Commons:FPC

Skip to current 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, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal 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 – Raster images of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. This does not apply to vector graphics (SVGs).
    • Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful color adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

Photographs

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Color is important. Oversaturated colors are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or color AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of color brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

Video and audio

Please nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates.

Set nominations

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Simple tutorial for new users

Tutorial: Nominate on COM:FPC
How to nominate in 8 simple steps

STEP 1


STEP 2


STEP 3


STEP 4


STEP 5


STEP 6


STEP 7


STEP 8

NOTE: You don't need to worry if you are not sure, other users will try their best to help you.

Adding a new nomination

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

All single files:

For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2

All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".


Step 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}}

Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports An image will only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters.

Voting

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.

You may use the following templates:

  • {{Support}} ( Support),
  • {{Oppose}} ( Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} ( Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} ( Comment),
  • {{Info}} ( Info),
  • {{Question}} ( Question),
  • {{Request}} ( Request).

You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator.

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}}  Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture.
{{Delist}}  Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}}  Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as a FP.
{{Delistandreplace}}  Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box:


In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose.

General rules

  1. 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.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome.
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome.
  4. 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.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{Withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
  7. 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.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5):
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have fewer than two support votes.
    2. 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.) This does not apply to nominations containing at least one ‘Alternative’ image – because it is possible that another image can overtake the one in the lead during the last days, such nominations are never closed early.
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. 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.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. 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:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven  Support votes (or 7  Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. 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, they should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.
  5. Only two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5.

The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be 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

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

File:Amaryllis (Hippeastrum) 18-01-2025. (actm.) 07.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2025 at 04:44:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Melk Abbey (8).jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2025 at 21:50:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Melk Abbey in Melk, Lower Austria, Austria

File:Lac de Cap-de-Long (1).jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2025 at 21:46:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lac de Cap-de-Long at dawn in commune of Aragnouet, Hautes-Pyrénées, France

File:Petaca banderita (Abudefduf troschelii), Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, México, 2024-12-18, DD 101.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2025 at 20:50:27 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pacific sergeant major (Abudefduf troschelii), Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, Mexico

File:Gracanica Serbian Orthodox Church, Windsor, Ontario, 2025-06-11 03.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2025 at 21:00:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Marañón white-fronted capuchin (Cebus yuracus) Rio Napo.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2025 at 14:25:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Marañón white-fronted capuchin (Cebus yuracus) Rio Napo, Ecuador
  • Thanks, but is the date category a rule of FPC? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • It's not an absolute rule but it's just generally good practice. See here under the 'Categorization tips' section. I haven't always done it in my past nominations either but we are trying to tighten this up and make sure as many FPs as possible have this done. Cmao20 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) It is not written in as an item in the FPC rules, but a date category is of great help for people who are interested in images for chronological reasons. Commons normal search system is tricky to use if only the camera's time stamp is on the photo. It is much easier to find a photo from a specific date if it's in a date category. Please compare just typing, for example, "September 2015 Ecuador" in the normal search box, as opposed to writing "Category:September 2015 in Ecuador" or "Category:September 2015 Ecuador photographs". There are people on Commons who specialize in sorting photos into these date categories. I'm sure they will appreciate whatever help they can get from photographers who add these cats to their photos themselves. --Cart (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Date categories are sometimes added to my photos, irrespective of whether they are FP, QI, VI or none of these. I do not think this should be a mandatory requirment for FPC. If, after a proposal and vote, the rules are changed, I will of course comply. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    The base for FPCs is the same as for any file on Commons, FPC is just an additional step up. Since date categories are recommended for all photos on Commons per the link Cmao20 provided above, that does include FPCs too. I hope you don't mind if other users add such categories to your photos during nominations; they are really useful. --Cart (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I am very happy for other users to add date or any other (accurate) categories they fancy. The link, if you read it carefully, does not actually recommend date categories for all photos on Commons, which is presumably why you've not used them in all your June FPCs... Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Under 'categorization tips' - 'The categories you choose for your uploads should answer as many as possible of the following questions... when?: when did the depicted events happen, or when was the image created? When was the image taken?'. So, not a rule but certainly a recommendation. I'm looking at Cart's June FPs and she has used them on five out of seven, missing 1, 2. I'll add them to those ones. Cmao20 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • True, mea cupla, I'm just as bad as everyone else until I was made aware of this by another user. There are always old things to upgrade here as Commons evolves. But it's never too late to shape up and do the right thing. I was just done fixing the backlog for 'Captions' for all my photos, and now I'm on fixing 'Structured data', so might as well do the date categories too. --Cart (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think what we all need to do is to leave behind recent recriminations and conflicts over this issue and just try to get categories right going forward, using the 'who', 'what', 'when', 'where' questions the best we can. I've definitely not been good at this in the past. Cmao20 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    It took me a little over four months to add 'Caption' and 'Location' to all my more than 10,000 photos. ;) --Cart (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A photo that makes you look twice, and the second time you smile. Thanks for adding good categories and description, much appreciated. --Cart (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Stunning! --Osmo Lundell hey 17:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't loose your patience (like I did), Charles, I feel that overnight tips, recomendations and best practices become a reason for some uers to even oppose for FP although there is no policy for that. Poco a poco (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:White-rumped vulture in Chitwan National Park.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2025 at 09:42:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Fawn-breasted Brilliant hummingbird in Ecuador - (54564276957).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 17:47:51 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Advice on fixing the documentation
  •  Comment I've upgraded the file name according to Commons file names. In the future, please make sure such the file name is really good before making the nom. Now it's up to you (preferably) to fix the Image description and Categories to get them up to FP standard. Thank you. --Cart (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Fixed descriptions on the both noms, but what is wrong with categories? Юрий Д.К 18:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    The categories were incomplete. If you take a look at the top of this nom, you'll see that categories should preferably reflect the (what, where, who, when). In this case: what: a bird is perching, where: Ecuador, who: a Heliodoxa rubinoides, when: September 2015 (in Ecuador). I've updated the description on this plus the categories, please take a look. We are trying to shape up the FPs after a long period of very sloppy and lazy nominations, but you'll soon get the hang of it, I'm sure. --Cart (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, Cart, this is something new for me ;). P.S. The file has date category via "Taken on" template, so "September 2015 in Ecuador" is really needed? Юрий Д.К 19:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, for cataloging and research purposes. The date when a photo is "Taken on" is not as easy to find with the normal search tools on Commons. You need special code knowledge for that. Compare just typing "September 2015 Ecuador" in the normal search box, as opposed to writing "Category:September 2015 in Ecuador" or "Category:September 2015 Ecuador photographs". I also added "Bryophyta in Ecuador" because it's very visible in this photo, and it's nice to have this photo represented in that category too. :-) --Cart (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, I've added the same date category for File:Sword-billed hummingbird in Ecuador - (54572220117).jpg Юрий Д.К 19:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A tad over-sharpened, but the bird and the compo are great. I love the moss on the branch, it complements the colors of the bird so well. --Cart (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Honestly the oversharpening is to mask the fact that the beak is slightly outside the depth of field. Always tempting to oversharpen a little in such a circumstance but if Andy Morffew were a Commons author I'd probably suggest he toned it down a little on this picture. Unfortunately he is only active on Flickr. But the image is still at FP level for me. Cmao20 (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sword-billed hummingbird in Ecuador - (54572220117).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 17:47:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • It would not be at a live flower! It's another high quality 'studio' shot... Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Liebfrauenkirche, Koblenz, Nave view 20200624 3.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 15:40:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Liebfrauenkirche, Koblenz
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
  •  Info No FPs of this interesting medieval church. Huge resolution (103 megapixels) and excellent quality (observe how the lettering on the side benches is fully legible). created by DXR – uploaded by DXR – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good! Юрий Д.К 19:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image itself is technically very impressive! Maybe it could be cropped a bit? To me there is maybe too much going on at once – in a way the image feels a bit cluttered, especially in the lower section. Won't you agree? --Osmo Lundell hey 21:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • There are more focussed crops (1, 2) but I honestly selected this one because I liked how much there is going on in the frame, I enjoyed this wide, expansive view of the church. Let's see how votes go. Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    I would happily support the the second one! --Osmo Lundell hey 23:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I was originally going to nominate that one (you can see I've formatted the description and categories ready for an FP nomination) but I didn't like the fact that the clock face leaning against the wall at the right was cropped. I'll admit that this one does have its drawbacks per Acroterion but I find it more satisfying overall. Cmao20 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The inherent distortion gives me pause, most evident in the upper level arches, which are stretched to twice their size and made elliptical by the view. The image illustrates a photographic effect rather than a depiction of the church interior Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sentier Cochettes Lac Panorama.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 15:40:44 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama on Lake Grand Maison
  • Honestly I don't like that one anything like as much. I think the path adds a visual counterpoint in this one, and elevates the whole scene from what could otherwise be a little bland. Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Blue hour fog over Preemraff oil refinery by Brofjorden.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 14:50:59 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the fog at blue hour over the towers at Preemraff oil refinery in Lahälla, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Sweden
  •  Info created by Cart – uploaded by Cart – nominated by ERcheck (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Beautiful panorama of the fog at blue hour over the towers at Preemraff oil refinery in Lahälla, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. - ERcheck (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- ERcheck (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  weak support It's very pretty and I love the panoramic format which gives us a whole wide expanse of lovely reflections. But the left of this panorama is visibly less sharp than the right. Overall scrapes over the bar because of subject and pleasant lighting conditions. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
     Comment: The fog was rolling in from the left, so denser fog conditions on left than on right. ERcheck (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I know, but that doesn't justify what seems more like slight motion blur than merely softness. Cmao20 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    You can read the discussion preceding this nom. --Cart (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link, I didn't know about this phenomenon. My vote remains 'weak support' though. Cmao20 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Very understandable. --Cart (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Full support after changes. Cmao20 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Having seen similar effects of emerging fog in my photos, I understand that the little softness was unavoidable, and the atmosphere and the impressive overall effect are much more important to me. – Aristeas (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Åh, så vackert! --Osmo Lundell hey 21:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I was about to kvetch about the 'motion blur' before I learned it was refraction. No motion blur, no objections. JayCubby (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice scene, but unfortunately the left frame is not of the same quality as the right one.--Ermell (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell, this is very obvious, cannot understand the preceding supporting votes Poco a poco (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral the left side is not just unsharp, but actually blurry (as pointed by Cart herself in the pre-nom discussion). But the rest of the image is quite sharp. And this is a large pano, so perhaps a crop and conversion to landscape? --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    Crops are always possible, but I don't think that would make for a photo with the same visual impact. Having just that part is rather boring. --Cart (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version uploaded. Even though I like this pano very much, I never expected it to get this much attention, so I've never gone back and made the most of it. I found one frame taken 10 min before the rest of the photos, because I liked the little break in the fog that let through some light. It's much sharper because of that fog-break, but it never occurred to me to use it. This time I also have a better version of Lightroom, so overall I could fix the pano better than before. Anyway, see what you think. 'Pinging' previous voters: ERcheck, Cmao20, Aristeas, Osmo Lundell, JayCubby, Ermell, Poco a poco and UnpetitproleX. You might want to F5 it. --Cart (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, perfect now! whole-hearted  Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 16:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    This one is great! Still have my Support vote. - ERcheck (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for the improvement! – Aristeas (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К 19:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support That´s it.--Ermell (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Great panorama! Thank you for the improvement. -- Radomianin (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Baspa Valley under snow, Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2025 at 11:56:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Baspa Valley under snow, Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, India
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I added categories for the date, the trees, and the weather conditions. Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, @Cmao20: for that! UnpetitproleX (Talk) 07:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very beautiful. Thank you Cmao20 for fixing this. --Cart (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К 21:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Square crops for far view landscapes doesn't usually work, I struggle here with the compo and the level of detail is not the best, either, sorry. Not a FP to me. Poco a poco (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    Except the crop is not square at all. It is a 4:3 crop. I can try 3:2 and take off some of the sky and the bottom, but I'm unsure if that is significantly better. In any case, not square to begin with. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Three zebras in Masai Mara National Park, Kenya.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:31 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Oppose on this basis until some work is done to address these problems. I would not usually oppose for fixable category mistakes but the nomination seems to be picking up lots of support anyway and I don't think it should be promoted in this condition. Cmao20 (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • +1. This oppose will slow down the nom enough for the issues to be fixed. I will probably support it once the documentation is up to FP standards. --Cart (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Cmao20 and Cart, for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. The conflicting category has been removed, and structured data has been updated. Given the location (Masai Mara), the characteristic striping, and the absence of other subspecies in the area, Equus quagga boehmi is the most accurate identification. If helpful, I would suggest renaming the file to: Three plains zebras (Equus quagga boehmi) in Masai Mara National Reserve, Kenya.jpg to better reflect the subject. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I've now struck the filename suggestion from my comment - many thanks to Cart for already taking care of the rename. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I will rename after nomination is over. Cmao20 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • NB: Grant's zebras not Three plains zebras. The ssp. is correct. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Charles - correction noted and applied. Much appreciated! -- Radomianin (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
@Cmao20 Sorry for the delay because I don't have much time due to a lot of work, so the delay is inevitable. Kelly zhrm (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Osmo Lundell hey 08:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support That's better. And Cmao20, I've already fixed the name. --Cart (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Clear, well-composed image in natural habitat with excellent lighting. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Radomianin. Thanks to all of your for your concerted effort to improve filename, description and categories! – Aristeas (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Radomianin. --Harlock81 (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Level of detail is just ok, lighthing is fine but I'm not convinced about the compo. It looks like a randomed crop. I'd had rather left more space at the left than at the right. In addition I don't see any special behaviour (I'm thinking of something like this) Overall not an outstanding photo to me that deserves the star. Poco a poco (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop is not ideal.--Ermell (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Gyrineum roseum 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2025 at 14:11:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A shell of Gyrineum roseum

File:Center for Clinical Sciences Research, Stanford University (2025)-L1007419.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2025 at 01:46:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Center for Clinical Sciences Research on the campus of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California
Thanks so much for your review. Much appreciated. I uploaded a new version last night (in the first version I didn't correct for CA) – please check and let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to do. All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
A lot better, thank you! Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Clearly composed, strong lines, technically precise; thanks for the update. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Cool and clear lines. --Cart (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Cart, Cmao20, and Radomianin. – Aristeas (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The CA at the facade should be removed.--Ermell (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Although I couldn't find chromatic aberration, I cranked the defringe slider in Capture One to 100 and uploaded a new version. The Super Elmar 21mm f/3.4 is known for its extremely low chromatic aberration and distortion. Let's hope the new version works :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Foster’s clients are willing to spend on curved glass; I’ve added the architect to the parent category. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:First Palo Alto United Methodist Church (2025)-L1007338.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2025 at 01:43:17 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Exterior view of the First Palo Alto United Methodist Church in Palo Alto, California
 Question - @Frank Schulenburg: Do you have photos of the interior of the church? From my reading - there are 1500 of the pictured small windows with stained glass inserts, which create a beautiful, colorful light play in the sanctuary. - ERcheck (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. My wife and I didn't have much time while visiting Palo Alto. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cart (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I will try to organize a category for that style of mosaic-like punched windows and credit the architect. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    Acroterion, Trapezoid windows or something like that? --Cart (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    It's a modernist interpretation of plate tracery, but I'm not sure it's got a scholarly name in the modern version. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't found a suitable modern term, trapezoidal windows it is. There are about 700 of them, and they tend to leak. The interior of the building is quite extraordinary. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Bol de pommes sur une table, Henri Matisse, 1916.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2025 at 20:43:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bowl of Apples on a Table, Henri Matisse, oil on canvas, 1916. 89.5 × 114.9 cm
@Aristeas: I converted to {{Artwork}} and added some information. Thanks to Cmao20 for adding the categories. Yann (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support Thank you very much, Yann and Cmao20. Now we can happily mark description and categories with OK (although only in our mind, since the checklist is gone). – Aristeas (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ídolo moro (Zanclus cornutus), Anilao, Filipinas, 2023-08-25, DD 233.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2025 at 18:19:21 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moorish idol (Zanclus cornutus), Anilao, Philippines
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order : Perciformes (Perch-like Fishes)
  •  Info Moorish idol (Zanclus cornutus), Anilao, Philippines. It can be found from the eastern coast of Africa between Somalia and South Africa east to Hawaii and Easter Island. The Moorish idol lives between depths of 1–180 metres (3.3–590.6 ft) in turbid lagoons, reef flats, and clear rocky- and coral reefs. They mostly feed on sponges. Note: we have no FPs of the family Zanclidae. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Striking underwater image. --Tagooty (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Great shot, however categories were looking a bit sparse, I added a couple for you Poco a poco but it would be appreciated if you could add these ones in future underwater noms. Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A little bit tight framed... --Cart (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Categories are incomplete, also missing location. There should be camera location and more specific category on location. --A.Savin 18:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Bullshit bingo review here: 1) cats are fine 2) coordinates is definitely not a must for FP 3) my camera has not GPS 4) GPS doesn't work under water + the camera is shielded within a case 5) nothing new, I just consider that this is a personal attack due to the fact that half of the noms here have no coordinates but you only seem to care about this one. Poco a poco (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Soll ich dir ein Geheimnis verraten? Bei mir funktioniert seit einem Jahr das Schreiben der Koordinaten auf EXIF auch nicht mehr. Und trotzdem lade ich so gut wie kein einziges Bild ohne exakte Koordinaten hoch. In den meisten Fällen kann man sich die Kamera-Position merken. Kann man das nicht, gibt es einen super billigen Trick: kurz vor oder nach dem Schießen des Fotos mit der Kamera ein Foto mit dem Smartphone machen und dessen Koordinaten dann nutzen. Außerdem sind ungefähre Koordinaten immernoch besser als gar keine. Außerdem hatte ich die Koordinaten nie verlangt als exklusive Bedingung. In diesem Fall ist es in Kombination mit unzureichenden Kategorien. Und da hatte ich offensichtlich Recht. Das als "personal attack" oder "Bullshit-Bingo Review" abzutun ist schon ziemlich armselig. Dein gewöhnliches Verhalten von vor Jahren, das sich null geändert hat. Du lernst einfach nichts dazu. Die fehlende Kategorie wurde hinzugefügt (nicht von dir, versteht sich — ist ja kein Job für eine Diva), ich bestehe nicht auf Koordinaten, wenn das denn so schwer sein soll, null und nichtig sind mithin deine Anschuldigungen. --A.Savin 11:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • There are several of us here trying to get the FP standard up to what it was before people started to become lazy and not care about proper documentation for FPs. The goal is to have the FPs in as good order as they were when Daniel Case was active here and help everyone with the categories. Perhaps you have forgotten how it looked back then. We are all dreading to comment on your photos because of your often bad temper when we do so. A.Savin is taking one for the team here, and I will back his request.
    It doesn't matter if your camera doesn't have GPS, none of mine do, but I usually remember where I've been and can give an approximate location on my photos. It doesn't need to be spot on, just a few decimals in the location coordinates per this. Having a cat like Category:Anilao, Iloilo (if that is the right place) would improve the cats, as well as Category:Nature of Iloilo (province) since that is the sort of categories where animals usually are.
    I'm really surprised at this, because you have no problem adding plenty of categories related to your travels, awards, and other personal categories, but you get red-hot mad when we ask you to add a couple more for the benefit of Commons and its users. As the user with the most FPs and an Admin, you should really be one of those who set a good example for what good documentation as per Commons recommendations is. Instead you are doing the opposite, doing just the very bare minimum and using your whale status here to intimidate anyone who dares to ask you to do what most of us others do. --Cart (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Look, I've been around here for almost 2 decades. You don't need speak about "those old glory days". GPS coordinates have NEVER been a requirement for FP, so if you what that to be a requirement make a proposal and let everybody take part in it instead of abusing the process in this nomination trying to make a point.
  • I'm not a lazy person, it is just not feasible for me to provide coordinates when you dive from a boat (what I usually do). I already lost an expensive cell phone when taking it with me to such a trip, so I'm not willing to do that anymore. Ships move around and you dive here and there, there is often no way for me to determine a more accurate location that what the category provides. Btw, I've added an additional category for Anilao underwater pictures. So, I hope that issue is none by now.
  • Like you I am concerned about the standard here but what I consider even more important about the standard of the images shown here. I feel often like a Don Quixote here because most people support images because they like them but IMHO that wow element and the quality requirements are higher. So, from my point of view I'm the one dreading lots of noms that say nothing to me and get a bunch of supporting votes.
  • I don't have bad temper but feel that I have to react when I am treated unfairly like here. Are you now the voice of the community allowing yourself to affirm that "We are all dreading to comment on your photos because of your often bad temper when we do so."? Seriously?
  • The one who feels intimidated and attacked here is me and I'm thinking about not participating here, or worse thinking about not uploading any stuff if I know upfront that it cannot fulfill absurd requirements. Why do you care about personal categories now (yet an attack)? those are useful (at least to me) and easy to determine.
  • Yet a proof of your unfair conduct. You have extensively commented on the issues of this nom above (the first nom I looked into where you gave feedback). You seem to be happy with "Ecuador" as location. No area, no park, no city, just a country. But here you expect a GPS coordinate. That makes sense.
  • I'd think twice before keeping pushing hard and pillorying people before it's too late. Apart from the fact, that these matters should be discussed somewhere else. Poco a poco (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for adding a better location category. That was very kind of you and perfectly adequate.
No, the FP rules do not state explicitly that GPS coordinates should be added, but the Commons recommendations in general are that we should give as much information as we can about photos. Info about photos increase their value and usefulness on all wiki projects. That includes as good location as we can get, and that should also be present in FPs. For some photos it's near impossible to get full info, especially those uploaded from Flickr, and we must make do with what we have. Photographers who are also users here can provide much more info, so more is expected of them. But on the other hand, photos made by users can also get awarded the QI, which imported photos can't. What is so wrong with providing what knowledge you have about a photo, when it's beneficial to all, what is so "unfair" about that?
I am not the voice of the entire community, but I get my fair share of thanks, comments and emails to know that I'm not alone in wanting things to change for the better on FPC for the sake of the overall quality of the site.
"I'm thinking about not participating here, or worse thinking about not uploading any stuff" - Well, we've heard that before. It's what you always say as soon as someone says something you don't like. That is what other users before me has referred to as your Diva statements. And you have left in a huff before, but always come back because this is for better or worse the community you like and want to be a part of. Voices get raised here too like in most families and communities, but in the end we get along anyway.
Bad temper? Yes, you lashed out at A.Savin in the comment above, and you have threatened me in the text above: "I'd think twice before...". So Q.E.D. Are you going to block me for wanting you to improve the documentation on your photos?
You feel like Don Quixote, really? He saw enemies and felt threatened when there were none, and lived in a fantasy world where he fought windmills believing them to be monsters. No one is persecuting you, that is all in your head, we just want you to add better categories. But you are prone to blowing things out of proportion and make big things out of small, so maybe the comparison is true. --Cart (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
No, if your voice is the community's as you defend, this is definitely not the community I like and want to be a part of. That community can thank you that you now that it will see no single new picture of this user anymore in the project. It's over. Poco a poco (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Right, blame me for your bad temper. Very nice. One of the times you quit "for good" never to come back, you went on a round trip to Spain and came back with enough photos to win almost everything in WLM Spain that year. I'm looking forward to what photos you bring back this time. --Cart (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Dear Cart, what I will do is posting here links of my pictures on external platforms, where I will not have to stand bullshit like this and will even get a financial compensation. Your words just make my determination stronger. Time will be the judge here. Poco a poco (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, if you are so determined, just don't forget to resign your admin status when you leave. But my advice is that you hang on to it so you'll have it when you return after cooling off for a while. Perhaps you will realize that I'm not your enemy and I don't ask for any unrealistic big undertaking, just add categories and locations, and don't blow up over it.
Btw, if you are starting to sell your photos ("financial compensation") rather than uploading them here, I don't think you can post links to them here because Commons does not allow advertising for commercial sites that way. --Cart (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi Cart, I agree with Poco here. Please do not try patronizing others. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for that insight Yann, I will take it to heart. --Cart (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
If that comments helped to improve categorization then what's wrong about them @Yann: ? --A.Savin 22:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just a quiet thought I'd like to offer: Both of you have contributed immensely to what makes Commons such a valuable and vibrant place - each with your own strengths and long-standing dedication. It would be a real loss to see either of you step back. Perhaps, even in disagreement, there's still room for mutual understanding or simply a pause. I truly hope we can find a way forward that honours both your voices. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    Relax Radomianin, I'm not going anywhere. There is work to do here even though I don't have any new photos to nominate at the moment. I might be less active for a few days, but that is because it's Midsummer this long weekend. In Sweden that's a bigger holiday than Christmas. So Happy Solstice to all of you! --Cart (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think running away gives satisfaction. It's better to give each other some space for different insights. It's never completely yes or no,--Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I can and want only to second Radomianin’s honest words. I share his hope. Commons has room enough for both of you, Cart and Poco, it needs both of you, and I am sure we all appreciate the work of both of you very much. Happy midsummer! – Aristeas (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I haven't stated at anytime that I'd leave and close the door behind me. I've only stated that I'll not upload anymore pictures on Commons. Cart, you have my word on this, I'm broken. Hopefully somebody can carry on my work documenting marine life, there are still huge gaps on Commons. Poco a poco (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Egg jellyfishes 1912-1865.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2025 at 16:24:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fried egg jellyfishes
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Scyphozoa
  •  Info created by Mozzihh – uploaded by Mozzihh – nominated by Mozzihh -- Mozzihh (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Mozzihh (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Image looks good, but categorization is lacking. Is there nothing for the species (are they even identified)?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've fixed up the categories for you, please check them out so you can do it yourself the next time. The file name is borderline with little specifics and a bewildering number. --Cart (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for fixing! File name is from my archive... Mozzihh (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose While the jellies are very pretty and the rather too much black space in the photo can be cropped, I think the quality is too low, especially for an aquarium shot. Some might be salvaged by better editing from the raw (if such exists), but as it is now, I'm not too impressed. Sory. --Cart (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for the hints, I did some raw editing and cropping. I hope it's more impressing now. Mozzihh (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    The crop is good for me, but the edit might unfortunately have made it worse. It's "blotchy" now. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Osmo Lundell hey 18:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Interesting subject but sorry, poor quality at full size (low detail and unsharp). Cmao20 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per above Poco a poco (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Doronicum-orientale-2025-1.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2025 at 10:33:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Doronicum orientale shot with a macro lens in Hatanpää mansion garden, Tampere, Finland in the summer 2025.
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
  •  Info created by Osmo Lundell – uploaded by Osmo Lundell – nominated by Osmo Lundell --Osmo Lundell hey 10:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- --Osmo Lundell hey 10:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Gallery fixed. If a gallery link you make is red, then there is something wrong with it and you need to check it out. Go to the gallery pages and find the right one, plus the right section heading on that page and simply copy it. A little info about where this photo was taken, and is it wild or cultivated, should also be in the description and categories. Would you please add that. Best, --Cart (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    I checked the diff, didn't notice the category was empty while posting from a mobile device. I'll add info of when the photo was taken soon. --Osmo Lundell hey 14:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Added details on where the photo was taken. Hatanpää mansion has a private owned garden that is open to the public in Tampere. Technical details on the camera body and lens aren't that important, atleast according to the policy, but I can provide them if someone is interested. The composition was edited in Lightroom. --Osmo Lundell hey 17:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Now we are getting somewhere, but the idea was that you should have added the place for the flower on the file page, not just here, since this page will be archived out of sight for most of the general public as soon as the nomination is over and the info will be lost. I've copied it for you and added the relevant categories too. A plant photo without a good location is almost useless for Commons, so please take a look at what I've done so you can do the same the next time. :)
    So since this was in a garden, I assume that the flower was planted and not wild. Or? In that case it should be in the 'Doronicum orientale (cultivars)' category and not the general category for the wild plants.
    Regarding info about the camera you used: Yes, we are very interested in the equipment used for a photo. We usually find that in the photos EXIF, but if you don't keep that with your photos you can also use the Template:Photo Information and add to the description on the file page. Having the tech specs is useful for people learning how to take good photos, and it also allows voters to see how well you have used the cameras capacity. That can be very useful when providing feedback on your photos and perhaps give hints and tips. I know this is a lot to take in for a "newbie", but this is the Big League for photos on Commons, so everything is the next level from just uploading photos for wikis. --Cart (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    The plants in the garden were planted, yes. I took the exif and other metadata out, because there was too much info I didn't want to be there and stripping it straight out was easier than cherrypicking them out of the ~200 or so pics I took on that tour.
    It's not a lot to take at all! I'll go add the deets you asked. ^^ --Osmo Lundell hey 17:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you! Plant category fixed. --Cart (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low quality (noise, halos/CA along the petal edges); not an appealing composition; missing EXIF. Overall, much below the bar of the many images in the FP Gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Hey! Thank you for your detailed opinion. If I understood you correctly, re-editing the original would make the picture better for you? Could you elaborate bit further on that? --Osmo Lundell hey 08:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but I can see a lot of JPEG artefacts at full size and I am not sure I like how the harsh light means that the flowers just appear to be floating in mid air, it isn't a very satisfying composition for me. I think this picture is QI and was worth a try but I don't see it as FP. Cmao20 (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Hi! Could you explain what you mean by "JPEG artefacts at full size"? :D --Osmo Lundell hey 19:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tagooty and Cmao20. Like I recommended you before, since you are new here, you should nominate your photos at COM:QIC first to get all photo-technical issues sorted out first. When an image appear here it should be in tip-top shape. This is not a photo workshop, even if it often turns into one, especially for new participants. --Cart (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Hey, thanks for your opinion Cart! Could you elaborate further on the said photo-technical issues? The users you mensioned above didn't explicitly rule out what they thought was the issue in a comprehensible way. --Osmo Lundell hey 19:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    I see now that you and your photo are in the very capable hands of Aristeas, and I suggest to take a good look at any of the edits he will do to your photo. That will be more instructive than any words alone can be. Also, the users above are very specific about what can be improved in the photo. There is a page here with explanations for the photo language we use here at FPC: COM:PT. You might want to read it. --Cart (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed, I'm exited how Aristeas can pimp the image. Sidenote: I hope that the language used in FP will be sufficiently specific to indicate the areas of the image that might need work. If not by screenshots or coordinates within the image, then at the very least by using comprehensible and clear language, enabling at least an above-average photographer to respond to the provided feedback. I agree that the upcoming revision of the edit by Aristeas will likely be more helpful than just a comment (which is understandable, since FP is not a DIY club as you mentioned). Clear communication is super important for making the community of any Wiki-project more inclusive and active, especially for those who aren’t actively participating in FP nominations, which is exactly what we want, right? --Osmo Lundell hey 21:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    The communication you are searching for is usually taking place at the COM:QIC, that is sort of the prepping area for FPC. There is also the COM:CRIT for more feedback. We review thousands of photos here, so very few of us have the stamina to be as detailed as you would like us to be. This is only your second try, and we are being patient with you and giving you advice. I suggest you take them. It's always better to be a bit involved in the community here on Commons before jumping into FPC. --Cart (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    No no, I ment as a general rule of thumb in any wiki process and basically in anything in life, if you can write it better and more clearly, you should do so! It doesn't take nearly that much effort as one might think at first. And again thanks for your comments! --Osmo Lundell hey 22:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment However I am bound to say that in my eyes the composition is actually very good – the flowers nicely stand out before the background of the OOF leaves, and are also nicely framed by them. I would try to crop ~ 90 pixels from the left margin to remove the fragments of two cropped leaves. In my eyes the brightness (too dark) and the halos at some petals are the main problems. @Osmo: I cannot promise too much, as I don’t know the quality of the original image data. But if you could give me access to the original image file (i.e., the raw image file, if available, or the original JPEG file from the camera), I could try to edit it and forward the result to you; sometimes I am lucky and can get a better result ;–). Best, – Aristeas (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you @Aristeas! Definetly, could you send me an email through my userpage? I can send you the original raw with the same license as this one (CC-BY-SA-4)! Thanks for offering your help, means a lot!! --Osmo Lundell hey 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thank you, I have sent you an e-mail. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    No prob mate! Take your time, we can renom this if the deadline passes and ifwhen your edit blows me away ^^ That image also has the fixed EXIF, which Cart was asking for earlier. --Osmo Lundell hey 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Samuel Morse portrait.tiff

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 22:13:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Circa 1860 portrait of Samuel F. B. Morse, by Mathew Brady

File:Physical Map of Africa.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 14:27:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Physical Map of Africa
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Africa
  •  Info Physical Map of Africa. Created by Tom Patterson – uploaded and nominated by Riad Salih (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Riad Salih (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are several mistakes regarding some names in Italy, that are reported in Italian (some of them with typoes), and not in English: Golfo di Cagliari --> Gulf of Cagliari; Golfo di Taranto --> Gulf of Taranto; Golfo di Salerno (Gulfo is a typo) --> Gulf of Salerno; Puglia --> Apulia; Isole Pelagie --> Pelagie Islands; Calabriaa (typo) --> Calabria.
    The capes are named in Italian, but this can be ok (Capo Spartivento, Capo Rizzuto, Capo Passero and Capo Santa Maria di Leuca), since there are other in northern Africa that are in French; otherwise, you may use Cape Spartivento, Cape Rizzuto (not frequent), Cape Passero, and Cape Santa Maria di Leuca. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    If someone is able to open the source file in Adobe Illustrator, they might be able to correct those inaccuracies. Riad Salih (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    I used to have an Adobe Illustrator license, but do not have it anymore (using Inkscape instead; unfortunately Inkscape cannot convert this AI file). If somebody still has a license, could they please download the AI file and convert it to SVG format. First, because SVG is an open standard for vector graphics and can be uploaded directly to Commons; second, because then we could easily fix any typos etc. Of course the fonts are a problem; the map uses a proprietary font family (Myriad Pro), to allow the community to edit the file we would have to replace it by a font family which is available under a free (libre) license, preferably under OFL. If somebody could convert the file to a valid SVG, I would try to replace the fonts and to fix the typos. – Aristeas (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Could you please transfer some data from the source to the file page on Commons, such as how and when the map was made. Even physical features change with time. --Cart (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    I did Riad Salih (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The source website offers two versions: the medium-quality and the high-quality file. This is the medium-quality version. But IMHO we should use the high-quality file because it allows for much more possible use cases. It’s exactly the same image, just in higher resolution. (One can always downscale a raster image, but upscaling it is much more difficult and problematic.) No problem, we can simply upload it over the current (medium-quality) image. Please do so. – Aristeas (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Aristeas I attempted to open and upload the high quality file, but my internet speed and PC capabilities are somewhat limited. Please feel free to upload the high version if you can. Riad Salih (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Uploaded the high-quality file. Looking at the Exif data they say that the image uses “uncalibrated” colours; this means normally that the file uses the Adobe RGB color space, but the profile was not embedded, this causes wrong display (too muted colours). I have embedded the AdobeRGB profile with ExifTool, i.e. without any quality loss. Now the colours look a bit different, but IMHO quite reasonable and more like in common physical maps. – Aristeas (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К 20:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Nylki (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Willistead Manor, Windsor, Ontario, 2025-06-10.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 11:27:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Willistead Manor (1906)

White-booted racket-tails

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 08:03:54 (UTC)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page

  • Thanks, again. Two new versions uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Tkarcher (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good pair of images. --Tagooty (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed, and we must especially appreciate that these photos were taken without flash etc. – Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Too much Topaz for my taste, e.g. the legs of the second picture look unnatural due to excesive sharpening Poco a poco (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Request I agree with Poco's assessment. In its current state, the images appears to have undergone quite heavy processing - possibly involving strong noise reduction followed by sharpening. As a result, some details seem unnaturally emphasized, and parts of the image take on a slightly harsh or fragmented appearance. If reprocessing is an option and not too much effort, a more balanced development could preserve the many strengths of this set. That way, the nomination might still succeed - and we would gain two new, excellent featured pictures. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
new version of the female uploaded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Definitely better, will  Support now Poco a poco (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support for the set. Thank you for the updated version. The texture now appears more natural and balanced. I appreciate the quick revision and am happy to support the nomination. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks nicer now. Just curious: Are the male's "foot feathers" purple at the base or is that CA? --Cart (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Front Right Sacred Heart Ooty Mar25 A7CR 05516-Pano-Edit.jpg

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 06:28:04 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sacred Heart Cathedral, Ooty
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#India
  •  Info The church was built in 1897 and the bell towers added in 1918. Note: There is an FP of this church, a significantly different view than this nomination. No other FPs of church exteriors in India. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Tagooty (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support A tough shot to get right Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The white on white is very well handled, but sorry I'm not a fan of that top-heavy, distorted look you get when photographing such tall buildings in close proximity. Some buildings are just impossible to get a full clean photo of that really works. --Cart (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support imposing structure, well-captured. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support Having struggled myself with shooting tall buildings at close quarters (a tilt-shift lens doesn't help much with the top-heavy look), I think you've done well to keep it in proportion. The whiteness is well-handled. Acroterion (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kelly zhrm (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose To be honest, I don't think this church deserves a second FP, at least from outside. Although I'm not amazed but the subject (yes, maybe it's a highlight in India, but I've seen so many churches by now) the nicest part is the facade which was captured in the first FP. Poco a poco (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2025 at 01:42:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
"Well the cops finally busted Madam Marie
For tellin' fortunes better than they do"
created by Acroterion – uploaded by Acroterion – nominated by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 💬 06:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support - Simple lines, shot well, with an interesting history. Works for me! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К 14:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Chris Woodrich. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Love the beautiful contrast between the blue shades (Madam Marie’s, sky) and the yellow/orange shades (left and right buildings). The colour palette, the austere composition and the meaningful emptiness remind me of some paintings by Giorgio de Chirio and Edward Hopper – Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Processione della desolata - Canosa di Puglia5.jpg

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2025 at 17:21:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Women wearing black in a procession
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
  •  Info created and uploaded by Expepper – nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support This shot from WLF 2025 for me captures the mood of the days before Easter perfectly. It shows a religious tradition in an almost minimalist way. -- Kritzolina (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The image captures a compelling and rare moment with strong compositional intent and atmospheric lighting. However, neither a central figure nor any other key element appears to be distinctly in focus. Whether due to motion blur or a missed focal plane, this softness unfortunately limits the image’s technical strength. Still, a striking and valuable document. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support For most photos, a clear centre and focus are crucial. But here I don’t miss them, on the contrary: it’s just apt that this photo doesn’t emphasize any single person or group, because it wants to show how the participants are completely absorbed in the procession. The processione della Desolata refers to the time between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, when Jesus’ disciples were in utter despair because the Saviour seemed to have died. They and their followers are completely desolate, and what could be more appropriate than an image in which the people merge into an indistinguishable black unity of grief? – Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you Aristeas for expressing what I wanted to convey in a much more concise and understandable way. Kritzolina (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support It is not very sharp, but for me this is an artistic motif that is not worth pixel-peeping. I could see it on the cover of a magazine spread about the procession so that's good enough for me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral IMO good shot, impressive. But the sharpness is too low. --XRay 💬 09:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per XRay --Ermell (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above Poco a poco (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Lucille Burroughs, daughter of a cotton sharecropper. Hale County, Alabama.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2025 at 18:18:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lucille Burroughs, daughter of a cotton sharecropper. Hale County, Alabama, 1935 or 1936, by Walker Evans
  • I uploaded the Wrong Version(tm). :/ And I will do a bit more. Yann (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the subject is FP for me but I will remove my vote after these changes. Cmao20 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I thought it looked like a photo by Lange or Evans. Good shot, good restoration. JayCubby (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Much better. I suspected something had gone wrong! Still a few small flecks, but not enough for me to remain neutral. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support idem Crisco Ezarateesteban
  •  Support --Kelly zhrm (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Close wing mud-puddling position of Pareronia avatar (Moore, 1858) - Pale Wanderer WLB.jpg

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2025 at 14:46:53 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close wing mud-puddling position of Pareronia avatar (Moore, 1858) - Pale Wanderer WLB.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2025 at 04:32:12 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Sun 15 Jun → Fri 20 Jun
Mon 16 Jun → Sat 21 Jun
Tue 17 Jun → Sun 22 Jun
Wed 18 Jun → Mon 23 Jun
Thu 19 Jun → Tue 24 Jun
Fri 20 Jun → Wed 25 Jun

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

Wed 11 Jun → Fri 20 Jun
Thu 12 Jun → Sat 21 Jun
Fri 13 Jun → Sun 22 Jun
Sat 14 Jun → Mon 23 Jun
Sun 15 Jun → Tue 24 Jun
Mon 16 Jun → Wed 25 Jun
Tue 17 Jun → Thu 26 Jun
Wed 18 Jun → Fri 27 Jun
Thu 19 Jun → Sat 28 Jun
Fri 20 Jun → Sun 29 Jun

The bot

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

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
     (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
    • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2025), 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/June 2025.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Edit the picture's description as follows:
      1. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes).
      2. Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
      3. Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (d:Property:P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use. Category:Commons guidelines

Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}}
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Category:Featured pictures#%20 Category:Commons projects-en#Pictures,%20Pictures%20candidates,%20Featured