Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
|
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Adding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Nominations are time-sensitive and for one-time use only. An automatic clock starts as soon as they are created. Do not create them in advance, save them for later or re-activate them. Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using
An 'Alternative' is created by adding a sub-section to the nomination page: ====Alternative==== VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 16:24:45 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Coreidae (Leaf-footed Bugs)
Info This specimen stayed still for several minutes. The second and third photo sequences were ruined when it started moving, and eventually it flew away.
Info created by Cvmontuy – uploaded by Cvmontuy – nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 14:10:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky
Info Vertical panorama of the Milky Way aligned with the Matterhorn reflecting in Stellisee, Switzerland. Shooting this photo required to wait for months for the good timing. Several conditions were needed to be able to take the shot: 1) zero clouds; 2) new moon phase; 3) milky way perfectly aligned behind the Matterhorn; 4) week-end time. Using some smartphone apps I was able to calculate in advance the ideal dates and time where the Milky way would pass behind the Matterhorn during a new moon phase. These conditions were met on 20 August 2023 and I had to wait until 3 in the morning for the milky way to be passing behind the Matterhorn. Patience paid off and I was able to shoot this photo. A guide to take a picture like this one is available in the file description.
Info Created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive. --Lmbuga (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 13:11:33 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Trentino-Alto Adige
Info View of Übeltalferner, Sonklarspitze, Zuckerhütl and Wilder Pfaff seen from the Becherhaus in the Stubai Alps. On the glacier the shadow of the shooting location. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too much is in shadow. --Mile (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice. I think the shade is just right. If there were little shaded space, it would be annoying. The only alternative, in my opinion, would be that there could be no panoramic FPs with shadows.--Lmbuga (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 12:20:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Cairina
Info created by Petro Stelte – uploaded by Petro Stelte – nominated by Petro Stelte -- Petro Stelte (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support There are only two pictures in this gallery and both only show the head. -- Petro Stelte (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Like this, the two current FPs are of domesticated animals. Feral and domesticated animals seldom look like native wild birds. Perhaps the name of the gallery should be changed so as not to mislead people. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 08:50:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Tunisia
Info all by me -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Quality shot, but compo... --Mile (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 07:16:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 07:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 07:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Might be even better in BW. Interesting shot, where you dont worry for sharpnes. --Mile (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'll try black and white later, but not for FPC. Thanks for your idea. Maybe it would work better with stronger contrast. However, I think the green works quite well here. And as for the sharpness: everything looks a little blurry in thick fog. It's not just gray, but the fine water droplets create the right effect. --XRay 💬 14:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- It also works well with a bit cropped off the bottom. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 05:28:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Pinaceae
Info Aekingerzand Drents-Friese Wold National Park. Dead uprooted Scots pine next to the path. Focus stack of 3 photos. This stacked photo of an uprooted dead tree along a footpath shows that the tree is already in an advanced state of decay. Over time, nature will completely break down the tree. This form of nature management will benefit biodiversity.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 02:39:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1930-1939
Info Unknown photographer – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2025 at 19:01:38 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Others
Info created by Wassily Kandinsky, photographed and uploaded by Eusebius, nominated by Yann
Info Yellow-Red-Blue, a painting by Wassily Kandinsky
Support No FP yet by Kandinsky. -- Yann (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Yann. Kandinsky was a great painter and many of his paintings deserve to be featured pictures. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Quite good for a capture from a regular camera. There is a higher res print at Google Arts & Culture with slightly different colors, but I prefer this version. JayCubby (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I don't know this work, so I can't judge the accuracy of the reproduction and defer to you all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- I uploaded the version from Google Arts & Culture, proposed it as an alternative below, and the version from the Centre Pompidou in Paris, where is the painting. Yann (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Support --Yann (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Some Mondian here. Both are fine. --Mile (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2025 at 21:17:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/In their habitats#Birds among buildings
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely birds, nice light, something fresh and unusual in terms of composition. Risky nomination but a really good one in my opinion. Cmao20 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- No risk, no fun :-) I think I enojy putting images here that are interesting from my point of view, even if they aren't promoted in the end. Thank you very much for your words -- FlocciNivis (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Certainly fun to look at as a walker, but the birds are too small in the photo. Moreover, I find the light unappealing. Shadowy sides in front of us, dark walls and background -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I am a big fan of images taken with the standard focal length because they represent a time in classic photography when zoom lenses were not common. You think very carefully about how you want to compose the image, and this concept slows down the way you take a picture. Unfortunately, the standard focal length is not suitable for this image. The drinking birds would be worth a full-frame main motif on their own, but the fountain alone should have been photographed from a different perspective. --Syntaxys (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Neutral lovely scene, but I would prefer a frame in which birds occupy a large part --Gower (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Beautiful image. -- Wobbanight 13:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Gower.--Ermell (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per others. I think those of you who are judging this as a photo of birds are making a mistake. It is a photo of birds drinking water in the fountain as part of a larger composition that provides a wider context, and it's a beautiful composition. Not every photo that includes birds has to be a closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan Kekek. Perhaps a close-up of the birds would also be interesting, but this composition stands on its own two feet --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, it isn't talking to me Poco a poco (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It should be more zoomed to birds. --Mile (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan and Julesvernex2. – Aristeas (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Gower --Cvmontuy (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2025 at 20:19:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Platanaceae
Info created by Lmbuga – uploaded by Lmbuga – nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Nice colors, high quality. Diagonals add rhythm to the composition. Minimalistic, but well-composed. -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per George, I really love the colours here Cmao20 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I don't see the uniqueness of this photo, sorry. Good quality and good light of course. --Gower (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 17:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support An appealing autumn capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support as per the reasoning of Radominanin. I hold dear the diagonals and the division of darkness and daylight. JayCubby (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Per others, great choice in including the diagonals --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I dont see any FP here. It's hard light, diagonal is good, but that hair on main object (leaf i suppose) is not. --Mile (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per George, Cmao20, Julesvernex2. Hard light works well with such subjects. Ah, and congrats to Mile who has found das Haar in der Suppe; I really admire the creativity in your oppose votes. – Aristeas (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2025 at 17:43:51 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info Nice composition and light. No FPs of this church. created by Syntaxys – uploaded by Syntaxys – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the nomination, I really appreciate it! However, there is another photo of the church that is already FP. But I'm also interested in the criticism of this image, so we may leave it as it is. Syntaxys (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't see that, as it is in the 'settlements' category instead. The angle is very different though, so as you say let's leave it for now, I think both can be FP Cmao20 (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight 17:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Decent compo but the colors are bland in my view, the light dull, the background a bit hazy, and there is already this one taken 5 minutes later, same subject and also in the middle of the afternoon -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful to me and quite different from the other FP, as Cmao20 said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2025 at 17:21:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info created by Wobbanight| – uploaded by Wobbanight| – nominated by Wobbanight -- Wobbanight (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting building and good composition although a slight perspective correction could be beneficial. However, as per your other nomination, phone camera quality is not that high, and I also find the cars distracting - I know it's a hard ask because this may be rare, but it would have been good to wait for a moment when the street was clear. Cmao20 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting perspective but the foreground in the shadow, with cars and garbage, is unappealing in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose cars and undone PC don't help--Gower (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose per others, except that the view looks fine to me in terms of perspective, and also, the quality is not exceedingly high, but I want to show this picture a little love. It's definitely a quality image to my eyes, I believe it would pass at COM:QIC and should be nominated there (sorry if I'm wrong in my prediction, but I think a nomination should be tried, and I might do it myself), and I would also say that the sharpness is close to FP-level and extremely high for a cellphone. As for the composition, although the cars and garbage detract from it as per others, the view of the highrise is a really good compositional idea, and you really have a feel for how to shoot buildings, so I want to praise you for shooting a picture that is very good, just not one of the very best on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2025 at 16:11:38 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
Info There is already another FP of the Basilic , this is a wider shot where you can see the two stairways of the Square Louise Michel gardens beyond the famous Parisian Basilica, highlighting its beauty in my opinion. Created, uploaded, nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good quality, and I love this picture as well :D --Wobbanight 17:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I think it is much better than the existing FP, though I'm not really 100% sure they should both be FP Cmao20 (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment It looks to me like the perspective correction has stretched the top a little bit, a common issue when shooting uphill. The image is fine otherwise, but perhaps the vertical ratio needs to be adjusted some. Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, apparently nitpicky but absolutely correct for a FP nomination. I tried to make the necessary corrections while respecting the original composition, because the basilica has somewhat odd proportions. So, I uploaded a new image that I think (hopefully) turned out really well. Terragio67 (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I was hoping it didn't sound nitpicky, but I've encountered the issue with similarly-framed buildings, and Abadie's design is a bit oddly proportioned to begin with. I support, the overall composition captures more of the stairs and landscape leading up to the basilica without losing emphasis on the central subject. Acroterion (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, apparently nitpicky but absolutely correct for a FP nomination. I tried to make the necessary corrections while respecting the original composition, because the basilica has somewhat odd proportions. So, I uploaded a new image that I think (hopefully) turned out really well. Terragio67 (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support But agree the subject could be centered. --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I know the building might look stretched at the top and that it might make one think it's a perspective correction issue but it is not. I did the same shot at night and you can see in the file history how it looks without perspective correction. So it is just the building that is built like that but it's not a perspective correction issue -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- Abadie’s strange elongated cupolas on the domes don’t help us to judge the perspective. I was going by the proportions of the domes rather than the cupolas. I may have overthought it when I was looking at it. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Acroterion , @Giles Laurent -- I'd like to share my thoughts and personal composition experience on this challenging subject with the circular domes. Hugin (composition software) produced excellent results, but with that software the aspect ratio was severely off (too short) and needed to be adjusted, risking quality loss. However, using Camera Raw produced drastically incorrect blending results, and after much patience and numerous adjustments, the aspect ratio became much more pleasing (perhaps even too high in proportion). Therefore, your input and insights were truly appreciated for allaying my concerns and doubts. Furthermore, the meticulous attention to detail is evident in all your photos, demonstrating your extensive photography experience, which has prompted me to make numerous updates to the Basilica photo. I am in your debt, thank you again. Terragio67 (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- Abadie’s strange elongated cupolas on the domes don’t help us to judge the perspective. I was going by the proportions of the domes rather than the cupolas. I may have overthought it when I was looking at it. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good to me. About the other FPs of the basilique, they are both of different views. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2025 at 04:01:24 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida (Family : Palpimanidae will be added will be added if this is featured)
Info Photo of a dead Palpimanus male, found in Coacalco, Mexico, created by Cvmontuy – uploaded by Cvmontuy – nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Please could you make it clear on this nomination page that the spider is dead. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Done Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I've moved the description from the nom title to the info section and mouse-over box. On Commons FPC, the nomination name for single image nominations should be that of the file name to avoid confusion. Only sets have other names. This might be different on other Wiki nomination pages. --Cart (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Cvmontuy (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose -- Wobbanight 17:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wobbanight, it's convention on this forum that an oppose vote does have to be justified with a bit of reasoning (even if it's as simple as 'per others' views', though of course you are so far the first oppose voter) Cmao20 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think that this photo is just a bit bland and is like so many others of its kind. Wobbanight (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Cmao20 (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wobbanight, it's convention on this forum that an oppose vote does have to be justified with a bit of reasoning (even if it's as simple as 'per others' views', though of course you are so far the first oppose voter) Cmao20 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support It is a shame that the leg on the near left is a little out of focus, but still a good image to me. Cmao20 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support It's hard work to produce such images and a job well done. --Syntaxys (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per @Cmao20 and Syntaxys: it's a bit small, but it's hard work to do. --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- Why would it be hard to take a picture of a dead animal? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support As an image of a dead spider that's only 1 cm in body length, it's very good and deserves the star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2025 at 02:29:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Nymphalidae #Genus : Lexias
Info created by Sumanbhowmik1992 – uploaded by Sumanbhowmik1992 – nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Atudu (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support very good photo of a beautiful species --Gower (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Exceptional photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2025 at 23:12:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful, imposing, high quality Cmao20 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support It's nice to see an architectural image in daylight that is not strongly contrasty, allowing the details to stand out. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Tournasol7: slight purple fringing at the top of left tower can be fixed, I guess --Gower (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)--Gower (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Well composed architecture documentation. --Syntaxys (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Smart angle to maximize the area of the cathedral's exterior we can view in one shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 19:12:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info created by Wobbanight| – uploaded by Wobbanight| – nominated by Wobbanight -- Wobbanight (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing featurable here, quality is low, compo looks random Poco a poco (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Poco --Tagooty (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Poco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose +1. --Peulle (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Poco --Gower (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose This has become a bit of a pile-on but I think a more detailed review is appropriate as it's not a bad photo and does illustrate the building well. The issues for me are that a) we don't get much context - it's like we're looking up at the building but the frame only gives us the top of the building which doesn't give us a good impression of how high it is, the human scale is lost, b) the image quality is okay for a phone camera but that's not great overall, the detail at full size is not high and that's not great considering relatively low resolution. I do like the light, and I think the building is very interesting. I also don't mind the perspective, although it would be better, again, if we had more of the street for context. Overall a photograph of this motif certainly could be FP but this, although a competent and worthwhile addition to the project, is not it. Cmao20 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Quality is low (even for phone), composition dosnt help. --Mile (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 18:21:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Uzbekistan
Info Itchan Kala walls, Khiva, Uzbekistan. Pano of 12. My shot.-- Mile (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Although the right crop is not perfect, this is still FP for me Cmao20 (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support good panoramic view, looks majestic --Gower (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 17:06:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created and uploaded by Harald Krichel, nominated by Yann
Info American actress, singer, and film director Scarlett Johansson at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival.
Support -- Yann (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would expect more sharp eyes, pic 4 and 5 are much better. Light, crop, background and her gesture dont help here. --Mile (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Question What are these image numbers you are referring to, Mile? E.g., do you mean this list from the English Wikpedia article talk page? – Aristeas (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Aristeas Yes, that one. --Mile (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you, now it’s easier to understand and to compare. – Aristeas (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- File:Scarlett Johansson-8588.jpg seems best to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- It is indeed sharper, so I propose this as an alternative. IMO, for portraits, pose and composition are more important than sharpness. Yann (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you, now it’s easier to understand and to compare. – Aristeas (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Support --Yann (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Honestly for me a fairly nondescript and characterless picture of this talented actress, although the quality is high I think she deserves a featured picture that gets across more of her personality than this. Cmao20 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Cmao20. --Peulle (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I much prefer the balance expressed here. JayCubby (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 16:08:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Rheidae (Rheas)
Info No FPs of this Order. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Great feather detail. Nice side-on compo. No processing artifacts to be found, even after 'cheating' with noise analysis. I was pleasantly surprised to find the white feather tips still had texture! Are there any GPS coords to be added? JayCubby (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Jay. Good composition, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 15:02:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Aythya
Info A female common pochard (Aythya ferina) flapping its wings on a foggy day, c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Alexis, is there any more detail in the feathers? The image feels a tad too smooth. JayCubby (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly, there isn't much more partly due to the weather conditions, anything past 10m would turn to mush due to the dense fog. Alexis Lours (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per JayCubby, the capture is good but the quality isn't sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support OK, thanks, you said what’s bad about this photo. To assess it fairly, we have to take into account that the fog has likely reduced details and contrast. And, the big plus, the fog has allowed for a wonderful minimalist composition in which foreground and background just melt into nothing and the pochard’s special pose really stands out. All in all this means I must support this as one of the most beautiful bird photos I have ever seen on this candidate list. – Aristeas (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! I also think its entirely fair to oppose this picture due to the weather obviously reducing picture quality. I was a bit hesitant to nominate it due to that aspect of the picture but I'm glad to hear any sort of feedback on it.
- Alexis Lours (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Aristeas's review is correct for me Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I can forgive a little feather softness. It's more than compensated by the pose and surroundings. Acroterion (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great pose and composition! --Syntaxys (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Question This is truly an exceptional photograph - both in terms of pose, composition, and its overall aesthetic appeal. If I may, I do have one small question regarding the background: the fog creates a very homogeneous effect, and I was wondering if it might have been partially enhanced? Sometimes, such uniformity can arise when partial denoising is applied specifically to the background. I apologize in advance if my question seems overly critical - my intention is purely constructive. If that is indeed the case, there's absolutely no issue, as long as it is noted in the retouching template on the file page. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks you Radomianin! The background is not filled, even if there is obviously denoising. I generally avoid any digital manipulations besides a global denoising (generally using DxO PureRaw, which doesn't allow any form of masking in the version I use), white balance and tweaks to the main sliders (exposure, highlight, shadows...). It's very homogeneous because the birds is ~15m from me while the shore is ~200m behind and the fog was pretty dense, especially at water level.
- I have put up a Flickr album with photos and descriptions that should give a lot more context than I could describe here. Alexis Lours (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you very much, Alexis, for the detailed explanation! It is impressive how you consciously avoid digital manipulations and preserve the natural atmosphere. The image definitely benefits from the clarity and authenticity you maintain in the shot. It is very insightful to learn about the distance of the birds and the shoreline - that really explains the even fog effect and adds more depth to the image. I truly appreciate your work and the transparency regarding the process. Thanks also for the Flickr link - it adds even more context. Once again, thank you for your response and the valuable insights! Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 14:52:43 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Aythya
Info A male tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) in non-breeding plumage, c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I quite like how the eye matches the background! -- JayCubby (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Neutral A good shot but we have already 7 FPs of this species, the last 2 are work of Alexis. I'm getting overloaded and would only support another FP that is clearly over the others. Poco a poco (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Might be worth nominating for delisting a few of the top down photos of the species. A few clearly don't hold up by modern FP standards. Alexis Lours (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support All of them look good to me. I think Poco has a point. Nevertheless, I think this one is deserving, but maybe you might hold off on nominating any more photos of this type of duck. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Might be worth nominating for delisting a few of the top down photos of the species. A few clearly don't hold up by modern FP standards. Alexis Lours (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks to the low perspective which brings us on eye level with the duck and allows for a beautiful soft foreground and background, thanks to the exquisite contrast with the warm glow in the background, and thanks to very good sharpness on the head this one is IMHO clearly a welcome addition to the Aythya FPs; it is very much unlike any of the existing FPs, and for me easily one of the two or three most beautiful one. – Aristeas (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco does have a point, we should put the brakes on with FPs of this species, but this one has a very high image quality and a nice, relaxing composition with a pleasant gradient in the background and beautiful colours. Cmao20 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I agree with Cmao20 - the attractive color palette makes the image worthy of being featured. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 09:16:31 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tk833 -- Tk833 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tk833 (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Pronounced JPEG artifacts. JayCubby (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- I see no compression artifacts. The high-resolution file is a progressive JPEG. Make sure the the file is fully loaded. Low resolution are created by Commons. Tk833 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've tagged an example. JayCubby (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- This is no compression artifact. See Starlight contamination and limits of the star subtraction for details. (Note that this is not an ordinary photoshopped picture.) Tk833 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks!
Support JayCubby (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC) - Addendum: It should be mentioned that (as described on the homepage) all image processing steps are deterministic, because (in this case) correctness is more important than prettiness. Non-reproducible processing, such as manual retouching of artifacts, is considered incorrect. Tk833 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks!
- This is no compression artifact. See Starlight contamination and limits of the star subtraction for details. (Note that this is not an ordinary photoshopped picture.) Tk833 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've tagged an example. JayCubby (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- I see no compression artifacts. The high-resolution file is a progressive JPEG. Make sure the the file is fully loaded. Low resolution are created by Commons. Tk833 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Yellow|ø 14:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 06:59:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Pythonidae (Pythons)
Info created by Brihaspati – uploaded by Brihaspati – nominated by Brihaspati -- Brihaspati (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Brihaspati (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment It may be obvious because it is in a museum many miles from its native land, but nomination and file description should state this is a (dead) specimen please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Ermell. --Gower (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per others, sorry, and also because it's a captive animal so I'd want a very high image quality to feature it Cmao20 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 04:59:58 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Iguanidae_(Iguanas)
Info The marine iguana is found only in the Galápagos islands of Ecuador. created by E bailey – uploaded by E bailey – nominated by E bailey -- E bailey (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- E bailey (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support There look to be 2 existing FPs of this species, and I think both of them, especially the first, offer tough competition to this picture: File:Iguana marina (Amblyrhynchus cristatus), Las Bachas, isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-23, DD 23.jpg, File:Iguana marina (Amblyrhynchus cristatus), isla Lobos, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-25, DD 47.JPG. However, I like this picture partly because the angle makes me feel like I'm looking at a dinosaur. It also has good details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Saw those. I nominated my version because I think the active pose and surrounding colors adds to the value of the images of this species. E bailey (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Which I agree with. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Exactly per Ikan. Had the same impression that a dinosaur was looking at me resp. at the photographer. – Aristeas (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Amazing shot. But it has some minor halo-effect. Fixable? --August (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Done re-processed. The halo seemed very subtle to me. I think it's now gone. Welcome feedback. --E bailey (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good shot on a clean background with great detail. JayCubby (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good detail, striking pose --Tagooty (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Definitely a little dinosaur Cmao20 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- Come on, it's Godzilla... heylenny (talk/edits) 13:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 02:36:04 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info I thought this architectural detailing was really interesting, especially under this mixture of light and shadow. created by Slaunger – uploaded by Slaunger – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Strong detail with beautiful texture, geometrically precise; convincing light. A compelling subject with aesthetic value. -- Radomianin (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good, and an imaginative angle and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support It’s often quite difficult to take a representative detail photo of such ornate buildings, and Slaunger was really successful here, creating a dynamic but still coherent image. – Aristeas (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 12:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Aristeas, I appreciate the framing choice that highlights the texture and detail. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Creative interplay of light, reliefs and checkerboard patterns. Nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2025 at 01:38:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Long exposure
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Falcão Alado -- Falcão Alado (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Falcão Alado (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good composition, nice sculptures, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support …and a nice subtle light trail that adds dynamism. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Exciting new take on Oscar Niemeyer’s famous Supremo Tribunal building and the even more famous Os Candangos sculpture by Bruno Giorgi. – Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Yellow|ø 15:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Niemeyer deserves some FPs, and the choice of time, light and composition is a bonus. Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow. Nice shot. --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Acroterion. Niemeyer was a real genius and master of the curves, so his buildings are strong candidates for featured pictures. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2025 at 23:15:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I expect to be overruled, but this composition doesn't do anything for or to me. Yes, I see the shapes and colors, but they're not nearly enough to make this one of the best photos on the site, as far as I'm concerned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: This is a fair point. I was also hesitant if the addition of the leftmost closed window with the shutters as well as the rightmost door with the security grilles would enrich the composition because of the arrangement of four different objects. I've taken a simpler version of the same motif only with the green window and door (see the alternative version below). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Вистина изпазе во сосве облакен ден. Пробај ова као алт. --Mile (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Done Ја исеков во вертикала согласно предлогот. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Only for this version. I think the other one, by simplifying the number of elements in the frame, is clearer but also more conventional. I prefer the contrasts of colours here. Cmao20 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support mislim deka e poubo. --Mile (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Comment This is an alternative version only with the green window and door where the reflection from the window is more visible and the textures become more apparent. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not more interesting to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose per comments above. Cmao20 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Also nice IMO. --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2025 at 23:10:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France (Guadeloupe will be added if this is featured)
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support That's beautiful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan :) --LexKurochkin (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice. Stitching of the water is not easy and wel done. --Milseburg (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2025 at 22:00:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Lycaenidae#Genus_:_Plebeius
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Beautiful subject and DOF. Flocci, I've tagged a possible dust spot east of the rightmost flower. Do you think it's also worth reducing the highlights? JayCubby (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback! I removed the dust spot and reduced the highlights. But in regards to the highlights that's as much as I can do -- FlocciNivis (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Also a great composition. I personally wouldn't reduce the highlights Cmao20 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I think this is OK for FP because the butterfly is so small: Per w:Plebejus idas, "Plebejus idas has a wingspan of 17–28 mm." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Agree with Cmao20 and Ikan. IMHO we do not even need to excuse the size of the butterfly in the image. This is not just a photo of the butterfly (like a mugshot for a biology textbook), it’s rather a composition with the butterfly on the flower, and the beautifully soft out-of-focus area around the flower is an integral part of that composition, too. – Aristeas (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support It's well captured and a beautiful composition, though I'd prefer a bit more DoF. --Syntaxys (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2025 at 16:42:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Muscicapidae#Genus_:_Saxicola
Info All by Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Nice composition but a bit small for FP especially given that the wing and tail are not in focus Cmao20 (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice subject, but the resolution is small. --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Even though there are too many bird fps, I do like this one. -- Wobbanight 13:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2025 at 07:28:27 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Hautes-Alpes
Info The two remaining (restored) houses of the village of Chaudun, abandoned in 1895 (bottom right), overlooked by the summit of Raz de Bec (2,385 m) in the clouds (Gap, Hautes-Alpes, France) created by Pline – uploaded by Pline – nominated by Pline -- Pline (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Pline (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Hi! I've fixed the gallery for you, you need to be more specific than just 'Natural', otherwise the FPCBot will not be able to place the image in the right place. Could you please check that I got the section right. I see that you have added a lot of sections to Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France, a great effort, but we don't add sections to galleries unless there are images in them. If they are added beforehand, they are commented out until needed, otherwise there is just a lot of empty space on the gallery page. Please see Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand. I will fix this, but please keep it in mind for the future. The gallery pages are like Commons' "coffee table book" with images as the main feature, not an encyclopedia, that's what Wikipedia is for. ;-) --Cart (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2025 at 06:21:31 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Others
Info Mundari boy burning cow dung in bonfires just after dawn in a temporary cattle camp in Terekeka, South Sudan. The ash is used by the Mundari as a mosquito repellent and also for cosmetic purposes. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting photo. You should add that background info to the file description in every language you know, but by "repellent", do you mean mosquito or insect repellent? If so, please specify that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- I improved the redaction here and took it over in the description page. Poco a poco (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Smoke adds an element of mystery to the scene. --Tagooty (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Cool combination of timeless, traditional practice with modern materials (plastic buckets, trucks, and a camo jersey). I can't imagine it smelled so sweet, even if the dung was dang dry. JayCubby (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 12:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --E bailey (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow. --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow. --Lmbuga (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- I love it. I've seen it loads of times already, because I love it. It even makes me want to withdraw the photo I nominated. Here, you don't breathe smoke or autumn, you breathe humanity.--Lmbuga (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2025 at 04:21:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures indoors
Info created by Brihaspati – uploaded by Brihaspati – nominated by Brihaspati -- Brihaspati (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Brihaspati (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Too small, some (chroma) noise and it lacks a proper perspective correction (left side is leaning in) Poco a poco (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting subject and well framed but regretfully the large amount of chroma noise means it is not FP Cmao20 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2025 at 22:04:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Malta
Info Dwejra Bay, Gozo Island, Malta. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 01:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful, and a really big photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Resolution is not poco by any means. Good job handling distortion--what little there is actually adds to the perspective IMO. JayCubby (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, JayCubby. Still there was some room for improvement (sharpness, perspective, curves). I uploaded a new version. Poco a poco (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco looks even better! The new edit introduced a darkened area above Fungus Rock. I've tagged it on the file page. JayCubby (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, JayCubby. Still there was some room for improvement (sharpness, perspective, curves). I uploaded a new version. Poco a poco (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Huge size and great light Cmao20 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Per JayCubby: the new edit introduced a darkened area above Fungus Rock. --Lmbuga (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- Lmbuga: Should look better now. FYI, too, User:JayCubby
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2025 at 15:48:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Chamaeleonidae (Chameleons)
Info This chameleon is about 8cm long (including its tail). No FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Nice capture! The edges are a bit smudgy. Charlesjsharp, is this due to lens distortion or NR? JayCubby (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Done new version uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fix, looks great. What caused that? JayCubby (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Probably NR settings not quite right for the camera I had at the time.Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Little guy :) --User:Wobbanight (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great camouflage and wonderful details! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Will not ask how the shot was managed, I know the spot :) Poco a poco (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- We took a boat from Tsara Komba. Most of the tours arrive by canoe, but we used power so we had almost an hour on our own before the mass of tourists arrived. We actually found this chameleon in the leaf letter quite a long way into the forest - again, far from the crowds. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm confused, you took a jet boat from the South of Nosy Komba to Lokobe in the southeast of Nosy Be?! I was in Lokoba a few weeks ago and took also a jet boat, but from Ambatoxavavy. I didn't see any tourists there and spent 4 hours in the jungle. Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- We took a private boat provided by Tsara Komba Lodge. The crowds appear on cruise ship days. We couldn't avoid them, but you might have got lucky. Also, there may be more than one entry point to Lokobe Strict Reserve. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Fantastic light and amazing capture! -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2025 at 13:20:51 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Tunisia
Info all by me -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support A very fine composition with genuinely interesting depth layering! --August (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. IssamBarhoumi, I think the white balance is a wee bit off though. JayCubby (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- May be it is due to colors of the building and the surounding hills it seems a bit yellowish. IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Effective composition -- the white mosque as the religious centre stands out among the mud buildings. --Tagooty (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Tagooty. – Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2025 at 06:54:33 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Elephantidae_(Elephants)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice capture --Syntaxys (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Caught an endearing moment. --Tagooty (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kelly zhrm (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Strong support wonderful -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Gower (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 14:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Amazing capture! Giles Laurent, I've tagged two spots on the nomination page. JayCubby (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! The spots are just some flying insects but I will remove them tonight if necessary -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Done -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! The spots are just some flying insects but I will remove them tonight if necessary -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 01:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Sweet picture and excellent composition! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Pretty Poco a poco (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely Cmao20 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per others. – Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support!! --Terragio67 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Strong support per Ikan Kekek. I also find the light excellent -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2025 at 06:49:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
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 All by Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support look like Chełmoński's painting, means more for me than a bird in grassland. --Gower (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's surely an honour. Such an appreciation means a lot to me. Thanks a bunch. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I would never guess it is done on ISO 32,000. Good shot. --Mile (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, this lens has a fixed aperture of f11 and for bird photos I require a high shutter speed so In low light ISO goes high. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --User:Wobbanight (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 01:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent detail, good colour composition --Tagooty (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I can tell the ISO is high, but I still like it Cmao20 (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2025 at 18:20:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by George Wesley Bellows – uploaded by Trzęsacz – nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 18:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ezarateesteban 18:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose This photo looks a bit different from the original, https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-5945978. Look at the very clearly visible large spot near the center of the sky in the original that is nearly absent in the Commons files. There is no good reason to have a digital restoration of a painting that does not look like that now, if it ever did. I would insist on using the original. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- The large spot is a dust spot IMHO, not part of the original artwork Ezarateesteban
- Your opinion is noted, but you are not a professional painting restorer, and restorations should be done to the painting, not a photo of a painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- The large spot is a dust spot IMHO, not part of the original artwork Ezarateesteban
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 01:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Surprised no one has noticed the massive JPEG compression artefacts. Nice picture but sorry, nowhere near FP for me with this level of extreme compression. Cmao20 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2025 at 13:27:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail vehicles#United Kingdom
Info created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 13:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 13:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ю. Данилевский (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ezarateesteban 18:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Je-str (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Although it is the best photograph in the category, unfortunately, in my opinion, there is a bit too much motion blur in the main subject. Otherwise, the train is very well documented and the image is well composed. --Syntaxys (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly you're right, I've messed that up (a misguided attempt at keeping noise minimal). If you think it's worth it I could provide a color version of https://bahnbilder.ch/61244 as an alternative, that one doesn't have this problem (but I kind of prefer this one because the people on the locomotive are more visible). --Kabelleger (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- I would find the picture really funny if you had used a slightly longer shutter speed and panned the camera with the focus on the locomotive. That's often the way it is: you don't always have enough time to make the right decision ;-)
- Since the main subject is not the people but the train, I would prefer the other picture. Only the moving parts of the locomotive are slightly motion blurred, which actually emphasises the message of the picture. I think the b/w version is even better because you can't imagine at the first glance that it's a modern photograph. You should offer this alternative IMO. Syntaxys (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've added two alternatives. (According to the instruction we shouldn't have more than one, so feel free to remove one) --Kabelleger (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly you're right, I've messed that up (a misguided attempt at keeping noise minimal). If you think it's worth it I could provide a color version of https://bahnbilder.ch/61244 as an alternative, that one doesn't have this problem (but I kind of prefer this one because the people on the locomotive are more visible). --Kabelleger (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- I feel like the black & white one is the clear winner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't add 'Alternatives' like this. There is no way of knowing what people might vote on if you blend in 'Alts' in the middle of the text. I've converted them to links and moved them here for now, but if you seriously want to make one of them an 'Alt' please do it the right way. See This nom as an example. Also, 'Alternatives' should be added by the nominator or at the request of the nominator. We've had to clamp down on this since noms turned into a bit of "edit fests" before with people jumping in with their own versions. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I wasn't really clear on how to do this and the rules at the top of the page don't really explain anything in this regard. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Good point! Unfortunately, so many new things don't get written down properly. I'll get on fixing this one. --Cart (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I wasn't really clear on how to do this and the rules at the top of the page don't really explain anything in this regard. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Syntaxys and Ikan Kekek: It seems the preferred alternative is the b/w picture. I've added it below. —Bruce1eetalk 17:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose A truly beautiful image, but the motion blur — especially on the front part of the locomotive — is too distracting for me to support it as FP. --August (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great subject, nice that the train drivers are looking at you Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Could be sharper/less motion blur, but IMHO still a great image, and preferable to the somewhat (sorry) indifferent b&w version. – Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Objects
Info created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 17:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Info The black & white alternative per the above discussion. —Bruce1eetalk 17:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment To whoever closes this nomination, please note that modern black & white photos are in a different gallery. --Cart (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I don't understand the rationale for making this lovely picture look like a Victorian photograph and losing all the wonderful colours. The light is so much better in the colour version. Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2025 at 12:34:44 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Delphinidae_(Oceanic_Dolphins)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Looks great as a thumbnail, but in full resolution the lack of sharpness and compression issues become evident. --Peulle (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review but I think that this shot of moving animals is a sharp enough action shot. Also, most of them are underwater so you can't expect the same level of sharpness. Moreover this is quite a rare scene to witness and to me the wow effect of seeing this group of dolphins swimming while all perfectly placed in a photogenic manner in beautiful clear waters overweighs technical quality. Anyway I've just uploaded a sharper version -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I think its great shot, probably we dont something like this. Only i would put in portrait mode, but i know in drone this is impossible. Sharpnes is not questionable here, more than enough. And sea was so calm, almost no waves - morning shot. --Mile (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Sharpness is fine for a drone shot of animals in motion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Nice work, good sharpness even notwithstanding the circumstances of capture. JayCubby (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)--Ermell (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow, very nice, and it's sharp enough for me. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Kiril. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Outstanding picture! However... It's not sharpness but denoising that went overboard me thinks and he result looks like a run of the mill AI generated image (for clarity: I'm not saying it is, just that it looks like). I think I would have preferred a noisy version with more details that this overly smoothed out picture a lot more. But again, the image itself is fantastic! -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Done, not sure it's better but I just uploaded a new version with less noise reduction (press CMD+R with image open on Mac or Ctrl+F5 on Windows to update the cache and see the new version). What do you think now KennyOMG ? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you but quite frankly there's very little difference between the two versions (mainly some _very_ little additional detail in the spray). My opposition to extensive nr/sharpening/whatnot stems from the fact that all of these are highly destructive operations that are impossible to revert. Again, my highly personal opinion is that uploading a more noisy/less than tack sharp image is preferable because should the end user want to reduce the noise/increase sharpness they can destroy the image for themselves, as an option. -- KennyOMG (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 01:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Outstanding capture Cmao20 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Indeed outstanding. The newest (3rd) version with less noise reduction is the best. – Aristeas (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support ❤ this photo! --E bailey (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2025 at 10:26:44 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Morocco
Info A reservoir Tazekka National Park in the Middle Atlas, Morocco. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 01:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Tagooty, nice work! The detail visible in the buildings on the far side of the river speaks volumes as to the quality. There are two dust spots which I've tagged. JayCubby (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- @JayCubby: Thanks for the positive review. The 60 MP Sony A7CR excels with landscapes. I've fixed the dust spots. --Tagooty (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2025 at 10:21:14 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Palaces#Germany
Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Attractive composition and colours. Stands out from the traditional views of palaces in the Gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Distorted: the right tower 'falls'. Анастасия Львоваru/en 09:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I also believe that the perspective is not the best, because the POV is to close to the building requiring extreme wide angle. The tower on the right is too dominant. The level of detail is not the best IMHO, either. Lighting is nice. Poco a poco (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Info -- I corrected the right tower --Llez (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support It's ok for me now.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Neutral The perspective just feels too off for me to support, but I won't oppose because the quality is high and the motif is nice Cmao20 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2025 at 08:11:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Agriculture#Germany
Info The picture showing a wayside cross on a cherry tree depicts a typical landscape in my local area, which is strongly influenced by agriculture, religious beliefs and traditions. Created, uploaded and nominated by Syntaxys -- Syntaxys (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain as author -- Syntaxys (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose A good documentary image, but lacks wow-factor. The tree is a bit washed out. --Tagooty (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your review. To be honest, I thought long and hard about whether to nominate this picture. But then I recently saw that Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oberköst Baum Luftbild-20250501-RM-154644.jpg, for example, was successful, and I decided to present it here. The wow-factor is always a very personal feeling, but the technical characteristics of an image can be assessed objectively. I don't think this image is any worse in this respect than other nominations that are currently running. Syntaxys (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- This photo would be more similar to that one if the left crop were a fair bit more generous, but there are also more elements in this photo. I like it but have yet to decide whether to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. I feel the same way; I think there should be a bit more space to the left of the tree so that the image radiates even more of the tranquillity that it already conveys. That's why I like this picture so much. I often drive past this spot when I'm running errands and sometimes I stay for a minute to enjoy this scene. Right to the left, there is a paved country road running along the field, but it would only distract from the composition. I chose the frame to be as narrow, or rather as generous, as possible. Syntaxys (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- I understand the dilemma you faced. Depending on the shape of the road, it could have been included but would have changed the feeling of the photo quite a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. I feel the same way; I think there should be a bit more space to the left of the tree so that the image radiates even more of the tranquillity that it already conveys. That's why I like this picture so much. I often drive past this spot when I'm running errands and sometimes I stay for a minute to enjoy this scene. Right to the left, there is a paved country road running along the field, but it would only distract from the composition. I chose the frame to be as narrow, or rather as generous, as possible. Syntaxys (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- This photo would be more similar to that one if the left crop were a fair bit more generous, but there are also more elements in this photo. I like it but have yet to decide whether to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your review. To be honest, I thought long and hard about whether to nominate this picture. But then I recently saw that Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oberköst Baum Luftbild-20250501-RM-154644.jpg, for example, was successful, and I decided to present it here. The wow-factor is always a very personal feeling, but the technical characteristics of an image can be assessed objectively. I don't think this image is any worse in this respect than other nominations that are currently running. Syntaxys (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 01:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support There's a lot of elements going on in this picture, and I think they are arranged quite satisfyingly in the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the dynamic aspects of the composition which are rather uncommon with this kind of subject – the tree with its strong tendency towards the top-left, the same applies to the fountain of the sprinkler, both contrasting with the shadow that seems to flee in the other direction, the horizon, and the wayside cross as the only emphasised vertical structure. Together with the large amount of sky this results in a clear, but dynamic, refreshing composition. – Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2025 at 21:25:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Uzbekisan
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Красный -- Красный wanna talk? 21:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Красный wanna talk? 21:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak supportIn my opinion the photo is nicely composed from left to right but something should be cut off on the right side of the photo because that part of the photo is distracting.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the photo looks better this way. But I'd add a little more sky and a little less at the bottom, to maintain the squareness.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support MZaplotnik(talk) 14:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice light and composition, definitely fp to me Cmao20 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive wall of very special shape, effective composition. – Aristeas (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice compo and interesting... --Terragio67 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2025 at 16:25:39 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by James Madison Alden – uploaded by US National Archives bot – restored/nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 16:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ezarateesteban 16:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Not with this yellow tint. Yann (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose Pretty and interesting but sorry, just not sufficient image quality for FP for me. I think the digitisations of art that we usually promote are sharper and less noisy Cmao20 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 01:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2025 at 10:03:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Palaces#Uzbekistan
Info Watchtower, Palace of Khudáyár Khán, Kokand (Дворец Худояр-хана, Xudoyorxon oʻrdasi). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful details Cmao20 (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, an interesting detail of the façade. I might be bothered by the crops if I read Arabic better, but maybe not. The sky is probably somewhat dark for 30 August 2025, 09:50, but there is no way I will pull my supporting vote, because the contrast works and the photo is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan Kekek --Llez (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support MZaplotnik(talk) 20:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2025 at 07:27:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Emberizidae (Buntings)
Info created by Hobbyfotowiki – uploaded by Hobbyfotowiki – nominated by Hobbyfotowiki -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Gallery and suitable categories added. Please remember to fill in this info in the future. --Cart (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I really like the composition but I'm honestly uncertain whether the sharpness at this size is good enough for FP, so I leave it up to other voters to decide. Cmao20 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Nice picture. w:Rock bunting gives their status as least concern, but we have no FPs of rock buntings in Category:Featured pictures of Emberizidae, nor do we have any QIs of this bird in Category:Quality images of Emberiza or VIs in Category:Valued images of Emberizidae. This species of bird is rather small - 16 cm long per the Wikipedia article - and I like that it's singing. I just wish the head were a little sharper. I'll think about this nomination, but the photo should be nominated at COM:QIC, regardless of how this nomination goes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I think it's sharp enough, considering that I can see individual head feathers, even if they're not tack sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I’d wish the head was even sharper, but this is a very beautiful and educative photo of a vocalising songbird. The light and colours are excellent, the composition is very nice, the background soft and unobtrusive. – Aristeas (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2025 at 12:23:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Kuwait
Info created by Di7ane – uploaded by Di7ane – nominated by روتانا -- Rotana🦋 (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Rotana🦋 (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Pretty noisy, but what elevation is this taken from? Also, are the white things all birds? That might be good to mention in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek, Yes. They are birds. This place is a nature reserve for birds. Ahmed Naji Talk 21:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too noisy. --heylenny (talk/edits) 02:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I this case I think the graininess adds to the sandy scene. --August (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not hugely bothered by the noise given high (48 megapixel) resolution. But I don't think the composition is outstanding, so, while this is a good illustration of the subject, I don't see it as FP. Compare to another current FPC which is an aerial photo that also has an excellent composition. Cmao20 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I was in doubt, for me nice image, good compo. But i put now some denoise, since Kuwait, which is very absent here, and WLM is over, also to inform User:Di7ane that denoise is made, but can be reverted if not good for author. @Cmao20 that image has similar problem, if you see sun reflections up, where reflextion is big, a lot CA can be seen. --Mile (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Mile, I see only a slight noise reduction, but you flipped the picture vertically! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Ikan Kekek I missed rotation, since i was checking pano or portrait mode before. I put 180° rotation so bot will do it. --Mile (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support MZaplotnik(talk) 20:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Ahmed Naji Talk 21:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking composition. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose The quality is too low in my eyes.Ermell (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Very interesting view, but noisy and unsharp. Sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per others --Tagooty (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Faisal talk 11:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Pretty as thumbnail but per above Poco a poco (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Noisy and unsharp, but per above--Lmbuga (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2025 at 11:05:37 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info all by Lvova -- Анастасия Львоваru/en 11:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Анастасия Львоваru/en 11:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Анастасия Львова Can we add B&W color, since colors are not so interested ? I could add one option. --Mile (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- As far as it is an option, not replacing the image - why not? :) Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 02:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I prefer this version Cmao20 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Like Cmao20 (see his argument on the alternative) I prefer the colour version. – Aristeas (talk)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support The color adds an additional depth to the image which helps the composition. I also like this orientation better, with the blue skylight over the big bright spot below it. Having that big bright part to one side makes the compo unbalanced. --Cart (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support for colour. MZaplotnik(talk) 20:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Kelly zhrm (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Info BW edition and in horizontal.- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Building interiors
Support Better for me. --Mile (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment To whoever close this nomination, please note that modern black & white photos are in a different gallery. --Cart (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment PetarM You applied AI NR after making the image black&white. Sadly, the AI programs have been trained on images with
chromatic aberration and added unwanted color fringing here. Could you correct that? JayCubby (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment @JayCubby Good spoting. Check now. I also put some -highligths, + selective denoise, sharpening. For me, picture if good, could not say it was from smartphone. Also saw some others, good cell. --Mile (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I like both! --heylenny (talk/edits) 02:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I prefer this alternative, but I'd now like to see the photo in color with this orientation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Just tilt your head or screen. ;-) --Cart (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- I did my best to look at it sideways, and I feel like I just prefer the black & white version, but it won't win the day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Ikan, you can use this code to rotate and view this (or any image you like) however you like:
- I did my best to look at it sideways, and I feel like I just prefer the black & white version, but it won't win the day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Just tilt your head or screen. ;-) --Cart (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-90deg);">[[File:Интерьеры Румянцевского особняка 39.jpg|300px]]</span>- Copy this and save in a notebook somewhere. Just change the file name or rotation deg. :-) --Cart (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I personally like the contrast between warm and cool colours in the other version, and I don't think black and white is an improvement. I may be outvoted but it's only my opinion :) Cmao20 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support JayCubby (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Some buildings gain effect when converted into B&W, but this photo is not graphic enough to benefit from that, it just looks dull. --Cart (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕️ 14:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2025 at 09:38:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Metro Stations
Info Entrance to Wittenbergplatz subway station in Berlin at blue hour. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Clear composition with precise lines, good sharpness, balanced lighting; aesthetically strong. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support That's a really good photo of a beautiful station entrance I know well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 02:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose A good quality image, but it does not stand out to me in comparison to the images in the Gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Pleasant colours, symmetrical composition, and high image quality mean that this is an aesthetically pleasing presentation of this building Cmao20 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – @Ermell: I would suggest to add {{Personality rights}} after the image description or license because the people are identifiable. – Aristeas (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Done Ermell (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! – Aristeas (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harald Krichel (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC) Classic Ermell. I like the integration of people.
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Terragio67 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Strong support This image is absolutely stunning! --Wobbanight 13:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2025 at 09:37:59 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena/Weather#Snow
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 02:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Elegant study of flowers in frost Cmao20 (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Whenever I see these autumnal flowers, I am struck by their delicacy and, at the same time, the abundance with which they bloom. It moves me how the snow now weighs them down with its own abundance, yet how they continue to bloom as long as they can. – Aristeas (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I like the subject matter and the details, but the composition and crops feel random to me, sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose -- Per Ikan Kekek. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support MZaplotnik(talk) 20:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I agree Poco a poco (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2025 at 08:41:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Tunisia
Info created by Bill.pix – uploaded by Bill.pix – nominated by Ovva olfa -- Olfa Yakoubi -ألفة يعقوبي (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Olfa Yakoubi -ألفة يعقوبي (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Very good scene. But first
chromatic aberration should be removed. --August (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- i updated the picture and it should be removed now MohamedBilel.Belhadj (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think CAs are still there. Please check the notation a made. --August (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good now. --August (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment The lighting is not good, those shadows spoil it IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I honestly like the shadows very much and I think this is a good composition. I would point out two technical difficulties - 1) I can still see a lot of CAs and 2) I feel like the whole picture is oversaturated. Not by a lot, but bringing down the vibrance a little would probably make this a better photograph Cmao20 (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Agree completely with Cmao20’s hints. It would be rewarding to improve this photo according to them. – Aristeas (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2025 at 21:30:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family: Phalacrocoracidae (Cormorants)
Info A close-up of a double crested cormorant in breeding plumage. We have a couple double-crested cormorant FPs but none in breeding plumage. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Polinova -- Polinova (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Polinova (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Support ZmajiZmajiZmaji (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Too bad the beak and so on are outside the focus, but this is good enough for me and quite a face! Someone should wear a face like that for Halloween. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting colors, like smaragd. --Mile (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice sharpness on the eyes but the beak is too big, bright and blury, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support A shame about the out of focus beak but still FP to me Cmao20 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan and Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support :-) Zquid (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2025 at 20:31:57 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Tunisia
Info created by Majbri wael – uploaded by Majbri wael – nominated by Majbri wael -- Majbri wael (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Majbri wael (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Very imposing and beautiful view. I do think the sharpness is not as good as I would expect from a Canon 5D Mk4, and I wonder whether this is a JPEG straight out of camera with a bit too much noise reduction applied - you might have more luck getting more detail out of this picture by going back to the original RAW file. Cmao20 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support MZaplotnik(talk) 20:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice pic! -- Falcão Alado (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2025 at 09:08:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Morocco
Info Ouirgane (elev. 900 m (3,000 ft)) is a commune in the High Atlas mountains in Morocco. The Yacoub el Mansour Reservoir borders Ouirgane on the west. Note: no FPs of settlements in Morocco. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment FP-worthy to me, but please eliminate a dust spot in the upper right corner and a couple of fainter ones slightly to its left and just a tad down from it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Done @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the eagle eye, I missed those with the light clouds streaking the sky. --Tagooty (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Sure thing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The image is fine but I wouldn't consider it extraordinary. The POV is too low so that the river doesn't play an essential role in the compo Poco a poco (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) — Preceding undated comment was added at 19:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I like contrast between the vivid green in the foreground, the earth tones of the hills in the background, and the blue of the sky with its delicate cloud texture. – Aristeas (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Falcão Alado (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Mon 17 Nov → Sat 22 Nov Tue 18 Nov → Sun 23 Nov Wed 19 Nov → Mon 24 Nov Thu 20 Nov → Tue 25 Nov Fri 21 Nov → Wed 26 Nov Sat 22 Nov → Thu 27 Nov
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Thu 13 Nov → Sat 22 Nov Fri 14 Nov → Sun 23 Nov Sat 15 Nov → Mon 24 Nov Sun 16 Nov → Tue 25 Nov Mon 17 Nov → Wed 26 Nov Tue 18 Nov → Thu 27 Nov Wed 19 Nov → Fri 28 Nov Thu 20 Nov → Sat 29 Nov Fri 21 Nov → Sun 30 Nov Sat 22 Nov → Mon 01 Dec
Closing a featured picture promotion request
The bot
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag featured or not featured – for example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the 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. For set nominations, use:
== Set Promoted to FP ==
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|YYYYY}}, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of YYYYY. - Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedUploader|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the talk page of the user who has uploaded the image, if that user is not the same as the nominator. - Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedCreator|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the talk page of the creator, if the author is a different Commons user than nominator and uploader.
- 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/November 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
{{FPC-delist-results-reviewed|delist=x|keep=x|neutral=x|delisted=yes/no|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2025.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). If the image description page uses the old {{Featured picture}} template, replace it with {{Assessments|featured=2}}.
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture must not be removed from the chronological list.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
