings, and with the color scheme on this, it could easily be a nice print on a wall. --Cart (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a striking scene. The lighting spoils it for me. --Tagooty (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admiral Chester Nimitz signs as Supreme Allied Commander during formal surrender ceremonies on the USS Missouri.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 16:18:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1949
Info created by US Navy, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
Info Admiral Chester Nimitz signs as Supreme Allied Commander during formal surrender ceremonies on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. September 2, 1945. Directly behind him are (left-to-right): General of the Army Douglas MacArthur; Admiral William Halsey, USN, and Rear Admiral Forrest Sherman, USN.
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Can be a featured picture just like the Japanese signature one. -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support historical value --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The built in flash of a SLR camera, Pentax MZ-30, firing 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 13:58:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Objects
Info Just me, experimenting, again. We don't have many photos of camera flashes at the moment they fire (let alone mounted on a camera), so I gave it a try. See the description on the file page. I think the black & white works well here with this, my trusty old analogue film camera. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Arty. Black and white probably essential here else you'd probably get weird lens flares Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. High informational value as well as high artistic value. --Kritzolina (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, and very cleverly done (see description page). – Aristeas (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Visually striking shot of a rarely captured moment, combining technical clarity with aesthetic composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like how you always come up with something innovative and new. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support a well done image! --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soldier onboard M77 Ulvön in Lysekil 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 11:53:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Soldiers
Info Female soldier standing guard onboard mine countermeasures vessel M77 Ulvön, moored in Lysekil, Sweden. I know this is a small file, as you can see it's a crop from a larger photo. But since it's within the rules, I’m going to try it anyway, because I really like the "Accidental Renaissance" of it. The soldiers were kind enough and they gave me permission to take photos, but they were on the job, so I wasn’t going to pester them too much. The male soldier was stationary at the gangway, while the female was patrolling the deck. This was the only chance I had to photograph her in that position. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a bit small but it's a fine portrait with a careful composition. I would find it interesting hanging in an art gallery, so it should probably be FP.Cmao20 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Анастасия Львова^ru/en 16:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The different shapes of the surroundings (rectangles, sharp diagonal, round window) make this photo special and very apt for the portrait of a soldier. – Aristeas (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Cmao20 and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've added a category (for the H&K G36). I would personally crop a few pixels at the top (but then again I like to crop things too tightly). JayCubby (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning, but those extra pixels above the dark angle are intentional to show that the peak is there and that the pattern doesn't continue further up. Thanks for the category, I'm no weapons expert. Although the notation is probably a bit redundant since there is only one weapon visible in the image. ;-) ) --Cart (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution, not exceptional for a posed image. --Tagooty (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The porthole behind her head encircles like a halo. Echo Aristeas' appreciation of shapes. - ERcheck (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sichelsee und Großer Wörthsee Augsfeld 2025-02.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 11:45:54 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info created by Plozessor – uploaded by Plozessor – nominated by Plozessor -- Plozessor (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very scenic and beautiful view. The sky saturation looks a bit much but I'll take your word for it that it looked like this Cmao20 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful scenery and colours, high resolution. Hopefully, the WLE jury will appreciate this photo! – Aristeas (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support For once, the water really is this bent on the map and not just a product of the projection. I wouldn't mind if the 'Vibrancy' of the sky was tone down a bit, but its a lovely photo. --Cart (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The water really is bent" that's why it's called "Sickle Lake" ;) Plozessor (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw that and suspected the name had to come from a similarity, I only went to the map to see just how "sickle-shaped" it was since I was curious. --Cart (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif, but the technique is inadequate for FP. There are stitching errors in the clouds (see notes), and some of the colors in the sky are strange and unbalanced. Too turquoise in the area of the right note and in the upper left area. --Milseburg (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for the hint, Milseburg - I completely overlooked those two stitching errors in the clouds. @Plozessor, would you mind removing them? If you're short on time, feel free to use my retouch attempt instead (SwissTransfer link) for an update, if the result looks okay to you. I also adjusted the blue tone a bit in the sky to make it feel more balanced. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Radomianin Ha, we did it at the same time! Now I can't decide whether to use your version or mine. What do you think of my update? Plozessor (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a funny coincidence! Thanks a lot for your edit - I personally think it looks really good. Much appreciated! Best regards and thanks again. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Milseburg Oops, I checked for stitching errors in the lake and background but not in the sky. Thx for spotting, I think I fixed all of the issues you mentioned. Please have another look! Plozessor (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support detailed. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dorfkirche Sanitz (main door), 2025-04-20.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 08:08:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info Picture of the main entrance of the village church in Sanitz (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany), taken on Easter Sunday this year. The church is built of fieldstone and brick; the shadow of the tree adds depth to the composition. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, one of the few times here that I've seen a shadow enhance a photo. Well spotted and perfect timing! --Cart (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bright blue door really 'pops' out of the plain wall Cmao20 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow – the portal is really beautiful, and the characteristic shadow of the tree makes this a special image. As Cart said. – Aristeas (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cart, this is really special! --Kritzolina (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice motif and nice shadow play --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hôtel Fairmont Le Montreux Palace 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 May 2025 at 08:03:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and light Cmao20 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 04:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chêne, colza, Jura (horizontal).jpg

Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 18:14:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#France
Info English oak standing in the middle of a rapeseed field with the Jura Mountains background. Versonnex (Ain), France. Created, uploaded and nominated by ZarlokX -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think its beter version. --Mile (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the previous nomination, it is overcategorised, though. As A.Savin says you need to read the guidelines and fix this. But the photo is great. Cmao20 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I removed 3 overcategories. And thank you. ZarlokX (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wikisquack (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Convincing composition, beautiful interplay of the three colours (lush green, bright yellow, bluish background). – Aristeas (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compelling overall composition and colors. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking colours and composition. --Tagooty (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not that overwhelmed. Light in sky are rather dull. --Milseburg (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tractor John Deere 6320 with front and rear mower cutting grass.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 15:49:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Slovenia
Info Tractor John Deere 6320 with front and rear mower cutting grass. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool idea and really great composition! Cmao20 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, appealing composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support bit shadowy in the bottom but overall good to me. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:46-218-0001 Zolochiv Castle RB 24.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 May 2025 at 11:50:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Ukraine
Info Top down view on castle in Zolochiv, Ukraine. Created, uploaded and nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry — nice composition, but the image lacks the level of sharpness we usually expect for a FP. --Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 13:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view and light. Quality is just about okay for a drone photo Cmao20 (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wikisquack (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent overview of the castle, beautiful light from the side. – Aristeas (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yellow should be decreased and highligths too. --Mile (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light from the low sun is very unfavorable here. The sharpness is at the lower limit.--Ermell (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bottomless Blue Pool (54453584411).jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 18:03:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Alaska
Info Matanuska Glacier - Alaska. Сreated by Eric Kilby – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A beautiful place indeed, but the photo is a little too dark. I'd expect more white in the snow since this is a pristine place. Probably a bit too much clarity. --Cart (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually, this is ice, not snow, so it may not be completely white. --Yann (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Cart but the clarity doesn't bother me as much here because it doesn't look as oversaturated and it's just a more interesting/unique view than the other nomination Cmao20 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vignetting is distracting in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very special place, stunning shapes of the ice. – Aristeas (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support very special indeed. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glassy Glacial Lake (54441988747).jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 18:03:49 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Alaska
Info Icebergs floating on Inner Lake George below Colony Glacier in Alaska. Сreated by Eric Kilby – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Юрий Д.К 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ZarlokX (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This place and its light is very much like the fjords in my own backyard. This photo looks over-processed to me, too much clarity (a common mistake when editing arctic scenes) and saturation, especially in the blue spectrum. --Cart (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Beautiful composition but I agree that the colours and clarity look a bit too much and this makes me see it as a little clichéd, I'd prefer a more modest process of this image. Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I really like the nature in this photo, I had a go at it. Sure enough, by "reverse engineering" some of the edits I was happy to find a very nice landscape underneath it all. Thankfully, not much of the colors and details had been lost in the original processing. Since glacier ice can be very blue, the glacier and ice floes retained their color even after some desaturation. Юрий Д.К, if you want to use the edited version as an 'Alternative', you'll find it at File:Glassy Glacial Lake (54441988747), edited.jpg. I would support it. --Cart (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will support this version if someone adds it as an alt Cmao20 (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Agree that the editing has added a bit too much contrast/clarity, but nevertheless I cannot help to be impressed. Of course Cart’s version looks better to me, I would give full support to it if you could add it as an alternative version. – Aristeas (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Pinging Aristeas, Cmao20, Cart and ZarlokX. Alternative nomination is ready. Юрий Д.К 23:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP now Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I said above. – Aristeas (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comment above. --Cart (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the alternative, Cart - this one works much better. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ZarlokX (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support better --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riedböhringen - St. Genesius 29.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 May 2025 at 11:06:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info Parapet of the organ gallery, parish church St. Genesius, Riedböhringen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany; created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this picture is very good and high quality, I fear it may fall into the 'low wow' category for me. Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alright then, I'm in the minority Cmao20 (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this is a beautiful image and section.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice pars pro toto: an unpretentious and tasteful painting, well photographed. – Aristeas (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance." – Coco Chanel --Cart (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The delicate modesty brings out the beauty of the motif. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basílica de la Dorada, Toulouse, Francia, 2023-01-07, DD 11-13 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 20:32:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#France
Info Image of the Black Madonna in the basilica of Our Lady of the Daurade, Toulouse, France. The first church in this location was established in 410 when Emperor Honorius allowed the conversion of pagan temples to Christianity. The original building of Notre-Dame de la Daurade was a temple dedicated to Apollo. During the 5th or 6th century another church was erected, decorated with golden mosaics; the current name derives from the antique name, (“Deaurata”, gold). It became a Benedictine monastery during the 9th century. After a period of decline starting in the 15th century, the basilica was demolished in 1761 to make way for the construction of Toulouse's riverside quays. The buildings were restored and a new church built, but the monastery was closed during the French Revolution, becoming a tobacco factory. The basilica had housed the shrine of a Black Madonna. The original icon was stolen in the fifteenth century, and its first replacement was burned by Revolutionaries in 1799 on the Place du Capitole. The icon presented today is an 1807 copy of the fifteenth century Madonna. Blackened by the hosts of candles, the second Madonna has been known since the sixteenth century as Notre Dame La Noire. The current edifice was built during the 19th century. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose for now~~ I hope this is taken in the spirit of constructive criticism but I really am not convinced by your current processing algorithm. In this and your previous nomination, which you kindly corrected/improved at my request, the reprocessed version you have uploaded in 2025 has made the text on the signs in the church far less legible than it was in the original versions in the file history uploaded in 2022/2023. What is sharp and easily readable in the earlier versions is now blurry, smudged, and sometimes seems to contain characters that don't really even look like letters. It is obvious in this image if you zoom in to virtually any noticeboard, sign, or monument with lettering.

I wonder whether your processing software is applying some form of AI-based sharpening or noise reduction without you being aware. AI is a huge fad at the moment, and I notice that photo processing software is often jumping on that bandwagon, adding AI-based features that are sold to us as a great improvement while they are actually quite dubious. AI is notoriously bad at handling text, and its sharpening algorithms often work by interpolating textures, which can easily smooth out details like text where precise rendering of individual pixels is important.

I am keen to support this picture but on principle I won't support a version that's to my mind obviously worse than the 2023 version. I can see that the new version does have certain advantages - the altar is a little bit sharper - but for me these are far outweighed by the poor rendering of fine detail. One of the things I like about your church interiors is that, like David Iliff's and DXR's, they contain plenty of interesting detail to explore at full size. It would be a huge shame to lose this. Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Cmao20, I addressed the issue. I hope this version looks much better. Poco a poco (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, that's what I want it to look like Cmao20 (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compo is not so good. I would avoid side painting and bilboards. Would crop just to main portal.--Mile (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have uploaded an image of what you ask for, see here. But I prefer the wider view / compo of this candidate. Let's see what others say. Poco a poco (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Юрий Д.К 21:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive and beautiful. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support good enough to me. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shervin Hajipour.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 16:43:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Portraits
Info created by Hosseinronaghi – uploaded by Hosseinronaghi – nominated by محک -- Ταπυροι (گپ) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ταπυροι (گپ) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dreamy and romantic photo, but unfortunately quite noisy (to some extent masked by the B&W) and the motion blur of the hand should not be present in a portrait photo session. --Cart (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanguar haor, Bangladesh 01.jpg (delist)

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 16:20:58

Info Undisclosed photomontage, please see the discussion. (Original nomination)
~~Delist~~ -- Yann (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I trust others more experts about this. Yann (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist People were sceptical at the time. Definitely a photomontage. Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to be proven wrong this time Cmao20 (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ --Thi (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist + delink from Wikipedia main NS articles. Especially per the bird in the tree + strange halo around the right man's head. Furthermore, I cannot judge a lot about the distances, but the sharpness of the birds definitely doesn't match the sharpness of the tree and humans. If the birds were in the same plane or beyond, they would be some monstrous human-eating ducks. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 18:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ Keep Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: @Cmao20: @Thi: @Draceane: @UnpetitproleX: @W.carter: The uploader provided two images for the context, that looks credible to me. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and surprised at the 27 support to 0 oppose of original nom. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Abdulmominbd for providing evidence of the image’s authenticity. I understand that this discussion may have been uncomfortable but it is also essential given how often undisclosed manipulations do get featured at FPC.

For me, the image though not a photomontage is still not FP—a significant part of the image is completely black, the saturation brush in the sky is way too obvious, the wetland i.e. the titular subject is cropped out. To me, the unedited actually looks better (even FP worthy with some editing). Perhaps it could have been edited differently? For now I am not striking my vote, will revisit this later. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A side Comment Looking at the author’s stream, I can see that many, if not most, of the shots are overedited, overprocessed, and extensively oversaturated. Yet many of them have Wiki Loves Earth winner badges, picture of the day stars, and featured awards. I wonder if encyclopedias actually need these kinds of images featured on their pages? I’m talking about a broader set of winners on Wiki Loves Earth. If you look at Wiki Loves Earth winner pages from many countries, many of the top entries there are overedited and oversaturated to the extent that they have nothing to do with realistic photography. There seems to be a competence/expertise issue among the judges. It’s like pop culture eating encyclopedia culture ;) To quote: “The primary driving forces behind popular culture, especially when speaking of Western popular cultures, are the mass media, mass appeal, marketing”. It’s probably fine to have pop culture, but it’s not OK to substitute encyclopedia work on summary of knowledge with pop culture or fantasy culture. --Argenberg (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a constant stream of positive votes in the original nomination, and the only user who questioned the nomination with regard to editing was Charlesjsharp. This particular image, aside from being a photomontage, is actually OK tonality-wise. One could imagine taking a shot like this with a telephoto lens and minimal post-processing. --Argenberg (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the judging on Wiki Loves Earth and Wiki Loves Monuments is often poor. There are good pictures that win awards, but they are frequently beaten by low-quality, oversaturated, heavily processed, unrealistic slop. The judging here is much better, although as this picture shows, we can make mistakes. I don't know how judges for WLE and WLM are chosen. I was once approached to judge WLM Bangladesh, which was good fun, but that is my entire involvement with them. It would be good if these contests solicited the opinions of people who are more skilled photography critics from here, QIC, VIC and elsewhere. Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cannot go into details (that would be rather impolite), but I can tell you from my own experience that often some other jury members don’t like it if one gets picky about details; they think that is boring nitpicking. – Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This says a lot about the competence of such judges. It could be one of the dividing lines between the smartphone/pop/marketing culture mentioned above and the photography/encyclopedia culture. One aims to impress and manipulate, while the other tries to educate. And education is tough, much harder than marketing, because it takes more energy to build up new neural circuits and pathways in the brain. --Argenberg (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ Checked some of his FP nominess. I already repulsed one because of bad PS edit. Author (User:Abdulmominbd) can correct us, but so far i will oppose. --Mile (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment EXIF show it's original. Striked. --Mile (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ Keep It's unfortunate that this was promoted, but at the time we were still a bit naive here at FPC. A montage was suspected, I remember more chatter about this in e-mails than on the FPC page, so it went undocumented. I know that people were checking if all the ducks were different, maybe a composite from one duck flying past and several exposures used. But it was before schablons popped up in every editing program, and we simply didn't know what to look for. Now we are more seasoned by AI and more wary. Shit happened, and now that we are wiser, it can be corrected. --Cart (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's natural to have doubts about anything that seems unusual, but as you know, reality can often be stranger than fiction. Back in 2017, while traveling in Tanguar Haor, I was on a boat capturing the men in silhouette light when by chance some birds flew into the frame. Whenever I shared this photo on my social media pages, people often assumed it was a montage or some sort of manipulation, much like you're doing now. To clear things up, I'm sharing the original files with you. Please have a look and let's settle this, as it's honestly a bit embarrassing for me. At the time, I was new to photography and used to shoot in JPEG to save space and also my editing skill was very poor. I have also included the photo taken just after the shot in question to help provide context. The files are downloadable, so feel free to inspect them thoroughly. Google Drive Link Abdulmominbd (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to be proved wrong in this. There is still some wonder in the world. Of course I apologize to you. --Cart (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ It’s a pity because this particular image is, as Argenberg stated, “aside from being a photomontage, […] actually OK tonality-wise”. I guess this also explains the broad consent in the original nomination. Many manipulated images are totally overdone and immediately look unrealistic; this one is better. I would love to see the original image before the montage. Maybe it would still be a FP, and with more right than this manipulated version. But we don’t have the choice. – Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's natural to have doubts about anything that seems unusual, but as you know, reality can often be stranger than fiction. Back in 2017, while traveling in Tanguar Haor, I was on a boat capturing the men in silhouette light when by chance some birds flew into the frame. Whenever I shared this photo on my social media pages, people often assumed it was a montage or some sort of manipulation, much like you're doing now. To clear things up, I'm sharing the original files with you. Please have a look and let's settle this, as it's honestly a bit embarrassing for me. At the time, I was new to photography and used to shoot in JPEG to save space and also my editing skill was very poor. I have also included the photo taken just after the shot in question to help provide context. The files are downloadable, so feel free to inspect them thoroughly. Google Drive Link Abdulmominbd (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for sharing the files, Abdulmominbd! I’m happy to learn that the photo is authentic. I will take a closer look tomorrow, but have striked my oppose vote. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just for the record: I can confirm that the metadata of the provided JPEG files look completely authentic. I can reproduce the look of the discussed image by ca. 1 minute of editing of the provided original JPEG (only removing CAs and reducing the sharpening applied by the camera would take longer). So I have to apologize to you, Abdulmominbd, and want to thank you again for sharing the original images for comparison. Congratulations to this great shot and I wish you always good light and many more wonderful photos! – Aristeas (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good capture. But the image is quite heavily edited with newly introduced hues (yellow in the sky). This gives it a different, slightly surreal atmosphere. --Argenberg (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great, EXIF tell Ver.1.02 which is camera firmware, early one. Probably its all fine here, just edit was a bit strange. Birds have colors, some have CA - so "lens mistake". Abdulmominbd Thanx for showing up. So now is can this edit be FP or not. --Mile (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously Юрий Д.К 21:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Clearly overprocessed (yellow sky and what looks like mist) but not fake (genuine shot with real silhouettes of accurate proportions) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, Abdulmominbd, for stepping forward with transparency and sharing the original files—it takes humility and integrity to do so, especially in such a charged discussion. It's a reminder that sometimes extraordinary moments do happen in real life, and scepticism, while healthy, must be open to evidence. This image may be imperfect from a technical or post-processing standpoint, but the authenticity you've demonstrated deserves appreciation. I hope this experience encourages continued dialogue grounded in both critical thinking and mutual respect. --Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus above. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfied with the explanation from the uploader.--Rocky Masum (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My taste: the original shot was even better. Thanks for having show it to us. --Harlock81 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vishwak Sen.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 May 2025 at 06:57:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by AVRTisco – uploaded by AVRTisco – nominated by AVRTisco -- AVRTisco (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reason

Good quality and composition, the image stands out with its bold red monochrome styling. It demonstrates dramatic lighting, tonal depth and visual symmetry. It's rare to capture such a candid and visually striking portrait of a public figure. Taken during an event in Hyderabad. -- AVRTisco (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support AVRTisco (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi and welcome to FPC. I've fixed the upright format of the photo and the gallery for you. Things are a little different from the Wikipedias here. You need to check that the link you make for the gallery actually goes to a section on a page, and select it more carefully. Also, the file is rather small for an original photo, any chance of getting a bigger upload, preferably with the Exif included? Good luck with your nom now. --Cart (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an interesting portrait but small size. @AVRTisco: Bigger size available? --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @W.carter and @UnpetitproleX,

Thank you both for your valuable feedback. Unfortunately, the higher-resolution version is no longer available—the raw image files were deleted, and I only have this version (I hope this will not effect the voting process). If it’s acceptable under Commons guidelines, I’m willing to upscale the image using Photoshop while preserving the original quality as much as possible. Please let me know your thoughts on whether that would be appropriate in this case. Thankyou -- AVRTisco (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upscaling is not considered best practice on Commons. Seeing that no new information is actually being added by upscaling, it is merely interpolating pixels, then we take the line that upscaling just increases file size without preserving any new content and thus it should be done client-side if desired rather than being done by the uploader. Anyway, if this is the best version you have, Weak support on the basis that the composition is really good but the size is a little on the low side. Cmao20 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the size, and the photo, colors and light are well managed. But sorry, for me the crop is too tight at the bottom and to the right, cutting off the shoe. I don't think this pose is the best for an FP portrait, even though I understand that it is meant to convey some sort of attitude and mood. It's more suited for GQ, Harper's Bazaar or something like that, as one in a series of photos in an article about the actor. As a stand-alone portrait, it doesn't work that well. --Cart (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shoes cropped out unfortunately. Composition seems too tight -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olkhon Island, Capes, cliffs at sunset, Lake Baikal, Russia.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 15:55:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian Federal District
Info Capes and cliffs of the north coast of Olkhon Island at sunset. Ancient Archean/Proterozoic deposits in the Baikal continental rift valley (BRZ), Lake Baikal. All by --Argenberg (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Argenberg (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light and composition, although the corner sharpness could be better Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is great, and together with the stark landscape and the stormy sky it provides an impressive view. – Aristeas (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian Federal District

File:বেগুনি মৌটুসি (Cinnyris asiaticus), জাতীয় উদ্ভিদ উদ্যান, ঢাকা.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 04:01:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Nectariniidae (Sunbirds and Spiderhunters)
Info created & uploaded by Ashraf747 – nominated by ROCKY -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again it is a spectacular capture, but again the oversharpening and lack of detail on the bird give me pause Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph is not over sharpened and the purple sunbird male has plenty of details. Ashraf747 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see very obvious sharpening haloes Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashraf747 I see that the Sony ILCE-7RM4A can produce images at a maximum resolution of 9504 × 6336 pixels. It seems this file might have been downscaled from the original. If possible, could you please reupload the high-resolution version? High-res image is important for a FP nomination, as it allows for detailed evaluation, better usability across Wikimedia projects, and meets the technical quality standards expected for featured content. Thank you! -- Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not downsized. It's just cropped to make this composition. In wildlife or birding one cannot always go near the subject. So we make sure to keep a safe distance for not disturbing the birds or other animals. Hope you understand. Ashraf747 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Cmao20. The bird benchmark is set pretty high. JayCubby (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be quite happy if I took this photo -- congratulations on the bird in flight on clean background! As others are explaining, the standard for this particular process involves looking at the image in full resolution, in which case it does show some oversharpening, especially in the wingtips. If you didn't sharpen it in post-processing, the camera is likely doing some sharpening itself (perhaps a setting you might want to change). But yes, I too have many shots I'm proud of but which don't meet the technical requirements to become a featured picture. Hope you'll continue to share your photos, though! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The EXIF metadata suggests the image was taken in Raw (so no in-camera sharpening), but that two AI editors were used (Topaz Labs and DXO's). These are notorious for adding false feather detail with default parameters. Hopefully you can have another go at editing this wonderful image. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Idukki Dam Reservoir Hillview Pano Kerala Mar22 R16 05581-Pano.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 May 2025 at 00:50:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created and uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Nice view but the light is a bit pale and the composition, while pleasant, doesn't seem outstanding enough to compensate for me. Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @Tagooty: can perform some edits to fix the light. The wide view with the dam on the left and the expansive reservoir it creates stood out to me, hence the nom. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Cmao20: I've reduced exposure to bring out the colours. --Tagooty (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support with these changes, thanks Cmao20 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support @UnpetitproleX: Thanks for the nomination. --Tagooty (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the varying and quite elegant curvature of the banks. – Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thi (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too hazy and dull light for wowing me. --Milseburg (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown-headed cowbird male (71126).jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 20:08:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Icteridae_(Icterids)
Info Male brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). In the blackbird family, but unusual for that group, it's a brood parasite (they lay eggs in other species' nests). all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous plumage! --Cart (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Aristeas (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Icteridae_(Icterids)

File:Rauwerd (Fries Raerd). 26-02-2025. (actm.) jpg 08.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2025 at 04:21:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Netherlands
Info The foundation stone of this church (National Monument) was laid on 23 May 1814. With some shifting back and forth, the church tower was placed properly between the two trees.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello Agnes, I really like the composition etc., I just would suggest to remove the fragmentary twigs in the sky near to the right edge – please see the image notes on the nomination page. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Aristeas Thanks for your comment. I removed the branches. Sometimes it takes a while before the improvement is visible. Greetings from Friesland.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Agnes! – Aristeas (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the sky could do with denoising but it's still great Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Noise Reduction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the improved version. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm not sure that trees are good in such condition. Also the sky is a bit noisy for me. --Rbrechko (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. The trees are already old and are pruned year after year in this special shape. You often see this in the Netherlands at old churches, mansions and at capital farms. So the trees are healthy. --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rbrechko, the trees are fine. This is a way of pruning trees called Pollarding. It's often used up here in Sweden too. I creates a very special "look" for the trees. It is only done on trees that grow extremely vigorously and are hard to keep in check with other methods in parks, gardens, rows, etc. See also Daisugi. --Cart (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 01:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Netherlands