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:
Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 03:40:17 (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_:_Parulidae_(New_World_Warblers)
Info Palm warbler (Setophata palmarum) hanging out in a meadow. I find that I like the soft light in the meadowy shadows. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 03:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 03:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Amazing composition! Wolverine X-eye 04:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2025 at 03:35:00 (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_:_Tettigoniidae_(Katydids_or_Bush_Crickets)
Info Fork-tailed bush katydid (Scudderia furcata) close-up, with a quick 4-frame stack. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 03:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 03:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Just wow - truly outstanding quality and powerful composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Amazing detail! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 21:26:42 (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_:_Acrocephalidae_(Leaf,_or_Marsh_Warblers)
Info A melodious warbler (Hippolais polyglotta) on a branch, c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I expect no-one to agree with me, but I find the large area of green bokeh in the lower right distracting because it's clearly different from other areas of the background, so I would support cropping out the rightmost fourth of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 03:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice little birdie. Wolverine X-eye 04:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 21:23:45 (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/Birds#Family_:_Podicipedidae_(Grebes)
Info A great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) holding an European perch (Perca fluviatilis), c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The bird's eye is usually dark red. Was it lightened intentionally? Nice.--Ermell (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is an immature individual, thus the lighter eye. This picture on the enwiki page shows a similar first year individual, even if its harder to tell given the resolution. -- Alexis Lours (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great capture by you and the bird. The fact that the struggling fish is sharp is kind of amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 03:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Solid capture. Wolverine X-eye 04:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive, very well done! -- Radomianin (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 20:55:19 (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#Male singers
Info This image shows Max Giesinger, a well-known German singer-songwriter, particularly famous in Germany for his song Wenn sie tanzt (When She Dances), which he dedicated to his single mother and which touches many listeners with its heartfelt message. The present version is a derivative work based on the original image uploaded in 2021 by Sven Mandel. With the photographer's permission, I redeveloped the Raw file to enhance the image's quality. Created by Sven Mandel, re-developed derivative uploaded and nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I find this portrait particularly expressive: the eyes are in focus, and the genuine expression conveys a sense of presence and authenticity. In comparison with the original upload, the careful redevelopment of the Raw file has enhanced clarity, depth, and tonal harmony, giving the image a more balanced and vivid appearance. The soft trace of colored stage light on the right side of the face adds a subtle sense of atmosphere, reflecting the live moment without disturbing the overall aesthetic harmony. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 17:56:00 (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#Crepuscular_rays
Info A moody morning in Drenthe near Aalden. Visible are crepuscular rays and a partial fog iridescence, made visible by the shallow solar incidence angle and fine water droplets in the fog.
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Well-composed contre-jour fog photo, crepuscular rays and fog iridescence make it beautiful. – Aristeas (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Such a magical mood! -- Radomianin (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Really pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Amazing lighting! Wolverine X-eye 04:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 04:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support very nice. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Umarxon III (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 16:45:11 (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#Tunisia
Info created by Wildtunis – uploaded by Wildtunis – nominated by TOUMOU -- Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but the picture is not sharp enough to be featured. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I do like it. Sharp enough. I like compo and "oldy" colors. --Mile (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment The sky is a little noisy, and is it too dark? Otherwise good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The perspective distortion, unnatural colour, sharpness borderline, noise and artefacting in the sky. Not even a QI, tbh. Sorry. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 16:33:55 (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/Non-photographic_media/Science#Science
Info created by the W.M Welch Scientific Company – uploaded by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support At 60MP and 100MB, I suggest going over the file in ZoomViewer. Quite dense in information. -- JayCubby (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great find. --Yann (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool poster, good reproduction. – Aristeas (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per others. Why does it get noisier and less sharp in the lower right corner? Not enough for me not to support, but I still wonder. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I think that's because this was a composite image, and the photos for the bottom corner got blurred, so were heavily sharpened to compensate, bringing out the chroma noise. The whole image is a bit oversharpened, but it's the best copy I could find. JayCubby (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting chart. Wolverine X-eye 04:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 15:09:59 (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/Historical/People#1960-1969
Info created by Bernard Gotfryd, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann
Info A. J. Muste was a Dutch-born American clergyman and political activist. He is best remembered for his work in the labor movement, pacifist movement, antiwar movement, and civil rights movement. FP on English Wikipedia.
Support -- Yann (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Crisp portrait. Thanks to the restorationist's skills, I could find none of the scratches commonly found on Gotfryd film. JayCubby (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 03:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Umarxon III (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC).
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 13:31:48 (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/Mammals/Carnivora#Species_:_Panthera_onca_(Jaguars)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Just wow! --Yann (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful! Wolverine X-eye 16:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Indeed. – Aristeas (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great capture and beautiful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 04:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Umarxon III (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 08:14:06 (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 Above the Séveraisse valley and on the hiking trail linking the Vallonpierre and Chabournéou refuges. The peaks and glaciers visible from left to right are Les Rouies (3589 m), the Rouies glacier, the three peaks of Vaccivier (3297, 3210 and 3242 m), the South peak (3422 m) of Says forming a continuous horizontal ridge, Mont Goberney (3352 m) and forming the foreground the Piton de la Viaclose (3009 m) and the western flank of the Pic des Aupilous (3505 m). At the bottom of the photo in the valley we can see the Gioberney chalet-hotel (La Chapelle-en-Valgaudemar, Hautes-Alpes, France) created by Pline – uploaded by Pline – nominated by Pline -- Pline (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Pline (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment It would be more useful if you could name the peaks. Yann (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Info Very easy with this useful tool. I used it often --Llez (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'll support when the peaks are labeled like User:Milseburg does it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a start. JayCubby (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful scenery and the trail (and hikers) make for a nice mood and composition, but please do annotate the peaks if possible (such as here). --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2025 at 08:01:11 (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#Uzbekistan
Info Barakhan Madrasah, Taskhent, Uzbekistan. -- Mile (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Though if this is stitched (in camera or otherwise) I think it should be noted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- One other thing; when was this building completed? Uzbekistan does not have FOP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Info @Chris Woodrich we have this few days ago. FOP ? Its begining of 16. century. (1531/32 — 16-asr 2-yarmi) with later restorations. --Mile (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- That one was a bit more markedly "old" in its presentation, and thus I didn't ask. FOP = freedom of panorama, which is not available in Uzbekistan. If the mosque was completed in the 16th century, then that isn't an issue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Though if this is stitched (in camera or otherwise) I think it should be noted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 18:49:54 (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 Woman carrying a bundle of wood from Mount Entoto for selling in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 18:45:16 (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#Reflections
Info created by Felipe Valduga – uploaded by Sintegrity – nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 18:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 18:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Slightly pixelated, but the beautiful colors and composition make up for it in my opinion. Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 17:48:54 (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#Figurines and statuettes
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Contributor2020 -- Contributor2020Talk to me here! 17:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Contributor2020Talk to me here! 17:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but apart from the fact that I don't know what is extraordinary here, the quality is really poor. You should spend some time at QIC and learn about the quality we expect here Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Poco. There is no EXIF data, and this resolution is certainly not the original. Enlarged? Yann (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- First of all, apologies for the delayed response. This is my first FP nomination, and I was a bit occupied for some time. To address all your queries at once: the picture was edited and retouched using editing software, and it seems the EXIF data wasn’t fully preserved when the final version was exported. Regarding the concern about the resolution not being original, I’m afraid I didn’t quite understand the issue. I couldn’t find any specific guideline stating that increasing the resolution disqualifies an image from FP candidacy. The original image was taken on a Canon 200D II, well above the 2 MP threshold, and I only enhanced the resolution to improve presentation quality. As a license reviewer myself, I was rather surprised to see the template added by Chris' for copyright issues partly as it seemed.
- In response to Poco a poco, as mentioned, this is my first FP nomination, so I apologize if I’ve overlooked anything. I consulted the QIC guidelines but couldn’t identify any errors that would disqualify my image. Would extending the resolution further help or is a turn-down? I’m also perfectly fine with uploading the RAW file if needed.
- For context, the subject is a miniature statue displayed at a great height in a monastery, enclosed within a box — a vivid representation of Tibetan Buddhism captured in one frame, so I considered it pretty extraordinary, still, this isn’t my primary area of expertise, so I’m very open to additional feedback. I’d appreciate if Chris could review whether the template is still necessary; if so, no problem at all. Contributor2020Talk to me here! 16:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Contributor2020. Additional pixels does not always equal higher quality; when these pixels are added with an AI program, such as by supersampling, there is no new information included. Ultimately, whatever original resolution you had is still there, but what lines may have been sharp are now blurred. Likewise, Commons requires images to be free; if the statuette is free to photograph under the freedom of panorama provisions of Indian copyright law, this needs to be noted. If it is not permanently situated at its location, it is not free to photograph. I agree with Poco; you should take a look at QI to have a rough idea of what quality people are looking for at QI and FPC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- So I think I addressed the issue of FOP - FOP India template has been added by Yann too. The statue is enclosed in a box as I mentioned before so it's definitely situated at that particular location. As for the AI resolution enhancement - thanks for the advice. Would uploading the un-enhanced image help? I really don't see a particular difference between the candidates of QI and this. Again, I am new to this, so thanks for any advice you would give me! Contributor2020Talk to me here! 16:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Are you looking at the full resolution? There is a marked difference. This image is 8k x 12k pixels; File:Devonshire Lodge (Low-Martin House), Windsor, Ontario, 2025-08-31 01.jpg (to take an example of my own work) is larger, but also sharp through and through. The amount of detail is also reflected in the larger image size (100 mb, rather than 20 mb). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- So I think I addressed the issue of FOP - FOP India template has been added by Yann too. The statue is enclosed in a box as I mentioned before so it's definitely situated at that particular location. As for the AI resolution enhancement - thanks for the advice. Would uploading the un-enhanced image help? I really don't see a particular difference between the candidates of QI and this. Again, I am new to this, so thanks for any advice you would give me! Contributor2020Talk to me here! 16:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Contributor2020. Additional pixels does not always equal higher quality; when these pixels are added with an AI program, such as by supersampling, there is no new information included. Ultimately, whatever original resolution you had is still there, but what lines may have been sharp are now blurred. Likewise, Commons requires images to be free; if the statuette is free to photograph under the freedom of panorama provisions of Indian copyright law, this needs to be noted. If it is not permanently situated at its location, it is not free to photograph. I agree with Poco; you should take a look at QI to have a rough idea of what quality people are looking for at QI and FPC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- What I mean with "spend some time at QIC" is actually proposing pictures like this one there to get direct feedback whether their quality is good or not. Reading guidelines is fine but will not give you the guidance you need. Poco a poco (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose very unsharp. Sorry. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
| Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Aside from everything else that has been mentioned, there is a question as to the copyright status of the statuette itself. FOP-India template should be included if it applies here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 17:13:50 (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/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 15:21:09 (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/Objects/Architectural_elements#Doors
Info Carved doors in Said Mahruyjan Complex in Khiva (Мавзолей Саид Мухаммад Махирий, Said Mahruyjon majmuasi). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 01:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Satisfying composition and very well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Convincing execution and composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Any idea how old these doors are? There doesn't seem to be FOP in Uzbekistan, and the design is certainly past the threshold of originality. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492, the complex was built in 1884. One could also claim the style is a work of cultural heritage. JayCubby (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- "Works of cultural heritage" can still be copyrighted, depending on jurisdiction; looking at this, it seems possible that the door could be deemed a "work of popular art" that does not enjoy protection in Uzbekistan. That being said, if the doors are original to 1886, they should be free to reproduce no matter what; this should be noted on the file page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492, the complex was built in 1884. One could also claim the style is a work of cultural heritage. JayCubby (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Info Year built 1884. Renovated 2008–2009. I dont know what date was door made, they are very similar all around. Do someone know the answer here ? --Mile (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - Based on the timeline above and the weathering, I think it is safe to say that these doors are old enough that any potential copyrights no longer exist; there looks like more than 17 years of damage to the wood, and the brass handles likewise seem older. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 11:35:58 (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/Places/Natural/Austria#Tyrol
Info The glacier Sulzenauferner in the Stubai Alps and surrounding mountains. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Nice but there are at least 2 dust spots in the sky (in the middle) Poco a poco (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint. I cleaned the sky. Feel free to leave a note, if there are spots left. Milseburg (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Question about the "plane", is doted too (inserted) ?! I see smudge around it. Also cant see no white lines behind. --Mile (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC) p.S. Otherwise good shot.
- I see two airplanes. They were just there. Why they don't have a contrail, I don't know. The air was probably dry. They weren't inserted. Why should they be? That's not the issue here. They could easily be removed. But that doesn't seem necessary to me. It's authentic. Milseburg (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good composition, good light, very good detail resolution. – Aristeas (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nothing much. --Mile (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 21:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good, and this will be valuable documentation when there is no more glacier... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
File:NASA Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle.jpg (delist and replace)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 10:18:50
Info To be replaced by a higher resolution version (Original nomination)
Info It should be placed in Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Space exploration ground vehicles
Delist and replace -- Yann (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Delist and replace , but I would turn the suit and rover highlights down some and tint the highlights a few points towards magenta. I played with a thumbnail version of the image. JayCubby (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep The new version has stronger colour contrasts, blown highlights, and a less satisfying crop. The scan also has a lot of colour noise, to the extent that although it is much higher resolution, if downsampled to the same size it appears less sharp than the current FP. Cmao20 (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Cmao20's evaluation. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)per Cmao20, sorry, and especially because of the crop – the stone in the bottom right corner was a big plus for the previous version. BTW I wonder why both versions were cropped. IMHO the original or the first new upload provide the most satisfying composition, including both that stone and that impressive vast black outworld sky. – Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep- @JayCubby, Cmao20, Radomianin, and Aristeas: I tried to fix this: less color noise, uncropped, less highlights. The contrast on the Moon is extreme, as there is no atmosphere. Nothing can be done about that. Yann (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Yann! IMHO at least the composition is now much better and also a clear advantage over the old version. I really appreciate your restoration work. I wanted to go to full support (i.e., delist and replace), but to understand the image better I have played a bit with the original PNG file. If I just brighten it, I get much grain, of course, but honestly I prefer original grain to the somewhat blotchy (and still noisy) look caused by the noise removal in the JPEG. Certainly this is just me, so I strike my vote and leave the assessment to the experts. – Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, Yann. The uncropped version with the stone definitely improves the composition. Still, when I compare them side by side, I find the current FP's texture a bit more natural, so I'll keep my vote as keep for now. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 06:43:15 (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/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Certhiidae_(Treecreepers)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice shot. Wolverine X-eye 10:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I disagree, not a big bird (12-13 cm) but I would still expect more detail Poco a poco (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Lacking feather detail. --Polinova (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2025 at 05:00:15 (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/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
Info created by Cvmontuy – uploaded by Cvmontuy – nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good archival specimen photo --Polinova (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Polinova. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2025 at 16:22:24 (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/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Ships
Info Older image (2011), but excellent composition, and technical quality is still very good for the age. The image shows the Pearl Mist, a cruise ship launched in 2014, at the Shelburne Shipyard in Nova Scotia, Canada, during a period when the completed ship was docked pending a legal dispute. Created by Dennis G. Jarvis – uploaded by X-Weinzar – nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Not bad. Wolverine X-eye 16:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 18:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2025 at 13:56:42 (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/Composites and Montages#Sequences (Chronological)
Info created by Polinova, William Thein, and Ingela Kaersvang – uploaded by Polinova – nominated by Polinova -- Polinova (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Polinova (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support A series of full-sized images as a set would be better, but we don't have that, and this collage is good and educational. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting to observe Poco a poco (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great to follow the development of an individual bald eagle. – Aristeas (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Poco and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Looking forward to the next collage that includes college graduation day, wedding, baby chicks, and grandchicks. — Rhododendrites talk | 01:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Support very educational. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2025 at 09:49:44 (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/Natural#North Macedonia
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not that interesting a scene, and color noise in the clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Kind of dark and not particularly notable or high quality image --Polinova (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2025 at 05:32:20 (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#Bulgaria
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The last sunrays of the day illuminating the majestic peaks of Vihren and Kutelo in the Pirin Mountains of Bulgaria —kallerna (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Very nice, but there are a few striations toward the upper left corner in the sky. What are those? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot see any special striations. Maybe you can provide a note on the img? —kallerna (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I added a note. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think those are natural, but they can be edited out also if you think they are a problem. —kallerna (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support If you think they're natural, that's good enough for me. I just wanted to know what they were. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think those are natural, but they can be edited out also if you think they are a problem. —kallerna (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot see any special striations. Maybe you can provide a note on the img? —kallerna (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I'm not seeing anything either. Good image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2025 at 04:41:55 (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/Plants#Family : Lamiaceae
Info Inflorescence of a Rostrinucula dependens. This subshrub is native to China and blooms from August to October. Focus stack of 54 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 05:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive! Bokeh background is green plants? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. The background is pure nature, namely our lawn (grass).--Famberhorst (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Terragio67 (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Vibrant! Wolverine X-eye 16:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent Cmao20 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Strong support This is an exceptionally accurate piece of work. --Syntaxys (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2025 at 03:18:11 (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#India
Info created and uploaded by Rainer Halama – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 03:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 03:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Fine shot. Wolverine X-eye 16:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Could you have used somewhat too much noise reduction? I see borders on some of the hills and trees in the distance, and the terraces in the middleground and hills a bit further back also seem a bit distorted. I'd love for you to try moving the slider back a little on the noise reduction, if you indeed used it, so we can see whether it makes this landscape look more normal. I don't know if anyone else will see things the way I do, of course. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't edit it, and I actually think it wasn't edited, but @Rainer Halama: can give us a definitive answer. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 02:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not really: The automatic correction. Exposure -0.20; Contrast +7, Highlights -66; Shadows +44; Whites +27; Blacks -28;Vibrance +14: Sharpening 99 (I always sharpen to around 100%); Masking 59 (I mask until - pressing ALT and sliding - only the contours are highlighted); Luminance 10;Profile ccorrection for the TAMRON 17-70mm lens Rainer Halama (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Question Just to be sure: are these Lightroom/ACR settings? If yes, the sharpening values are interesting – I use a completely different approach: Sharpening 45 to 50 (depending on the lens), masking 10. I avoid any higher masking values because they make the fine details look blotchy, and any higher sharpening values because they create outlines at the edges. I guess your values explain why Ikan mentioned “too much noise reduction” – the result is very similar. But taste differs, so if you like the look this is fine for you, of course. – Aristeas (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support IMO a bit oversharpened but nice composition and mood Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2025 at 02:57:35 (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/Mammals/Carnivora#Species_:_Panthera_tigris_(Tigers)
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support great expression on the tiger. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 03:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice one! Beautiful tiger, well captured. (To me, its expression is very cat-like.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support A little noisy but fantastic shot! --Polinova (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Healthy looking cat! Wolverine X-eye 16:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Some exposure would be good. For ISO 5000 good shot. --Mile (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking look. – Aristeas (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support This eye contact is impressive --Syntaxys (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2025 at 20:22:26 (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/Natural/United_States#California
Info created by Carol Highsmith – uploaded by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Another great shot by Highsmith. -- JayCubby (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 03:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful movements formed by nature.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Famberhorst. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Love Highsmith's work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support That's a high quality image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverine X-eye (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great composition. – Aristeas (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice composition and colors. Despite this minimalism, the image invites you to linger and let your mind wander a bit. --Syntaxys (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 18:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Umarxon III (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2025 at 06:26:26 (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/Birds#Family_:_Psittacidae_(True_Parrots)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Umarxon III (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC).
Support Ermell (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would put Light on Blue a bit down, but much more on Green and some Highligths down. --Mile (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Amazing capture! Wolverine X-eye 16:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 18:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Impressive! JayCubby (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 03:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support- Rotana🦋 (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support On my calibrated screen the highlights are fine, so I would keep it as it is. – Aristeas (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow! Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2025 at 06:11:04 (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/Vehicles/Water_transport#Ships
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 06:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 06:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. I've always wondered how the big buoys are placed. (sometimes, I wish there were fewer of them, because it's not fun to dodge buoys when sailing.) JayCubby (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful moment.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The foreground helps much. – Aristeas (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2025 at 01:17:55 (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/Historical/1900s#1940-1949 – uploaded by Doug Wilson~commonswiki – nominated by Chorchapu -- Chorchapu (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support This is my first ever Featured Picture nomination so apologies if I'm doing anything wrong. I was looking through the Wikipedia article for w:King Christian X and saw a colorised version of this photograph. It's admittedly lacking in quality but I think it makes up for it with the historical significance. -- Chorchapu (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Yes, it could be a FP, but not with this quality. Sadly, I couldn't find a higher resolution version with Google Images or Tineye. Yann (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Yann. Might be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan. --Milseburg (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 21:44:51 (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/Objects/Architectural elements#Single stained glass windows
Info created by Julian Lupyan – uploaded by Julian Lupyan – nominated by Julian Lupyan -- Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Hello everybody, this is my first nomination. I'd like to say I'm aware that there is a bit of a lack of detail (the lighting situation was a little strange), but I really liked the composition and would appreciate all comments and advice. -- Julian Lupyan (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Welcome to FPC, Julian - a wonderful start! A thoughtful and refreshing first nomination. The composition works well - the stained glass and the blurred glimpse of the building beyond create an intriguing depth. Well seen, and thank you for this wonderful idea. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the kind welcome! Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment That white etiquette doesnt help. I would color it black.--Mile (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Improvement proposed Good point, Mile. @Julian, I took the liberty of removing the label and, while I was at it, I made some slight adjustments to the contrast and tone values. This is just a suggestion and is available via the SwissTransfer link. If you like it, feel free to use the edit for an update. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Done @Mile @User:Radomianin Changes adopted, I think this is a great edit. Julian Lupyan (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I like this photo in this edit and I'm considering supporting the nomination. Could you add information about the dimensions of the stained glass to your file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I've looked before and looked again now just to make sure, and, unfortunately, there is no available information on the dimensions of the stained glass. Julian Lupyan (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have any estimate or general sense of approximately how big the stained area of the window is? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- From memory, I'd estimate it would have been around 40 centimeters in length. I took this picture in June so that estimate is probably not very reliable. I'd be reasonably confident in saying it was between 30 and 50 centimeters long. Julian Lupyan (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks. I like this photo, so while I don't know if the stained glass could have been a bit sharper, I'll consider it good enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- From memory, I'd estimate it would have been around 40 centimeters in length. I took this picture in June so that estimate is probably not very reliable. I'd be reasonably confident in saying it was between 30 and 50 centimeters long. Julian Lupyan (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have any estimate or general sense of approximately how big the stained area of the window is? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, I've looked before and looked again now just to make sure, and, unfortunately, there is no available information on the dimensions of the stained glass. Julian Lupyan (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I like this photo in this edit and I'm considering supporting the nomination. Could you add information about the dimensions of the stained glass to your file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support UnpetitproleX (Talk) 02:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, please add information about the artwork. --Yann (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Done I've added the label to the description (this is all the information the museum had). Unfortunately I could not find anything identifying the artist (nor could I when I was there). Julian Lupyan (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support New to me. --Mile (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin – Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice! Cmao20 (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Umarxon III (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 15:38:42 (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#Others
Info created by Tangopaso – uploaded by Tangopaso – nominated by Tangopaso -- Tangopaso (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tangopaso (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment A creative take on photographing a normal building, but since this is more of a trick photo than a proper representation of an actual event, the gallery should also reflect this. Funny and fanciful image names are ok for Flickr or Instagram, but the policy is that Commons images should be properly named and categorized. There are plenty of building really unstable in some way, so it should be clear to the viewer what's going on here. We don't need to spread more misinformation in the world, there is plenty of that already. --Cart (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I dont understand your comment. Its obvious that it is an actual building, you have even the location of the building in Paris. It is not an unstable building. It is only a joke.
- If you want in Commons only photos of actual objects, you must forbid all the art, paintings, drawings, sculptures. Does Wikipédia understand humor?--Tangopaso (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Of course we can have jokes, humor and such things here, but the description, file names and galleries should be correct since that is how people find images here. If you call this a 'sinking building', it will come up in searches people make for actual sinking buildings. If you indicate in the title and description that it's a funny joke photo, then people who are looking for funny photos will find it. With the right words, your photo will find the right audience. --Cart (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Question The resolution (6 MPx) is low, don't you have more pixels to offer? Poco a poco (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
No sorry, I dont have --Tangopaso (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)- I uploaded an image with better definitionː 3.38 Mb instead of 2.18 Mb. I hope it will be OK. --Tangopaso (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 20:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Cart and Poco, it's a nice idea but I don't think it's very high quality or well documented. Cmao20 (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 14:47:46 (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#United States
Info created by Szeremeta – uploaded by Szeremeta – nominated by Szeremeta -- Szeremeta (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Szeremeta (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would support a JPEG version. Yann (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not even QI to me, lack of detail, noisy lack of perspective correction and random compo. Definitely no FP Poco a poco (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't think perspective correction was demanded from drone photos. I do agree that we've seen much sharper and less noisy drone pics, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's a 100 megapixel file. It's not comparable to a 100 megapixel medium-format image, but impressive for a drone shot, one can even read the building names! Comparisons with other drone images should be done at the same resolution / print size, not at 100% --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're right, so I'll
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're right, so I'll
- It's a 100 megapixel file. It's not comparable to a 100 megapixel medium-format image, but impressive for a drone shot, one can even read the building names! Comparisons with other drone images should be done at the same resolution / print size, not at 100% --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't think perspective correction was demanded from drone photos. I do agree that we've seen much sharper and less noisy drone pics, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment The embedded color profile is Adobe RGB, which often gives wrong results with web browsers. File:Logan Square, Spring Garden.jpg is a JPEG version with sRGB color profile. You can add it as alternative. Yann (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is that still an issue with modern browsers? I thought that the Chrome/Firefox/Safari releases from the last few years had no issues displaying Adobe RGB images, as long as there was an embedded profile. I often use Adobe RGB in images with dark greens to reduce posterisation when converting to an 8-bit JPEG. Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I was told on Commons. It was a few years back. Yann (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- AFAIK all modern browsers now support ICC profiles; a few years ago I tried a few AdobeRGB and DisplayP3 images in Firefox, Edge and Chrome, and all were displayed correctly under macOS, Linux and Windows (of course I tried Edge only on Windows). Even on my Android smartphone AdobeRGB and DisplayP3 images are displayed correctly. There is still a critical point: Sometimes people or programs forget to embed the ICC profile. This is OK as long as the colour space is sRGB, which is used as a default, but can indeed cause serious problems with any other colour space. Luckily this image contains an embedded ICC profile, so everything should be fine. – Aristeas (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I was told on Commons. It was a few years back. Yann (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is that still an issue with modern browsers? I thought that the Chrome/Firefox/Safari releases from the last few years had no issues displaying Adobe RGB images, as long as there was an embedded profile. I often use Adobe RGB in images with dark greens to reduce posterisation when converting to an 8-bit JPEG. Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support This one is better to me. The distorted perspective looks more like a deliberate choice, rather than a drawback in the other nomination Cmao20 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 14:43:16 (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#United States
Info created by Szeremeta – uploaded by Szeremeta – nominated by Szeremeta -- Szeremeta (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Szeremeta (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would support a JPEG version. Yann (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this one is good. Please remind me of the advantages of JPEGs over PNGs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- PNGs
- take up much more space
- MW's thumbnail generator blurs PNG thumbnails (and nobody's fixed that bug for decadeS if my memory serves me)
- JayCubby (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Good to know. If these don’t pass I’ll be sure to retry as JPEGs. Szeremeta (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- PNGs
- Yes, this one is good. Please remind me of the advantages of JPEGs over PNGs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment The embedded color profile is Adobe RGB, which often gives wrong results with web browsers. File:Asbury Park Oceanfront Aerial (October 15, 2025).jpg is a JPEG version with sRGB color profile. You can add it as alternative. Yann (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice shot and huge resolution but I think it'd need a perspective correction, the leaning buildings are just too disturbing Cmao20 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)- We're really going to demand perspective correction from drone pics? I'll
Support this photo based on quality, without prejudice to the question of whether it ought to be a JPEG. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 11:12:38 (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/Exteriors/Germany#Saxony
Info No FPs of this place. Harmonious composition. created by Code – uploaded by Code – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment The spots in the sky should be removed.--Ermell (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent composition. Szeremeta (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Peaceful, and even more than the building, the weeping willow is the star of the photo. I think you should add a category for it and maybe also for the tree just to the right of the building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 20:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 11:12:28 (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/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Sweden
Info No FPs of this place. I love the light. created by Julian Herzog – uploaded by Julian Herzog – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Szeremeta (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, that light and look is a signature of Julian Herzog, who's one of my favorite photographers on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 06:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 10:37:37 (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/Architecture/Castles and fortifications/Germany#Rhineland-Palatinate
Info created by imehling -- imehling (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I hope this castle is outstanding enough. -- imehling (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Szeremeta (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, for me the image doesn't work well enough for FP. The building ist too bright (maybe fixable) and it doesn't stand out enough from the background. --Alexander-93 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I concur, sorry, not the best POV Poco a poco (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think it's really your fault, but the composition doesn't really work for me, and I think it's partly because there's such a big white area in the castle's façade. That can't be helped, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 02:14:30 (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/United States#Tennessee
Info Meadow in the Great Smoky Mountains (in the morning, amid the namesake "smoke"), Tennessee. Debated whether to nominate this one or the one taken a bit later in the day, but the one with the "smoke" seemed more fitting, even if the lighting is unusual for FPC. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 02:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 02:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Thank you for nominating this image and not the other one, I learned a lot from it. I often shy away from compositions with a subject in the shadows against a bright background, but here it works beautifully. Like in this or that painting, the viewer is guided first through the shadow, creating context, and then into the light, adding contrast. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Evokes the quiet atmosphere of a Théodore Rousseau landscape - serene, misty, and beautifully balanced. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful composition Cmao20 (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cart (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Absolutely stunning. Szeremeta (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Julesvernex2 (thank you for emphasising the instructive ‘dark subject against a bright background’ point!) and Radomianin. Like you, I am reminded of landscape paintings by this composition. – Aristeas (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Julian Lupyan (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely. The beauty and rhythm of the wildflowers in the foreground shouldn't be ignored as one of the elements that makes this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 06:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The smoke in the background adds to the composition. Wolverine X-eye 16:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - Love the lighting and composition; very painterly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
File:Red-legged grasshopper (72625).jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2025 at 02:10:33 (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/Arthropods#Family_:_Acrididae_(Short-horned_grasshoppers_and_locusts)
Info Red-legged grasshopper (Melanoplus femurrubrum) munching on a flower, covered in pollen (grasshoppers are pollinators, too!). all by — Rhododendrites talk | 02:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 02:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Natural, well-balanced sharpness that feels effortless and authentic. The visible pollen detail greatly enhances the picture's encyclopedic value. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support f/8 is safe too. --Mile (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow, what a harmonious composition and extraordinarily good image quality Cmao20 (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Exquisite. Wolverine X-eye 14:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool stuff Poco a poco (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per others. Very impressive and instructive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 18:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Waw!!- Rotana🦋 (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
File:Malcolm X 1964 press photo.jpg, featured
Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2025 at 23:19:08 (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#1960-1969
Info created by AP News – uploaded by 999real – nominated by Bremps -- Bremps... 23:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- High quality shot of his face, illustrates his defiant attitude, high historical value Bremps... 23:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking portrait with an almost low-key feel: precise shadows, expressive face, and a calm dark background conveying depth and subtle drama. -- Radomianin (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 01:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Its good shot, but i miss some exposure. --Mile (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Info We have one previous FP of him. --Cart (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, but this one is much better. --Yann (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- It was just a statement/information, nothing more, to have something to compare with and I agree with you. --Cart (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm glad we have both, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- It was just a statement/information, nothing more, to have something to compare with and I agree with you. --Cart (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Thi (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Terragio67 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--JustEMV (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. – Aristeas (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2025 at 20:57:45 (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/Fish#Family : Labridae (Wrasses)
Info Cheek-lined wrasse (Oxycheilinus digramma), Anilao, Philippines. This species of wrasse is native to the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean and lives in coral reefs, sheltered inland areas, and lagoons, possibly at depths from 3 to 60 metres (9.8 to 196.9 ft). It can grow to about 40 centimetres (16 in) in standard length, the coloring varies from pale gray to purple, and it eats sea urchins, molluscs, and crustaceans. Note: there are no FPs of the genus Oxycheilinus on Commons. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Great details at and beyond life size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2025 at 14:35:38 (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/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Boats
Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Harmonious composition, nice ship. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - This is a technically good picture of a particular tugboat but doesn't show it in action. QI, VI yes, but IMO not enough wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Agree, too static/centered Poco a poco (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Good light and colours. – Aristeas (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2025 at 09:35:18 (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#1910-1919
Info Photograph taken by Pierre Choumoff – retouched by ReneeWrites – originally uploaded by Grnrchst – nominated by Grnrchst -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as nominator. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. JayCubby (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Quite small, poor quality. We have thousands of pictures like this on Commons. What is special here? Yann (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's really poor quality for 1916? Maybe not great quality, though the facial expression is haunting. Actually, I feel like the quality is pretty good to show all the stripes on her blouse. I'm not arguing for FP, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2025 at 07:45:36 (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 : Aulocera
Info created by Ankit0908 – uploaded by Ankit0908 – nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Atudu (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry. Composition is absolutely beautiful and I was preparing to support but looking at it in full size the quality is poor (pixellated and noisy) Cmao20 (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- I will try sir Ankit0908 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- i have uploaded less noisy image, please check. Ankit0908 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Perhaps the noise has been sharpened? Ankit0908, can this be fixed? JayCubby (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- May be, I Will try to fixed shortly. Ankit0908 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- i have uploaded less noisy image, please check. Ankit0908 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per others.
Comment Improved. I'm no longer sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Renewed
Oppose - the butterfly looks oversharpened to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Renewed
Support the new version -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support now. --Yann (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2025 at 23:17:27 (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/Historical/People#1960-1969
Info created by André Cros - preserved by Toulouse City Archives – uploaded by Donna Nobot – restored and nominated by Groupir ! -- Groupir ! (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support A nice picture of singer Mireille Mathieu in her debut year. Simple but efficient composition. Fine chiaroscuro. The image depicts well her original frailty at the beginning of her career, through the posture, the eyes, and the place in the frame. -- Groupir ! (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Tangopaso (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 13:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Support- Rotana🦋 (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2025 at 22:29:17 (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/Entertainment#Film
Info created by General Film Co.– uploaded by Racconish – restored by Ezarate and PaulDallas72 nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support: Good restoration work. JayCubby (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support-- E.IMANCOMMONS 02:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)- I'm unconvinced by the restoration work. If you look at File:Hans' Millions.jpg, the same texture of color dotting is used all the way to the holes, and does not become blurred in the places shown on the allegedly restored file. The details in the original are clearer than in the alleged restoration. I therefore consider this not a real restoration but a version that never existed, and I'm afraid I have to
Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'd add that the "PNG restored" is more faithful to the original than this JPG is, although it retains some scratches. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose fully agree with Ikan here Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- The original has a stich error, the process to solve it may be generated the issues --Ezarateesteban 13:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- How come only one person agrees with me and this is passing? I'm surprised. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- The original has a stich error, the process to solve it may be generated the issues --Ezarateesteban 13:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support heylenny (talk/edits) 04:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose After careful consideration, I must agree with Ikan Kekek. The retouched poster is interesting and clearly shows effort, which I genuinely appreciate. That said, I share the concerns Ikan raised. I'm sorry. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2025 at 17:49:30 (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/Architecture/Castles and fortifications/Germany#Hesse
Info all by imehling -- imehling (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- imehling (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Wonderful. Wolverine X-eye 03:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Good quality and interesting motif. But overall quite common regarding the castels category. The lighting is unfavorable, so there are hardly any shadows making the ruin plastic. So the castle barely stands out from the background. It's not outstanding enough for me. --Milseburg (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Milseburg --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I concur Poco a poco (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Milseburg-- E.IMANCOMMONS 23:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I agree. The lack of contrast greatly mars the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Just goes to show how different opinions can be. I really like the fact that the castle's colours blend into those of the hill. It makes it look camouflaged, like an animal about to strike. I find this picture imposing and subtly beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Milseburg --Alexander-93 (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2025 at 15:50:10 (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/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info The image shows an Auto-Union Typ C race car exhibited at Munich Motor Show 2025. Created by Alexander-93 – uploaded by Alexander-93 – nominated by Alexander-93 -- Alexander-93 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexander-93 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Dust spot near the trunk, it could use some sharpening Poco a poco (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, well-composed. The moiré-inducing background is a shame, though. JayCubby (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment The image documents the car clearly and effectively. The framing is slightly tight on the left and right, and a small crop at the top could help reduce the moiré from the screen in the background. A slight crop at the bottom might also harmonize the overall composition without cutting off any important details. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Tend to agree with Radomianin. Alex, I know you do a lot of very tight crops... at QI I don't think it's a big issue, but here the extra space is needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for your comments regarding the crop. Unfortunately the screen ended on the right hand side. I had no other option to crop the image at the sides.--Alexander-93 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose A beautifully executed image that captures this classic car with great clarity and care. My only small reservation concerns the composition - it feels a little tight on both sides, and the background screen slightly distracts from the subject. A modest crop at the top might help the framing feel more balanced and reduce the moiré effect. Otherwise, a very fine and commendable work. I hope you don't mind this small compositional suggestion - it's meant in a constructive spirit. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I can't consider supporting, because the moiré effect is too distracting, but it looks pretty clearly like there's a dust spot right in front of the car, and that ought to be fixed before the photo passes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2025 at 15:06:37 (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/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
Info created and uploaded by Pratap Gurung – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 15:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support no FPs of this species. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 15:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Good capture. Wolverine X-eye 03:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The blurring added afterwards causes problems at the transitions from the fur to the sky. I would have cropped out the bush on the left. Sadly, the eyes are not really sharp either.--Ermell (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that the bush should be cropped out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek and Ermell: cropped out the bush. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Notable improvement, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek and Ermell: cropped out the bush. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that the bush should be cropped out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Ermell. It looks overprocessed to me Poco a poco (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Striking photo but in my opinion unfavourable light conditions lead to too harsh contrasts, and I don't think the image quality is very high. Cmao20 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Cmao20: I have tried to soften the contrast. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Works for me – quality is not perfect, but I like the posture and the simple, but effective composition against the sky. – Aristeas (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Ermell --Cvmontuy (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2025 at 03:45:31 (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/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Nepal
Info The multi-tiered pagoda roof of the Tribhuvan Museum complex located within Kathmandu Durbar Square, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Nepal. The structure, featuring five layered roofs with red fabric trim, represents the traditional Newar architectural style that developed during the Malla period. created by Bijay Chuarasia – uploaded by Bijay Chuarasia – nominated by Bijay Chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment The image describes the architectural style very well, but I would like to see more of the carvings or decorations on the roof supports. The shadow drawing should be raised a little more, as the image is nothing special in my opinion and the image description "… the intricate woodwork …" is not correct in its current form. IMO it would also be important to include the name of the pagoda. --Syntaxys (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- -Thank for review, I have updated the info -Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- In a similar vein, I would ask whether there's any time of day when the interesting carvings under each tier are at least somewhat lit. This is a great motif, but I can scarcely see those carvings, and I'd like to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- -Thank for review, I have updated the info -Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 16:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Good quality, and useful image, but I don't get a "wow" from this. The blank sky, left-crop, and overall squarish aspect ration on a vertical subject are, I think, holding it back from FP for me, sorry. — Rhododendrites talk | 19:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2025 at 20:37:46 (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#Doors
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Petro Stelte (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice motif Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The photographer has thought through this scene to make a balanced, quality image but IMHO, it does not have sufficient wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 03:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Partially per GRDN711 but mostly because of the low level of detail. The file is too big (MBs) for that resolution. Poco a poco (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a new version with minor processing, which has significantly higher level of detail (please compare the new version with the old version). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I've really struggled with whether to vote on this nomination. I really respect what strikes me as the idea behind the photo, which is to show a motif that features classic monumental elements amid shapes formed from splashes of faded color, as part of a general atmosphere of drabness and dilapidation. My thoughts are that maybe it deserves to be featured because of its poetry, but maybe there is not enough to see for it to be worth a feature. I keep going back and forth and have not decided, but maybe the very fact that I keep thinking about it is a reason to support... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note that it's still a functioning school building. There are even social distancing feet in front of the entrance that were placed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are visible on this picture. I was unsure whether to nominate this one for its interesting architectural style (porticos are not very common for school buildings) or the other one for its story-telling, but eventually decided to go with this one as the motif is missing from the FP gallery on architectural elements. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support for the poetry and social commentary from the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note that it's still a functioning school building. There are even social distancing feet in front of the entrance that were placed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are visible on this picture. I was unsure whether to nominate this one for its interesting architectural style (porticos are not very common for school buildings) or the other one for its story-telling, but eventually decided to go with this one as the motif is missing from the FP gallery on architectural elements. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak support The charm of decay, indeed a poetic and moving photo (considering that this school is still in use without the urgently needed restoration). A bit soft esp. at the bottom, but OK. – Aristeas (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2025 at 23:05:21 (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 created, uploaded and nominated by Needsmoreritalin -- Needsmoreritalin (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- There are currently no FPs of the Lesser Scaup, this will a female of the species to the gallery. --Needsmoreritalin (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure about this one. Her head and neck are sharp, but unlike the other photo, the rest of her body isn't. Unquestionably a QI, but I'm not sure about FP. Per w:Lesser scaup, "Adults are 38–48 cm (15–19 in) long," so not tiny. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful warm light, perfect focus on the eye, as appropriate, silky soft foreground and background bokeh. – Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Agree with Ikan that it's abit of a shame that the body isn't in focus, but still very good Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Thu 16 Oct → Tue 21 Oct Fri 17 Oct → Wed 22 Oct Sat 18 Oct → Thu 23 Oct Sun 19 Oct → Fri 24 Oct Mon 20 Oct → Sat 25 Oct Tue 21 Oct → Sun 26 Oct
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Sun 12 Oct → Tue 21 Oct Mon 13 Oct → Wed 22 Oct Tue 14 Oct → Thu 23 Oct Wed 15 Oct → Fri 24 Oct Thu 16 Oct → Sat 25 Oct Fri 17 Oct → Sun 26 Oct Sat 18 Oct → Mon 27 Oct Sun 19 Oct → Tue 28 Oct Mon 20 Oct → Wed 29 Oct Tue 21 Oct → Thu 30 Oct
Closing a featured picture promotion request
The bot
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure
Any experienced user may close requests.
- 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/October 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/October 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/October 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

