Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates

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

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

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

Table of contents

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

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

Featured picture candidates

File:Door beukenblad gegroeide Krokus (Crocus) 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2017 at 05:23:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Door beukenblad gegroeide Krokus (Crocus) 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Door beukenblad gegroeide Krokus (Crocus) 02.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Iridaceae.
•  Info By beech leaf grown Crocus (Crocus) I continue to amaze me at the power of nature. In these little things. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The framing looks a bit arbitrary to me, with various elements being cut off at inopportune places. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Iglesia sumergida de San Nicolás, lago Mavrovo, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 11.JPG

Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 18:09:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia sumergida de San Nicolás, lago Mavrovo, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 11.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia sumergida de San Nicolás, lago Mavrovo, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 11.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
•  Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Cool finding, thank you Kiril! When I planned to visit this place I was expecting to find something like this (it was middle of April) but instead I got there at the same time like a cold wave with this result. Driving with a summer tyres VW Golf was crazy but the views overwhelming...:) Poco² 18:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I remember that day with unusually low temperatures for the country in that period of the year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose It's not very interesting and I find the featureless bright white foreground makes it unappealing. Charles (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:2016 Singapur, Jurong Bird Park (175).jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 14:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Singapur, Jurong Bird Park (175).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Singapur, Jurong Bird Park (175).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info all by me Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Halavar (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The head is nice, but not the composition and the background. Charles (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like the composition (I can see how the bird head look like a tree and contrasting with the trees in background, Excellent!), however, it's oversharpening resulting in noise absolutely fixable. --The Photographer 17:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I applied a noise reduction, however, I rollbacked myself, if it's ok for you you could take this version and set on top. We need another opinion too if you accept this version --The Photographer 17:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Info Thanks for the new fixed version. It's better:) --Halavar (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support yes, the background is unfortunate, but head and expression are truly interesting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - I really like the bird, and especially its head feathers, but might you consider cropping out a little more than half the background to the left? I'm finding those leaves distracting and unhelpful to the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  If I cut the half, composition would be worse than now. --Halavar (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:BustoManuelBelgrano-TandilArg-mar2017.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 14:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:BustoManuelBelgrano-TandilArg-mar2017.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:BustoManuelBelgrano-TandilArg-mar2017.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
•  Info all by me Ezarateesteban 14:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ezarateesteban 14:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment IMO, horizontal perspective correction needs. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 14:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I can't see any FP qualities here. Charles (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose QI, not FP to me, sorry Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I didn't support this at QI (well, because it needed some technical corrections), and it's definitely not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination thsanks for the comments, I'll try with another shot Ezarateesteban 01:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Rochaverá Corporate Towers, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 12:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Rochaverá Corporate Towers, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rochaverá Corporate Towers, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info All by -- The Photographer 12:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support nice symmetry Ezarateesteban 14:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive building, nice light and composition. Yann (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 19:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Very good compo and fine quality--Ermell (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment A very wow image. The close distance to the towers, and the rectilinear perspective, has resulted in quite strong wide-angle effect + vertical perspective correction. Given that the buildings are actually leaning in one part, I'm a bit uncomfortable with exaggerating things. For example, the first image on this website is taken from a height, meaning the verticals are not so distorted. But also, I'm concerned about the health of your fellow Brazilians. Look at the bottom left. They appear to be fatter than they are tall. Is there any way you can take this from higher up or further back. -- Colin (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I was hoping this image would show up here after seeing it at QIC. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Appearance is good. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I see noise on the facades and strong distortion (look at the people at the lower left) --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Euploea-kottayam-kerala.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 11:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Euploea-kottayam-kerala.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Euploea-kottayam-kerala.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info created by User:deepugn - uploaded by User:deepugn - nominated by User:deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Some way from FP sharpness and would be small if cropped. Charles (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I agree with Charles. The standard for FP butterflies is very high. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Bow of a wrecked fishing boat on Grötö.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 11:22:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bow of a wrecked fishing boat on Grötö.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bow of a wrecked fishing boat on Grötö.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Shipwrecks
•  Info All by me -- cart-Talk 11:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- cart-Talk 11:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much hull and I'm not keen on bowsprit (if that's what it is). Charles (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes it's a bowspit and if you take a photo of a hull, you usually end up with a lot of hull. :). --cart-Talk 15:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Nice perspective, nice lines, combinates good with the blue sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing really special. Yann (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - not the most groundbreaking image ever made, but it's a unique perspective and makes me want to take a closer look. Not sure how you can have too much hull in a picture of a boat but there we are... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose No FP qualities here. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 20:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support On the hull, it's a great picture . I like the way the barnacled part is coterminous with the shadow and the clear part is in the light. This is one of those images where the composition makes you want to find out more. How did this boat get here? Can it sail again? There is also a nice juxtaposition of the textured hull close to the camera and the fuzzier land and seascape in the distance. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The boat is too large for it to be a normal picture and too small for it to be a true closeup. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose pretty much per King. I'd like to see a photo from a bit further away. The boat takes up an uncomfortable amount of the picture frame for me; I'd like to see a little more sky above it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is one of the whole boat, but I doubt it is FP material. --cart-Talk 11:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my nomination I was going for how big and looming, albiet with nice lines, the hull of a boat can feel when you see it on land. Obvoiusly I managed to do just that a bit too much for some users. :) Oh well, boats always have a hard time here, I'll be back with something that may be closer to what most of the FPC gang likes soon. Stay tuned... --cart-Talk 11:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Faro del cabo Espartel, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 02.JPG

Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 10:59:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Faro del cabo Espartel, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 02.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Faro del cabo Espartel, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 02.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
•  Info Lighthouse of Cap Spartel, near Tangier, northern Morocco. The 24 metres (79 ft) lighthouse was constructed between 1861 and 1864 and and was a prime example of international agreement, in this case between the British, French, Spanish, and American governments that supported the lighthouse’s construction, and also agreed its neutrality in case of war. All by me, Poco² 10:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Note: there was a previous FPC of this item that didn't success because of a busy composition, this is not the case here. Poco² 15:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 10:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support very peaceful, picturesque, and holidayesque --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - You might consider cropping a bit of the sky from the top (maybe about 1/4 of the distance to the lighthouse's spire), but I really enjoy this peaceful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support A very California feel to it. And I second Ikan's crop suggestion, although I'd go about one-third of the way from the top. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  @Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case: I've cropped a portion of the sky Poco² 22:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre, British Columbia, Canada (July 2016).jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 09:56:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre, British Columbia, Canada (July 2016).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre, British Columbia, Canada (July 2016).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose QI in all likelihood, but no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I have to agree. It does a decent job illustrating the facility (but only a small portion of it?) but otherwise it's not a very engaging photo by FP standards. Sorry, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Bjurfors bruk 2017-03-15 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 08:28:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bjurfors bruk 2017-03-15 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bjurfors bruk 2017-03-15 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
•  Info created by Vivo - uploaded by Vivo - nominated by Vivo -- Vivo (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Vivo (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Ursnyggt! Gillar kotten nere till höger. :) --cart-Talk 08:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Beautiful, interesting and well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Doesn't work with the man-made 'bridge' in the foreground. Charles (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Charles that the wood rather spoils the scene. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Charles and Colin. It wood be a lot better without that bridge . Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I agree that the piece of wood is sub-optimal, but ultimately it's not a fatal flaw in my opinion. Man's influence is abundantly evident throughout the image, and even if a modern piece of lumber isn't quite as charming as moss-covered stone walls, it's still a part of the scene (and potentially a semi-permanent one, as opposed to, say, trash littering the ground, which would be a different story). The rudimentary bridge thing is apparently part of how people interact with nature at this location. The light, composition, and technical quality are all very good, and I think that about all we can ask of a featured picture is to masterfully show how things are, not how they should be for maximum aesthetic pleasure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Info The stream, with surroundings, is a nature reserve, to a large part because it's a popular trail walking area. Added to file description. --Vivo (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:A swan in Lake Ohrid.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2017 at 07:25:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A swan in Lake Ohrid.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A swan in Lake Ohrid.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
•  Info created by IvanStojmirov - uploaded by IvanStojmirov - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The swan is a beautiful animal, but this picture does not stand out among our many other photos of swans. The technical quality is mediocre --- the image is not sharp and there is a large amount of chromatic aberrations. The composition is peaceful but this is common among photos of swans. We have over 100 QIs of swans, such as, File:Poertschach Johannes-Brahms-Promenade Cygnus olor 01032015 0249.jpg (much higher resolution and free of CA). dllu (t,c) 08:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per dllu, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per dllu. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Western Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge at dusk, seen from Yerba Buena Island.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 18:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Western Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge at dusk, seen from Yerba Buena Island.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Western Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge at dusk, seen from Yerba Buena Island.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
•  Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 18:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- dllu (t,c) 18:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Info The EXIF time of 2.55 am is UTC time. The photo was taken at 7.55 pm, 2017-04-02, about 20 minutes after sunset. dllu (t,c) 18:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Info Unedited JPG and RAW are available at [1] and [2] respectively. dllu (t,c) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - When I saw this at QIC, I thought it was superb, but I'm now noticing horizontal and vertical lines that would seem to be visible stitching marks. In one case, the sky is clearly darker to the right of a line. Please fix the problems, and then I'll be happy to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Info This is a single shot without any stitching. In any case, I see the vertical line too and I've uploaded a new version that doesn't have it. As for the horizontal lines, they were in the original image and are probably caused by aircraft contrails. dllu (t,c) 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you.  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice one. There's a lens flare in the lower left corner, you should remove that. --Code (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I cloned it out. It's a flower, not a lens flare. There were many purple flowers in front of the camera. And lots of poison oak. You can see some of the flowers in this picture, taken a few minutes earlier. I pushed most of them out of the way for the presently nominated shot. dllu (t,c) 08:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like the composition. The bridge is caught just off of centre -- so neither symmetrical nor angled to get a better view. And the bottom half of the picture contains too much dark wood or water that isn't serving any useful purpose. The lighting of the buildings is a bit murky - again neither dark enough to be black nor light/crisp enough to be clear. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I too would prefer a symmetrical composition but it isn't possible to move further to the left due to dense plants such as poison oak. dllu (t,c) 18:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Colin. I can understand the desire to get both the bridge and the skyline in, but they are literally working at cross-purposes here. Daniel Case (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great timing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The quality is sufficient, but the composition is not appealing. We already have File:San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge- New and Old bridges.jpg as an FP of the same theme, which captures the bridge much better than this one. This might have worked had it closely depicted the architectural elements of the bridge such as in File:Brooklyn Bridge - 03.jpg.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment That is a different bridge. The eastern span is distinct from the western span. dllu (t,c) 07:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Caltha palustris (navadna kalužnica).jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 08:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Caltha palustris (navadna kalužnica).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caltha palustris (navadna kalužnica).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
•  Info Caltha palustris blossoming/blooming. All by me. -- Mile (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment However, I propose to change the crop, if possible, by adding some space on the left and bottom. This is quite centric now. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Uoaei1 idea is good, will try to add some pixel.  Done + some debright --Mile (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose This doesn't seem to have FP composition or high technical quality. There's very little detail at the centre of the flower. Charles (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - works for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Reichstagsgebäude und Paul-Löbe-Haus, Berlin-Mitte, 170327, ako.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 05:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Reichstagsgebäude und Paul-Löbe-Haus, Berlin-Mitte, 170327, ako.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reichstagsgebäude und Paul-Löbe-Haus, Berlin-Mitte, 170327, ako.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info The east side of the Paul Löbe building in Berlin-Mitte, facing the river Spree, during the blue hour. On the left the Reichstag building can be seen. Both buildings belong to the German parliament ("Bundestag"). If you look carefully through the Paul Löbe building (direction west) you can see both the Federal Chancellery and the sunset. Taking this photograph was quite challenging. I've planned to take this photo since a while. Finally I had a free evening with suitable light and weather conditions. When I arrived at the place a really hughe amount of photographers (let's say around 20-30 persons) were already lined up at both sides of the river (behind me there was the Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders building which is also a well known photo subject). The light conditions changed very quickly so it wasn't easy to find the right settings to have a short exposure on the one hand (to avoid that the first frames of the stitched mosaic are differently exposed compared with the last frames) and to get the water of the river Spree smooth on the other hand (for this purpose I'd prefered a longer exposure even more but then the light situation would have change inbetween the single exposures too much). For the same reason I used my 35mm lens in this case instead of the 50mm: I wanted to have less frames to take. The dynamic range of the scene was very high so I had to do it using HDR technique. To have a short exposure I decided not to take five exposures as usual but only three exposures (-2 EV, 0 EV, +2 EV) for each frame. For the stitching itself I had to play around a little bit with different kinds of projections. In the end I've chosen a "Vedutismo"-projection because the rectilinear projection caused extreme stretching for such a wide field of view. Regarding the crop I decided to use a 16:9 ratio because 2:3 would have ended in too much empty space at the top and the bottom. Placing the buildings right in the middle of the picture follows the rule of thirds. Finally, after some hours of work, I'm personally quite convinced by the result. I hope you agree. I'll be thankful for any comment. All by me. -- Code (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Code (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Outstanding image! Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I also appreciate the explanation. --cart-Talk 08:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for both your pic and the explanation! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great pic, reminds me a bit of one of my all-time favourites --A.Savin 12:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment very impressive - is there anything you can do about artefacts in the sky? Charles (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, the explanation is nice but the finished image still speaks for itself. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support It is a very impressive picture, and I appreciate the thought and planning that went into it but I am just curious: What is the point of stitching a panorama from a whopping 54 frames instead of using a single wide angle lens (or maybe using just two or three frames) if the final version is going to be downsampled to only 20 megapixels anyway? Why not upload the full 50+ megapixels? Also, I slightly prefer the rectilinear projection for architecture (as it does not play tricks on the eyes regarding which lines are straight and which are curved), but I see that the rectilinear image doesn't include the interesting church Reichstag building on the left, and I would support either version. dllu (t,c) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Dllu: The stitched image has a field of view equivalent to a 3mm lens. Obviously, such a lens doesn't exist so it simply wouldn't be possible at all to take such a photo as a single frame. It would look rather ugly, too. You can have a look at the PTGui preview for a rectilinear version of the same view and I don't believe you'd find it better than this "Vedutismo"-version. I usually don't use stitching to increase the megapixel count but for other reasons: First I'm using the panorama head to simulate a tilt-shift-lens. When taking a multirow panorama and stitching it with PTGui I can easily get the verticals rectilinear without any loss of quality. Then I'm using the panorama head to get a field of view that I wouldn't get using a single picture. You can see here an example of more or less the same view taken with a 24mm lens. Third, I can easily improve the image quality by downsampling the stitched image to more or less the same size a single picture would have if it came directly out of my camera (~20MPix). Everything is sharp then and you don't get any complaints about noise and so on. All in all I prefer image quality over image size. I could of course upload a version with some more megapixels but I honestly don't see the use of it. You can print this version in any size you want and even on the screen you won't see anything in the 50MPix version that you can't see in the 20MPix version. By the way the buliding on the left isn't a church. --Code (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for your explanation. I see the motivation for the Vedutismo projection now. Regarding downsampling, Commons:Image guidelines explicitly states "do not downsample", with the reason being that future devices may support more pixels. Indeed, there is already a 33 megapixel monitor. Regardless of whether the human eye can see so much detail, I still think that for a project like Wikimedia Commons, which seeks to document human knowledge, one should store as much information as possible. dllu (t,c) 04:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think it should be called "downsampling" when the result of my work has exactly the megapixel count a single picture out of my camera would have. As stated above I don't use stitching to increase the megapixel count but to get a wider field of view and straight verticals without losing quality or image size compared to a single exposure out of the camera. And as I already said I don't care much about Megapixels but I do care about visual quality. And we all know very well that many of our fellow Commoners would complain about noise and sharpness regardless of whether they look at a 50 or 100MPix picture. --Code (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 71-73 HDR.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 04:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 71-73 HDR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 71-73 HDR.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created & uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - There are already two FPs of this mosque - File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 34-36 HDR.jpg and File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 49-51 HDR.jpg - but neither of them shows this or any other colorful tilework, so if like me, you consider this spectacular, I think it's appropriate to vote to feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support There are actually those 2 FPs plus these three FPs of that mosque (is getting really popular :)): 1, 2, 3. Number 2 is of the same type but a different location. I've no problem with that :) Poco² 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - Come to think of it, I believe I looked for FPs only in Category:Masjed-e Shah, Isfahan (interior). Two of those shots are not really interior, and the other is categorized under "dome interior". I'm not sure why there's been no interest in this photo so far. If anyone thinks there's a problem with having this many FPs of one mosque, ask yourself if you'd feel that way if we were considering St. Peter's. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ikan I'm not sure your suggestion that religion (or attitudes towards) is a factor here. The photo that Poco suggests is most similar is I think more geometrically and compositionally interesting than this. It has a star shape to the geometry, which also provides leading lines. This photo is cropped much closer and in fact is slightly too cropped at the top, which is a shame. As a thumb, on the FPC page, perhaps it is just not catching the eye. Sometimes, also, we get used to seeing similar nominations, and could do with a break from them, to see with fresh eyes. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, all logical. I'm not sure my point came across the way I intended, though. If it seems like I was suggesting prejudice on anyone's part, that wasn't my intention at all; I just picked St. Peter's as a religious building that would be familiar to everyone and unlikely to provoke any feelings that we would have too many FPs of it, providing they were of different parts of the basilica. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Colin, Ikan Kekek: I promise to improve the crop and will also balance the exposure overall a bit, please, give me 2 more days to do so. Poco² 22:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support A little bit overdone near the bottom but ... I could look at these colors forever. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very detailed and interesting tile artwork. Crop at the top is unfortunate. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:MosMetro Fonvizinskaya 01-2017.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 04:32:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:MosMetro Fonvizinskaya 01-2017.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:MosMetro Fonvizinskaya 01-2017.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Another fantastic Moscow Metro station by A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 07:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 08:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks IK --A.Savin 12:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• You're most welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Would probably work well in b/w, too. --Code (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Science fiction-like, nice symmetry. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Strong support I was hoping we'd see some of your latest Moscow metro/train station pics over here soon. This one is the best ... as Basotxerri suggests, you could probably add some Imperial stormtroopers to the scene and they wouldn't look out of place at all. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Moscow's subway stations are beautiful. It reminds me of David Burdeny's series on them: [3]. dllu (t,c) 03:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The pictures are somewhat Diliff-like and make me envious, although I don't know if they have as high resolution (it's not a big deal to create sth. like that using Photomatix, but then of course you have lots of noise, color fringes and other problems in full size). --A.Savin 11:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Palácio de Cristal (Petrópolis).jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 03:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Palácio de Cristal (Petrópolis).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palácio de Cristal (Petrópolis).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose. Beautiful building, but at 10.5 MP the level of sharpness on the left edge is unacceptable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per King, but I very much want to see a sharper photo of this building that we can feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp per King and Ikan, and the WB seems a bit off, like the sky picked up the greenish tones common elsewhere in the image. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Rombicosidodecaedro parabidiminuído.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2017 at 00:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Rombicosidodecaedro parabidiminuído.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rombicosidodecaedro parabidiminuído.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created by Rodrigo.Argenton - uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by User:Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 00:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 00:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Interessante e didático. Parabéns, Rodrigo! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral Three browsers I have tried with (Chrome, Edge and Firefox) have all been unable to display it at full size (Even at 30.2MB, it shouldn't be a memory problem, although Chrome is claiming that's what it is). Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I can display it in Chrome just fine. Something's wrong with your computer. Anyhow, this is why the LargeImage template exists, right? dllu (t,c) 03:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Support now that I put the Large Image viewer link on the page; it took a while but I was able to see it. However, I do agree with your support vote ... in fact I thought this was all CGI at first. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- very well executed. However, one wonders: for an abstract mathematical object, wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to use a computer-generated, ideal, vector format diagram than a photograph of an imperfect physical artifact? dllu (t,c) 03:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Joalpe (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Efectos visuales Interference en la Medina de Túnez, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 85.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 20:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Efectos visuales Interference en la Medina de Túnez, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 85.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Efectos visuales Interference en la Medina de Túnez, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 85.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena
•  Info created by Poco_a_poco - uploaded by Poco_a_poco - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support ...welcome to The Matrix, you really chose the red pill... --cart-Talk 21:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Very interesting. As a child, I enjoyed going to the changing room of my local clothing store, because I could see myself numerous times in the two mirrors on opposite sides of the little cubicle. This is in some ways a more sophisticated and colorful version of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support awesome! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you Basotxerri for this nom! And thanks also to cart for finding out that this phenomenon is called the Droste effect. Poco² 16:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Reminds me not quite as much of The Matrix but of the Ship of Lights in the original Battlestar Galactica (albeit in a different color). Not technically perfect, but considering the overall effect I don't care. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Rockenstein (Rhön).jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 19:19:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Rockenstein (Rhön).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rockenstein (Rhön).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Milseburg (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is too flat for me; the bottom third is all boring featureless snow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Not bad compositionally but lacks contrast and has lots of JPEG compression artefacts in the sky. --Code (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Northern masked weaver (Ploceus taeniopterus) female.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 17:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Northern masked weaver (Ploceus taeniopterus) female.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Northern masked weaver (Ploceus taeniopterus) female.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Yeah, that's really good! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Less is definitely more here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support At first the flesh-colored bokeh blob at the bottom bothered me (could be color-changed to some green hue) ut in the end the top of the pic won me over. --cart-Talk 08:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Petrol station in Bénin.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 17:19:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Petrol station in Bénin.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petrol station in Bénin.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
•  Info created by Ferdinand Reus, uploaded by Flickr upload bot, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I like this picture very much by the situation it describes. -- Yann (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --The Photographer 17:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 21:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Moving. The poor woman looks to me like she's about to cry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Not perfect, but documentary quality more than carries the day here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per Yann, Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:AIRPOWER16, Air to Air SK35C Draken.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 14:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:AIRPOWER16, Air to Air SK35C Draken.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:AIRPOWER16, Air to Air SK35C Draken.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
•  Info created by Katsuhiko TOKUNAGA - uploaded by Tm - nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer 14:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Info Previous nomination
•  Support -- The Photographer 14:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support ¡Impresionante! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 21:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support again. - Revent^talk 23:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Though this might be subtle to some people, of particular interest in this image is that you can see shock diamonds, but that they are disrupted due to what appears to be a fairly hard bank and pull up. - Revent^talk 04:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Basotxerri. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Now this one I can get behind. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support dllu (t,c) 07:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very high quality. Charles (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Wtc-photo.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 14:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wtc-photo.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wtc-photo.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
•  Info created by NOAA, uploaded by Trevor MacInnis, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Info Aerial photo of World Trade Center ground zero, New York City, September 23th, 2001. A precedent nomination just failed by one vote: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial photo of WTC groundzero.jpg
•  Support I would rather choose the original, but I can add the cropped version as an alternative if needed. -- Yann (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I opposed this version last time, but I would rather have this featured than none at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Very high-resolution photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Original is fine. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very detailed photo of a profoundly significant event. I prefer the uncropped version. dllu (t,c) 04:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Basilica di Sant'Anastasia al Palatino (Rome) - Ceiling.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 07:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica di Sant'Anastasia al Palatino (Rome) - Ceiling.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica di Sant'Anastasia al Palatino (Rome) - Ceiling.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
•  Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - Looks great as a thumbnail, but not so sharp at full size, in my opinion. But I don't recommend for you to change anything solely on my account; let's see what other people say. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful. Daphne Lantier 08:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

* Support yes, sharpness could be improved but I really like composition and colors --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• changing my vote to a  regretful oppose per below. I'm sorry, I still like the composition and colors very much - if the latter only were consistent... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --RWMuc (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Question How strict is the '50 edits rule'? This was the 46th edit by RWMuc. --cart-Talk 16:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Inconsistent blues (they should all be the same shade). Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment oh, that's true! Any chance you can fix that, Livio? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment No is impossible,thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 22:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose per this point and a bit per my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Münster, Park (Weseler Straße) -- 2017 -- 9204.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 05:56:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Park (Weseler Straße) -- 2017 -- 9204.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Park (Weseler Straße) -- 2017 -- 9204.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales
•  Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 05:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --RWMuc (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Question How strict is the '50 edits rule'? This was the 45th edit by RWMuc. --cart-Talk 16:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose While this composition and lighting does the daffodils more favors, only the bottom center one is in focus, and the top one has noticeable CA. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. I think it is better to withdraw the nomination. --XRay ^talk 07:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Sluierbewolking tussen de bergen 03.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2017 at 04:59:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Sluierbewolking tussen de bergen 03.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Sluierbewolking tussen de bergen 03.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info Overcast veil between the mountains in Stelvio National Park (Italy). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - You and Agnes both take photos like this, and I like them very much. One of the things I like a lot is the green color, I think from lichens on the rocks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment We find lichens beautiful. They often grow in moist shaded rocks.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support A close foreground and a far background. And both are sharp enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 08:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice Alpine landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry to disturb, but I find this image quite unbalanced between foreground and background, and in general not outstanding enough for a feature. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:WinAir De Havilland Canada DHC-6-300 Twin Otter Breidenstein.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2017 at 21:37:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:WinAir De Havilland Canada DHC-6-300 Twin Otter Breidenstein.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:WinAir De Havilland Canada DHC-6-300 Twin Otter Breidenstein.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
•  Info created by Timo Breidenstein - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is under the 2 megapixel minimum for Featured Picture or Quality Image. However, it's a very good picture. Please nominate it at COM:VIC for Valued Image.

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.

-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Münster, LVM -- 2017 -- 9343-7.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2017 at 15:25:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LVM -- 2017 -- 9343-7.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LVM -- 2017 -- 9343-7.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
•  Info all by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 15:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 20:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 06:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Code (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Another cool free image to be used on the cover of some corporation's annual report. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Reebok Royal Glide Ripple Clip shoe.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2017 at 12:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Reebok Royal Glide Ripple Clip shoe.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reebok Royal Glide Ripple Clip shoe.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Clothing
•  Info Reebok Royal Glide Ripple Clip men's shoe. All by me. -- Mile (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Сјајно!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Just went sneaker shopping today, so I didn't need much encouragement to imagine the smell. Great detail! Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 06:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Too bad it's not Reebok Pumps. Those always made me laugh. Daphne Lantier 08:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Daphne with basketball would be good idea. Popular in 90s. --Mile (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:St. Matthew's Anglican Church, Albury NSW.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2017 at 09:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:St. Matthew's Anglican Church, Albury NSW.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Matthew's Anglican Church, Albury NSW.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info St. Matthew's Church, Albury.
•  Info All by me -- Thennicke (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The lighting is great and the church looks beautiful, but the angle, the perspective and the framing simply do not work for me. I also think that, from this angle, the other elements in the image are disturbing. I'd rather prefer an image with a front view of the church if that's physically possible. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kiril. Also, there are some blue blotches in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ikan, and I would also note the CA on the top of the church steeple as well as the distortion. It looks like it was a result of perspective correction, but there are things we can do about that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

File:ADAC-Zentrale, Munich, March 2017-04.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2017 at 08:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:ADAC-Zentrale, Munich, March 2017-04.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ADAC-Zentrale, Munich, March 2017-04.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
•  Info The main office complex of the ADAC in Munich was designed by Sauerbruch Hutton and opened in 2012. All by me, -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support That is so cool! Though I must admit that I read the heading too fast and wondered why AC/DC had a headquarter in Munich... --cart-Talk 09:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ha! Well Cart, as the ADAC is vehemently opposed to speed limits on Autobahns, Highway to Hell could serve as an inofficial anthem for them --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support I like the framing and how you handled the colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Yeah, interesting. --A.Savin 12:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Good! ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support However, could you improve on the colour noise reduction? -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, but per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 20:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support but per Colin, the color noise (particularly evident on the black areas of the building) needs to be reduced. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Info I've reduced color noise as requested. The picture's much better now, thanks for the hint! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Although I like the other version without the tree even more. --Code (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • yes, the #### tree... it's not that it wasn't there in the other version as well... at least until Photoshop did its ugly business... ;) The reason why I like this version better, tree or not, is that it appears a bit more balanced, with the framing being less intrusive on the composition. The tower's relative position also works better imo. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:2016 Pałac w Wojanowie 6.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 21:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Pałac w Wojanowie 6.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Pałac w Wojanowie 6.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support dense composition - but it works very well! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 09:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Martin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Regretful oppose Unfortunately it seems to me like it's bitten off more than it can chew. I can see why you wanted to get the reflection in there, but I think it would have worked a lot better if we could have seen more of it. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The tree partially obscurs the castle. Yann (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:2016 Fontanna w Wojanowie 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 21:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Fontanna w Wojanowie 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Fontanna w Wojanowie 1.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, it's a pretty fountain but I'm not a fan of having people, however lovely they may be, posing tourist-style in FPs. --cart-Talk 09:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  @W.carter: Thanks to the person in the picture it's possible to see the real size of the fountain.--Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I get the idea, but the size can also be deduced by looking at the grass, flowers, water jets and general garden settings. This is not an abstract rock or snowy landscape where you lose all sense of proportions. Again sorry. --cart-Talk 10:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 3, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 17:44:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 3, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 3, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support It is already a featured picture in English Wikipedia and is identical in terms of quality to other three pictures of the St. Peter and St. Paul's Church interior by Diliff, which already are Featured Pictures in Commons. I believe this one should also join his shiny "brothers". -- Pofka (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per nom. Remarkable handling of white and light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support It should be a nomination set. BTW, Someone know Where is Diliff? --The Photographer 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - Busy being a daddy. He does stop by and make a comment now and then, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Daphne Lantier 20:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice seeing his work here again. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with The Photographer. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Prague 07-2016 Wenceslas Square img4.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 16:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Prague 07-2016 Wenceslas Square img4.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prague 07-2016 Wenceslas Square img4.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Windows
•  Info All by A.Savin
•  Support --A.Savin 16:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Yes, that's a beautiful sight, but for me to be wowed, I'd need more light. The light was too gray. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I would apply some horizontal perspective correction/shearing in this case. The left side is lower than the right side. Anyhow, the crop is rather odd in my opinion; the bottom is cut off very abruptly. dllu (t,c) 21:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What would you prefer? A vertical panorama completely from the second to the fifth floor? --A.Savin 23:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Here is my edit: [4]. In my opinion, it is better to avoid having the slightly curved part at the bottom right at the edge of the image, so I cropped it out. I also applied a slight shear transformation so that the right side is not higher than the left side. A full panorama from the third to the fourth floor would have been good if there were no trees blocking the second floor. It is a tricky building to photograph indeed. dllu (t,c) 08:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I like the version too, feel free to overwrite mine. --A.Savin 11:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Luquin - Candado 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 16:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Luquin - Candado 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Luquin - Candado 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose While this would do well on a Photo Challenge on locks, and the composition is good, I don't feel it is exceptional enough for FP wow. -- Colin (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support For some reason, this could be a nice FP. The image quality is fine and the item is very well depicted. The theme is also new and not a clichéd one like the numerous FPs depicting cameras.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination I'll wait for the Lock Photo Challenge... --Basotxerri (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:2014 Prowincja Szirak, Giumri, Pomnik Wardana Mamikoniana (01).jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 15:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Prowincja Szirak, Giumri, Pomnik Wardana Mamikoniana (01).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Prowincja Szirak, Giumri, Pomnik Wardana Mamikoniana (01).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created by Halavar - uploaded by Halavar - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Info Vardan Mamikonian statue. Gyumri, Shirak Province, Armenia.
•  Support -- Kasir (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't know anything about this statue, but it looks as if this is the back side. Charles (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Face not sharp and in shadow. And agree with Charles that this does not look like the best angle. Also, the whole statue File:Saint Vartan statue, Gyumri.jpg includes other men. So... incomplete. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Orazio Gentileschi - Danaë and the Shower of Gold - 2016.6 - J. Paul Getty Museum.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2017 at 19:43:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Orazio Gentileschi - Danaë and the Shower of Gold - 2016.6 - J. Paul Getty Museum.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orazio Gentileschi - Danaë and the Shower of Gold - 2016.6 - J. Paul Getty Museum.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info digital image courtesy of the Getty's Open Content Program. - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Multichill -- Multichill (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Multichill (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jane023 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I don't remember seeing this painting when I went to the Getty a number of years ago, but Getty takes great photographs of the works in their collection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Claus 03:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Sunset in the Himalayas.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2017 at 13:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset in the Himalayas.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset in the Himalayas.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info Nepal, national park Langtang. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Stunning. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I agree. Charles (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Following the negatives, I've had another look. I still love it, but the technical quality is poor so I go neutral. Charles (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Regretful oppose I can accept the sky being a little noisy for such a well-composed sunset. But I cannot accept the ground looking like something from an old hand-tinted postcard. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral It's pretty but seriously uncomfortable to look at. Feels like I'm about to fall off to the left. A slight (1.1 degrees) cw rotation make it better but it's still uneasy on the mind. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Daniel. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very good light management in this impressing photo. Haze always appears like noise and might be misunderstood in this way.--Ermell (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. -- -donald- (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment The high pass filter has brought out noise and also glowing artifacts along high contrast edges (particularly on the ridge in the bottom left corner). If the creator had not used such a strong high pass filter and colour saturation increase, the photo would have been FP for sure --- the camera used is very good (Nikon D800) and the settings (f/11, ISO 100) are clearly appropriate for this type of photo. dllu (t,c) 21:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Incredibly beautiful shot. Noise is forgivable, because it is fog, after all. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great! (and per Philip Terry Graham) --Brateevsky {talk} 19:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - I'm not sure whether to oppose, but to my eyes, there's something wrong with the appearance of the mountaintop in the foreground, so it's not just that there's a fine grain/noise associated with fog. I'm not sure whether it's noise or something else. Also, if this does get featured, I hope the dust spot in the upper left is removed first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose - I'm thinking I should at least provisionally oppose, pending the removal of the dust spot. After that, I may reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done I removed the dust. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've struck my oppose vote. I'm still not so happy about the foreground, but the view is so spectacular that I will be neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Sansone and Dalila by Matthias Stom.jpg

Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2017 at 08:50:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sansone and Dalila by Matthias Stom.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sansone and Dalila by Matthias Stom.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info All by LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Oddly enough I kind of like it with the frame, as it offsets that bit of light falling on the upper section of the painting, which would otherwise degrade the lighting in the painting itself. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Blue light in the upper right corner that change the balance of the picture I am sorry for the delay. Now your work look much better, well done, however, the problem still there. IMOH is enough for FP. --The Photographer 16:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Check now The Photographer,thanks --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 07:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• The Photographer???--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Korab 10.jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 12:03:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Korab 10.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Korab 10.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Anunnakey - uploaded by Anunnakey - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Moderate support It might be a little grainy, but I can't tell if that's just how it's supposed to be. Other than that, I do like the gradations. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - This scene doesn't wow me. Yellow/brown, no mountaintop, no clear view of a valley. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I notice a strange bright fringe along the crest of the ridge in the midground where the warm hues meet cool (I'm having a difficult time articulating it, but if you look closely, you'll probably be able to see what I mean). Is this some kind of layer blending artifact? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Moderate support I would also enjoy the further view of the valley, however the play of colors and interesting lines really caught my eye here. -- Pofka (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Quarry in Makhtesh Ramon (50771).jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 09:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Quarry in Makhtesh Ramon (50771).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quarry in Makhtesh Ramon (50771).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Israel
•  Info created and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 09:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, some of the clouds are blown, but who cares. It is a stunning scene from Israel that makes me think of Doré's Bible Illustrations. The shape of the cloud and the crepuscular rays is emulated very well in the craggy boulders and sand below ("on earth as it is in heaven"). -- cart-Talk 09:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I'm wowed too -- Thennicke (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• And it's good to see that the shadows weren't brightened too much in post. This image is all about contrast. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support might look interesting in slightly overdone b&w, Salgado style...! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• ...sort of like this then. (just kidding) ;) --cart-Talk 14:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• As it happens, I had played with a black and white version of this (and a couple others) in Lightroom, but didn't upload any because I tend to think there's limited use for b&w on Wikimedia sites. Since you mention it, though... File:Quarry in Makhtesh Ramon bw (50771).jpg. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose since I think it works better in black and white. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I have a slight preference for the black and white version (which is uncommon for me), but from an encyclopedic standpoint I do like that this version captures the purplish color of the quarry, which was -- if I recall correctly -- used for clay. It was abandoned, as the several other quarries in the makhtesh were required to do, when the land was legally preserved. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose nor for me. Charles (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Uoaei1--Ermell (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I believe it is a bit too dark since you can barely see some details, especially the ones in the center of image. As Daniel Case mentioned, black and white probably looks better. -- Pofka (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I love the crepuscular rays, and the shapes and textures of the rock quarry are quite interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Alt version - B/W

•  Info Since there has been some calls for a black and white version, and Rhododendrites has been kind enough to provide one, I think an alt version is in order. 'Pinging' previous voters: Thennicke Martin Falbisoner Daniel Case. --cart-Talk 23:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I have no problem with this version either; it is in fact even more Doré. --cart-Talk 23:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per my !vote above. Daniel Case (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I prefer this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I have a slight preference for the black and white version (see cmt above). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Still no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support though you could emphasize the contrast even more, i.e. darken shadows and brighten highlights in the lower half the image - cf. Cart's version (except for the blown clouds/sun, of course). Btw., I wouldn't overestimate the importance of narrowly defined encyclopedic value here on FPC... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I also generally dislike BW conversions, but it works well here -- Thennicke (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't see any benefit here in B&W. 15:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Uoaei1 again.--Ermell (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Second choice. I prefer the contrast between the blue sky and red soil. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Galton box.webm

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2017 at 09:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Galton box.webm Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galton box.webm

Play media

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info Obs, this a ~4K video, click in source to see it in full resolution, created by Rodrigo.Argenton - uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 09:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 09:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Really cool to watch. It's like having one of those toys on you desk. I don't suppose there is any chance of fixing it so that the hands are not visible? --cart-Talk 10:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

W.carter thanks for the review, and... I can't, I really tried, however my computer couldn't handle the file, in PhotoShop is quite simple, although a bit laborious (60fps*7s 420 images), take the frames and put a black mask. In Primeire I'm not that familiar, what I tried, my pc also couldn't handle. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 11:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Nice box but as a video it has two significant flaws and two lesser flaws. First the operator's hands are visible and really distracting. Second the ceiling lamp is visible as the box is rotated, which is also distracting. Surely it is possible to rotate this box from horizontal to vertical without these distractions. As a minor point, while 16:9 is useful to have, most of the fame is black and so for many web purposes (including Wikipedia) a square crop would be much more useful and without waste. Also the lighting is uneven, with the bottom of the box rather dark. -- Colin (talk)

Thanks Colin for the review, I don't see the lamp as a significant flaw, as this occurs before the action starts. The hands are distractions, not that much as they are away darker than the object... but I couldn't handle, as said to Carter. About 16:9, well it's a free media, you can create your version, I'm busy as hell and upload video here is a parturition... I'll take a while to upload a squared version. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 12:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

long discussion

I think both significant flaws should have been avoided at filming stage, rather than trying to mask out something in post. Consider if a still photo had a picture of hands floating above the box, and a reflection of the lamp in the glass. It wouldn't be FP so don't see why a video should be either. FP is about getting those sort of things right. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Colin. you are assuming that I did this as a snapshot, that is not even close to the truth, this was a afternoon of filming, no, is not easy to remove the hands, and lamp, especially the hands, you can list ways to do, I'll tell why it can't be done, because I really try to handle in the action, and really tried to handle in post. This is not a still photo, and should not be evaluated as a still. In the important frames the lamp is not in the frame. As here: not flaws here, but I don't see this as a FP. This is not half impressive as in movement, and you are not take into account the EV of it. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 13:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC) I'm not "assuming it is a snapshot", but nor frankly do I think that 10s of footage is an "afternoon of filming", even if you include time taken to darken the room and arrange the subject. A very significant portion of the short video has these defects. Like a studio still, this is a short video with arranged lighting and position, so I don't think it unreasonable to expect all those 10s to be visually good. I don't really want to get into a discussion over what you feel was hard. The end result is a short studio video with significant flaws. -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Colin did you ever made a video from scratch? Take a while to make 10s video... And not a studio, this are the conditions: And again not significant, as this do not affect the understanding of the main message, actually the flaws that you are pointing as majors, vanishes before the middle of the video... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 13:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC) File:Plasma globe 23s.webm. No hands. No reflections in the glass globe. The conditions of the shoot are your problem, not something for FP to worry about. The beginning rotation sequence is not relevant to the mathematical model the device simulates, but a consequence of it not having a trap door mechanism for releasing the grains. -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not saying that the candidature should take into account the conditions, I'm just showing that you are wrong This was not a studio, and this took a while to be set-upped, the whole afternoon , things that you are saying without knowing... No hands, no reflection, also: File:Clumsy wagon (IME-USP).webm, but a whole different situation, as your example, nothing related. I don't know what you wanted to show... Prove that you could remove the hands, give a way to do. the reflection I could remove, with a studio light, that I don't have. But again, do not interfere in the history, in your case, yes, the reflection and hands would be a huge interference, here.. not the case. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC) A "studio" is the room, table, the lighting, the black background, where you set up an object to photograph. I didn't claim it was a professional photographic studio. None of us have one of them. I'm not trying to show/prove anything. You asked "did you ever make a video from scratch". I have. I'm unwatching this page now. -- Colin (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support One would wish for a smoother rotation at the beginning, but it makes its point. One day videos will be common enough that we will be able to promote a better one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like this video, however, need edition to remove re-flexion, human iteration. Also the video cuts abruptly when the process has not yet finished, it seems to me something abrupt. Also, We need more information about this object like the Author (not the photographer) --The Photographer 19:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment One possibility for an edit that wouldn't be so difficult, would be to cut the first couple seconds off and start fading in at about the time the reflection of the light passes the light part of the box (the top), just before the rotation is complete. The hands are minimally visible after that point. It would probably be best for the audio to be on a longer fade to avoid starting on a loud *knock*. From an overall video quality point of view, yes, ideally the rotation action would be there, too, and I think the filmmaker had the right idea starting with a view of the back, but encyclopedic value would still be there with the beginning cut. I would take a stab at it myself, but I only have Lightworks at the moment, and it doesn't seem to want to work with a webm. Just a thought. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Joalpe (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - At first, I was going to support this nomination, but I think the opposers have meritorious arguments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Sinfonía de las Piedras, valle de Garni, Armenia, 2016-10-02, DD 33.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2017 at 22:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sinfonía de las Piedras, valle de Garni, Armenia, 2016-10-02, DD 33.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sinfonía de las Piedras, valle de Garni, Armenia, 2016-10-02, DD 33.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info These well-preserved basalt columns are known as "Symphony of the Stones" and are located in the Garni Gorge, near Yerevan, capital city of Armenia. The columns are visible because they were carved out by the Goght River. All by me, Poco² 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Impressive sight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, what a sight! A few areas might be a bit bright but I'm not bothered by them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  KoH: I've reduced the hightlights Poco² 21:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Wow there is! --cart-Talk 09:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support fascinating. Charles (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment There is some CA on the fringe of the top stone on the left side. Could you please fix it?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  Kiril: Better now? Poco² 21:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yep, now it's fine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 19:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry to spoil... But the midday light looks uninteresting and shadows are too harsh for me. --A.Savin 09:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Although this geological phenomenon is amazing to look at, I agree with A.Savin regarding the lighting. In addition, there are some technical deficiencies. The camera's dynamic range is insufficient and has caused many blown highlights; lens flare has reduced contrast on the left side. Also, the left and right edges are not sharp even when viewing the image downsampled to 6 megapixels. dllu (t,c) 04:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Mountain Cabin Laterns von marte marte Architekten 5.JPG

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 16:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mountain Cabin Laterns von marte marte Architekten 5.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mountain Cabin Laterns von marte marte Architekten 5.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Plani -- Plani (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Plani (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose At first sight I thought it was a great photo but after having a closer look I have to say that it isn't: There are several dust spots in the sky. Then there are lots of lens flares of different colours and the whole picture suffers from diffraction softness caused by f/22. I don't really understand the camera settings. If the photographer wanted a longer exposure (maybe to keep people out of the picture) he should have reduced ISO (why ISO 400?) instead of choosing a smaller aperture. Also, there's lot of CA on the ridge of the mountain on the left and at the branches of the trees on the right. It's really a pity as I'm normally the biggest fan of modern architecture, mountains and blue hour shots and this picture is compound of all these elements. --Code (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Code the small aperture may have been chosen to get stars from the light, though it isn't entirely successful here. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Normally f/11 should be more than enough to get such stars. But of course I don't know much about Nikon lenses. --Code (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Code, a pity! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• weak  Support nice composition --Miha (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality is just not at FP standard plus the lake is obscured by the building, meaning the surrounding landscape isn't the most interesting. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

File:PIA21111 - Wind Carved Rock.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2017 at 08:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:PIA21111 - Wind Carved Rock.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PIA21111 - Wind Carved Rock.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
•  Info created by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and University of Arizona - uploaded by User:PhilipTerryGraham - nominated by PhilipTerryGraham -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - The first of two more HiRISE images for your consideration - a view of "yardangs", soft rock wind erosion heavily influenced by the area's prevailing wind direction, in Medusae Fossae on Mars. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Someday, we'll have higher-resolution images of this. Until then, this is a remarkable image of a truly unearthly scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Good thing you wrote "rock" or we might have thought we had the first photo of the moulted skins of giant Mars lizards. ;) --cart-Talk 10:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 17:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan. Looks like some sort of special-purpose cardboard. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing lines. -- Pofka (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Scenas da escravidão patrocinadas pelo partido da Ordem, sob o glorioso e sábio reinado do Senhor D. Pedro 11 o Grande... Revista Ilustrada, Rio de Janei- ro, n. 427, 18 fev. 1886.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2017 at 19:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Scenas da escravidão patrocinadas pelo partido da Ordem, sob o glorioso e sábio reinado do Senhor D. Pedro 11 o Grande... Revista Ilustrada, Rio de Janei- ro, n. 427, 18 fev. 1886.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scenas da escravidão patrocinadas pelo partido da Ordem, sob o glorioso e sábio reinado do Senhor D. Pedro 11 o Grande... Revista Ilustrada, Rio de Janei- ro, n. 427, 18 fev. 1886.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
•  Info created by Angelo Agostini - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- The Photographer 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Question Is it possible that this image could have been uploaded in some format more appropriate to a two-dimensional work, like .PNG? It's rather large as a .JPG. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Dani, I'm not expert in image format and colors palette, maybe and only maybe this image is not absolutely a plane 2D image with text and simple graphics, however, I agree with you and take a look to this article. Colin maybe has a vision more complete of what format use. Unfortunately this image does not come from a raw file, so a png will only be lighter but it will have the same quality at best. Thanks Dani --The Photographer 19:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That cartoon nicely illustrates the problem with JPG, with all those little gnats flying about the black text on white, though the problem is reduced if the quality settings are high. The Photographer how did you create this? Is it a stitched photo? If so, were your intermediate images exported as PNG or TIFF or JPG? If you'd used TIFF (or PNG) for intermediate files, then the output could have been a TIFF or PNG as well as uploading JPG. But if you've used JPG as an intermediate, then there's not much advantage to now saving as PNG as you say, since it is already in a lossy format. I suspect that for this image, the benefit of a lossless format will be lower than for a modern computer-generated illustration on pure white, and the shading of the crumpled paper will compress well in JPG. On the other hand, the black stippled texture in the illustration is quite hard for JPG to compress well, as it is more appropriate for gradual changes in tone like one gets in a photograph of a natural scene. I appreciate that using TIFF for intermediate files and output file, for stitched photos, can consume a lot of disc space and require a lot of processing. This image is very high resolution, so any drawbacks to JPG will be relatively minor. In terms of colour, both formats allow embedded colour profiles. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Good resolution. Perhaps I am seeing a tiny amount of colour noise and CA. Did you apply a lens profile and tick the "remove CA" box? But that's just a pixel-peeping issue, not relevant to the vote. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your explain. It was a stitched photo from 18 images (6 images x (3 on more to apply the ISO reduction noise)). At the beginning, I thought that I was taking these pictures in raw, however, when I got home I found with the "nice" surprise that this had been taken in jpg. This is the first time that happens to me is probably part of the learning process of this new camera, I'm sorry. BTW, I added a "panorama" template to explain that it was done using 6 images how result of join 3 differents images (to remove iso noise) for each image. I applied a Noise reduction LR filter, however, I think that it work better with the RAW image. Let me know if it's ok for you. The result is a image not downsabled or downsized. Thanks --The Photographer 11:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support – Lucas^T 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternative restored candidate version

•  Info At the request of Daniel Case, I created this PNG version. BTW, To take advantage of the PNG format richness I decided create a restoration from the original version. --The Photographer 12:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I find this impressive. Perhaps the whites are just a tad too bright, though; I'm not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support – Lucas^T 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The artwork is not pen-and-ink but more like charcoal/pencil on paper. So there is quite a lot of grey in the drawings, and in the attempt to create a pure white background, some of this has been lost or made darker. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment When I do something wrong I usually tell to myself "I hope that Colin does not realize it", however, this is not the case. --The Photographer 19:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination The Photographer 12:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus if featured the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Fri 31 Mar → Wed 05 Apr
Sat 01 Apr → Thu 06 Apr
Sun 02 Apr → Fri 07 Apr
Mon 03 Apr → Sat 08 Apr
Tue 04 Apr → Sun 09 Apr
Wed 05 Apr → Mon 10 Apr

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

Mon 27 Mar → Wed 05 Apr
Tue 28 Mar → Thu 06 Apr
Wed 29 Mar → Fri 07 Apr
Thu 30 Mar → Sat 08 Apr
Fri 31 Mar → Sun 09 Apr
Sat 01 Apr → Mon 10 Apr
Sun 02 Apr → Tue 11 Apr
Mon 03 Apr → Wed 12 Apr
Tue 04 Apr → Thu 13 Apr
Wed 05 Apr → Fri 14 Apr

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 (except to add categories on the file page, because need a non-bot user to do it). However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
   featured or not featured
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
   becomes
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
3. Save your edit.
4. If it is featured:
   • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
   • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
   • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
     • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
     • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
     • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
     • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
     • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
   • Add == FP promotion ==
     {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
   • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a user who is not a bot to complete it.
5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
   {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
   Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2017), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
   '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
   (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
   delisted or not delisted
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2017.
4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
   1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
   2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
   3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.