Commons:Featured picture candidates

Skip to current candidates

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

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

Formal things Nominating Guidelines for nominators Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates: Licensing - Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses. Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level. Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information. Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful. General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality. Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison. Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, beautiful does not always mean valuable. Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution. For instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable: Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy. Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are none the less wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art. Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject. Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards. Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field. Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp. Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element. Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of Thirds" is a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often less interesting than placing the subject in one of the "interest points", the 4 intersection between these horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. The upper or lower horizontal line is often a good choice. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image. Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head). Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph. Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF. On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc. Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects. Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon. Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good. Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch. Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image. Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side. Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales. Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc. Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition. Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations … You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines. Set nominations Sets are temporarily disallowed for technical reasons; will reopen soon. If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set. All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary. If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value. If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own. All images should be of high technical quality. Adding a new nomination If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2 Set nominations ONLY Sets are temporarily disallowed for technical reasons; will reopen soon. 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}} Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice}}. Voting Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use following templates: {{Support}} ( Support), {{Oppose}} ( Oppose), {{Neutral}} ( Neutral), {{Comment}} ( Comment), {{Info}} ( Info), {{Question}} ( Question), {{Request}} ( Request). You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: No reason "I don't like it" and other empty assessments "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidates Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote: Text to use Displays as Meaning {{Keep}}  Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture {{Delist}}  Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore. This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote: Text to use Displays as Meaning {{Keep}}  Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP. {{Delistandreplace}}  Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement. If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include: Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader); A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page); Your reasons for nominating the image and your username. After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policy General rules The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~ Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5) Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator). Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum. Featuring and delisting rules A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions: Appropriate license (of course) At least 7 supporting votes Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page. The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that are familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be polite Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. See also To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished Basic list of photography-related terms Quality image candidates Valued image candidates Photo challenge Photography critiques Help:Scanning

Table of contents

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

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

Featured picture candidates

File:Sarcoramphus papa (Königsgeier - King Vulture) - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2013-01.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2014 at 15:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sarcoramphus papa (Königsgeier - King Vulture) - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2013-01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sarcoramphus papa (Königsgeier - King Vulture) - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2013-01.jpg

•  Info created and uploaded by Olaf Oliviero Riemer - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nikhil (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Sphagnum rubellum pendent branch tip.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2014 at 14:51:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sphagnum rubellum pendent branch tip.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sphagnum rubellum pendent branch tip.jpg

•  Info all by -- Des Callaghan (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Des Callaghan (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support A nice bunch -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 16:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Baresi F (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Standing Common Tiger.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2014 at 13:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Standing Common Tiger.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Standing Common Tiger.jpg

•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Quality isn't perfect but background throw focus on subject and that spider... --Mile (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Arja Havakka-27.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2014 at 11:56:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Arja Havakka-27.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arja Havakka-27.jpg

•  Info created by Motopark - uploaded by Motopark - nominated by Motopark -- Motopark (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Motopark (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:NARA - Two little girls with a headless doll (Emmy E. Werner - Through the Eyes of Innocents).jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2014 at 11:43:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:NARA - Two little girls with a headless doll (Emmy E. Werner - Through the Eyes of Innocents).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:NARA - Two little girls with a headless doll (Emmy E. Werner - Through the Eyes of Innocents).jpg

•  Info created by either the U.S. Army Signal Corps or the Wartime Relocation Service - uploaded by Andy McCain - nominated by Andy McCain -- Andy McCain (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- The frontispiece from Emmy E. Werner's Through the Eyes of Innocents scanned by me from the book. If anyone can get hold of a digital scan of the original from NARA (College Park, Maryland), that would be great.Andy McCain (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Manastir Žiča (by Pudelek) 02.JPG

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2014 at 08:08:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Manastir Žiča (by Pudelek) 02.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Manastir Žiča (by Pudelek) 02.JPG

•  Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Museum Brandhorst June 2014 01.JPG

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2014 at 06:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Museum Brandhorst June 2014 01.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museum Brandhorst June 2014 01.JPG

•  Info A rather radical, abstract view of the colorful facade of Munich's Museum Brandhorst, composed of 36,000 vertical ceramic louvers in 23 different colored glazes. All by myself, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Interesting building, good composition, but it doesn't look sharp enough for FP, and slightly overexposed IMO. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Now that you mention it, Yann... I have to admit you're right, the top left corner is way too soft. I'll try and reshoot the image some time. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Haltern am See, Siebenteufelsturm -- 2013 -- 4946.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2014 at 05:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Haltern am See, Siebenteufelsturm -- 2013 -- 4946.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haltern am See, Siebenteufelsturm -- 2013 -- 4946.jpg

•  Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 05:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Victoria Harbour skyscrapers.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2014 at 01:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Victoria Harbour skyscrapers.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Victoria Harbour skyscrapers.jpg

•  Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Might be improved a bit if you just cropped the entire Bank of China building out. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Ratusz w Łęczycy.jpg

Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2014 at 00:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ratusz w Łęczycy.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ratusz w Łęczycy.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Chrumps -- Chrumps (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Chrumps (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Nice crisp lines and detail. A little noise in the sky but to complain about it would seem churlish. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bóveda de la sala de entrada, Galería Nacional, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 170-172 HDR.JPG

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 22:43:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bóveda de la sala de entrada, Galería Nacional, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 170-172 HDR.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bóveda de la sala de entrada, Galería Nacional, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 170-172 HDR.JPG

•  Info Handheld HDR shot (3 frames) of the dome of the entrance hall (aka staircase hall), National Gallery, London (England). The National Gallery was founded in 1824 and has a collection of over 2,300 paintings from the mid-13th century to 1900. The present building in London's Trafalgar Square is the third to house the National Gallery, and was designed by William Wilkins from 1832–38. The Staircase Hall was designed by Sir John Taylor in 1884–7. All by me, -- Poco² 22:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 22:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Quite impressive, good crop. I like how it could also be a painting. Perhaps the HDR is not perfect, but I think the aesthetic value is still high to me. --DXR (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Nice, it look like a illustration, please fix the spot (note added) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  That's not a lens/sensor spot, but a real one Poco² 15:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Nice to see that we're seeing pictures people took during this year's Wikimania. I have no complaints. I keep thinking this is a great album-cover image ... shame vinyl is no longer the dominant format, or else you'd have a nice 25-cm square to show this off in. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Claus (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Felix König ✉ 12:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Praça de Touros do Campo Pequeno September 2014.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 20:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Praça de Touros do Campo Pequeno September 2014.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Praça de Touros do Campo Pequeno September 2014.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Felix König ✉ 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Felix König ✉ 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Torre Vasco da Gama Lissabon September 2014.JPG

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 20:06:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Torre Vasco da Gama Lissabon September 2014.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre Vasco da Gama Lissabon September 2014.JPG

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Felix König ✉ 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Felix König ✉ 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Tuxyso (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition, timing, and quality. --A.Savin 11:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral some Underexposed --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:White Tiger in Touroparc.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 17:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:White Tiger in Touroparc.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:White Tiger in Touroparc.jpg

•  Info created & uploaded by Clément Bardot - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Kbh3^rdtalk 18:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Jardim Botânico Fanchette Rischbieter em Curitiba 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 16:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Jardim Botânico Fanchette Rischbieter em Curitiba 02.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jardim Botânico Fanchette Rischbieter em Curitiba 02.jpg/2

•  Info created and uploaded by Halleypo - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Gumti River, Comilla.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 16:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Gumti River, Comilla.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gumti River, Comilla.jpg

•  Info created by Shahadat Rahman Shemul - uploaded by Aftab1995 - nominated by Aftab1995 -- Aftab (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Aftab (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Shaon (talk) Sorry, but like before you are still ineligible to vote. --DXR (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Panoramic bluish view of the river and sky!  Support --Moheen Reeyad (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversaturated, vignetting, canvassing. --Kadellar (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversaturated. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Jee 02:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversaturated. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but overprocessed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Fishermen on Pier Juan Griego.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 16:01:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fishermen on Pier Juan Griego.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fishermen on Pier Juan Griego.jpg

•  Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very good composition and mood. Image quality could be better on the men, but acceptable given the light. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support per Slaunger. --Kadellar (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Different from our usual nominees, and well-done. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support as per Daniel Case. Yann (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:C.M. Gilbert. - John Hay, c. 1904.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 15:53:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:C.M. Gilbert. - John Hay, c. 1904.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:C.M. Gilbert. - John Hay, c. 1904.jpg

•  Info created by C. M. Gilbert - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Abraham Lincoln's secretary, and later Secretary of State, en:John Hay. Note that extreme shadows were very common in photography of the early 20th century. There's even a P.G. Wodehouse sort-of-story (more of a comic rant, really) about it. Not too bad of restoration; the usual dust and damage for century-old photos. The sepia tones are original and should not be removed, as it's misleading as to what the historic image actually looks like. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good restoration. Unfortunately the LoC does only provide a scan of the colour film copy slide. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Centreville, VA, Quaker Guns in the fort on the heights.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 15:12:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Centreville, VA, Quaker Guns in the fort on the heights.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Centreville, VA, Quaker Guns in the fort on the heights.jpg

•  Info created by George N. Barnard and James F. Gibson - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment See Quaker Guns. This wasn't too bad of a restoration, on the whole, but someone had to fix up the tiny copy we had before. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Marchantia polymorpha gemma.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 13:26:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Marchantia polymorpha gemma.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marchantia polymorpha gemma.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Des Callaghan (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Des Callaghan (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Nice, a little baby. For a better context: Gemmae cups -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 15:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral Value is undoubtedly very high (I am no expert), which is why I do not oppose;-) On the technical side it looks very two-dimensional, the edges are soft in focus despite all the focus stack efforts, and it does not wow me as much as your other recent nominations. Still a nice technical achievement. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment @Slaunger No problem at all. Curiously, this is my favourite of the images I've put forward so far. Yes, the edges are a little soft. It is tricky photographing things that are less than half-a-millimeter across ;-) -- Des Callaghan (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I realize it is very difficult to photograph such a very small subject, which is also the reason why I state it is still a nice technical achievement;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment @Lauro Sirgado Thankyou for the link to the gemmae cups. Yes, the image above shows one of the gemma that can be seen in those cups. Fascinating little things! -- Des Callaghan (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Petrova crkva (by Pudelek).JPG

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 09:41:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Petrova crkva (by Pudelek).JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petrova crkva (by Pudelek).JPG

•  Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Great photo! --Halavar (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very nice light and composition. I am disappointed at the detail level though on the facade. The text on the sign is one blurred blob, which is a little surprising given the good light conditions and easy to photograph subject and medium resolution. Why no EXIF data? -- Slaunger (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  because this is small panorama and EXIF is not necessary --Pudelek (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose Pudelek, I'm sorry but I don't think the centered composition works here (church in the center and horizon in the middle too). --Kadellar (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Shopping Center Magna Plaza Amsterdam 2014.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 08:47:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Shopping Center Magna Plaza Amsterdam 2014.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shopping Center Magna Plaza Amsterdam 2014.jpg

•  Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice and impressive --LivioAndronico talk 09:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I agree.--ArildV (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. Ausgezeichnet. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --DXR (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Claus (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 01:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the two major points of interest in the image were along the same axis when looking straight down the middle of the church, an off-axis position was required. As such, the composition is a bit unorthodox (ba-dum-tish). Although there is no symmetry in the composition, I think it's still an interesting view.

•  Support -- Diliff (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 06:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I know it's unorthodox (haha) to criticize a "Dillif" but still: aren't the highlights (especially the topmost window) almost blown? Not that it would matter much, given the general excellence of the image... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but there's no useful information in the highlights to recover when it's just a clear glass window. I have enough information in the HDR file to recover it but white light, when recovered, appears grey anyway (in effect, the same result as when you artificially rescue completely blown highlights). Grey highlights often look worse than white. In those cases, I just try to find a luminosity very close to white that looks reasonable in the scene. Diliff (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 13:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. Good vantage point off the center line. --Kbh3^rdtalk 21:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --DXR (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Chrumps (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Looking at this in full size is like opening a Christmas present. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice, especially the wooden contruction in the middle comes out very well. BTW: There is a tiny object at the very top left. Probably you can stamp that out, even visible in thumbnail size. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's just the cornice edge from the top of the pillar which is partially visible at the bottom left of the image. I've removed it. Diliff (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Orthodox Church of Revelation of the Holy Mother of God Interior, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2014 at 01:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Orthodox Church of Revelation of the Holy Mother of God Interior, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orthodox Church of Revelation of the Holy Mother of God Interior, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Diliff (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 06:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support yep --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --DXR (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Chrumps (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 03:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support So you're going on tour or something? Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I did. I spent a week in Lithuania and a few days in Riga in September. More photos to come. ;-) Diliff (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Great tit side-on.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2014 at 22:47:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Great tit side-on.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great tit side-on.jpg

•  Info Great tit, Parus major, a common bird across large parts of Eurasia. A nice pose, and IMO the soft light works well here with a high-contrast bird such as this. All by me, --Baresi F (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Baresi F (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 05:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support very nice! Great colors, sharpness, light --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --CHK46 (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support As recommended on QI ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion :-) --Baresi F (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support A more natural setting would have been even better, but the subject is a blinder ;-) Is the geotag correct? It appears to put it in a field without any brick walls, assuming it is a brick wall in the background? (I looked because I live nearby) -- Des Callaghan (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - yep, definitely an Accrington brick wall providing the background :-) Those co-ordinates are about 200yd out wrt this image - most of my bird shots are in and around that field, so I just use the centre of it as a tag point for them all. I always make sure the compass heading is right for each image, though. Ironically enough, that whole area will be filled with brick walls in a couple of years time - 650 houses worth :-( --Baresi F (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Chrumps (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. If I remember well, I can recall the same branch and brick wall in another photos by you. But the birds seem different. :) Jee 03:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No wonder that branch is drooping with all the bird traffic it gets :-) --Baresi F (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support The filename could disappoint some readers, though Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd wondered why it was getting so many page views... --Baresi F (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Claus (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Torreón Malladeta, Villajoyosa, España, 2014-07-03, DD 25.JPG

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2014 at 22:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Torreón Malladeta, Villajoyosa, España, 2014-07-03, DD 25.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torreón Malladeta, Villajoyosa, España, 2014-07-03, DD 25.JPG

•  Info The Torreón Malladeta (Malladeta Keep) is a keep located over Paradise beach in Villajoyosa, in the coast the province of Alicante, Valencian Community (Spain). The keep has an oval-shaped base and was built by a rich family (Esquerdo) at the end of the 19th century inspired by the coastal keeps of the 16th century. All by me, Poco² 22:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 22:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Support IMO the stones are very bright and it looks like a touch of blue. (The touch of blue isn't a problem.)--XRay ^talk 06:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done: Highlights reduced Poco² 18:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support I'd prefer to see more of the sky. I know you'd lose the perfect golden ratio then, but I don't think it would really matter --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done: I have uploaded a version with a slight more generous crop at the top Poco² 18:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC) thanks--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Statues on St.peter.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2014 at 22:13:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Statues on St.peter.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Statues on St.peter.jpg

•  Info All by Livioandronico2013 -- LivioAndronico talk 22:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico talk 22:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Alemania vs Italia - 2014 CERH European Championship - 11.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2014 at 19:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Alemania vs Italia - 2014 CERH European Championship - 11.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alemania vs Italia - 2014 CERH European Championship - 11.jpg

•  Info German captain Kevin Karschau goes forward with the ball while Italian captain Davide Motaran tries to stop him, Germany vs Italy, 2014 CERH European Championship (panning shot). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kadellar (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 06:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Aleppo Pine close up, Sète, Hérault.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2014 at 18:11:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aleppo Pine close up, Sète, Hérault.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aleppo Pine close up, Sète, Hérault.jpg

•  Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 18:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Preferred FP gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 18:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose The technical quality is pretty outstanding with good pixel quality and a very large pixelage. I think the light is very good too. But sorry, the composition does not appeal to me at all. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Uninteresting composition. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Statues on the colonnades of Saint Peter's Square.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2014 at 13:55:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Statues on the colonnades of Saint Peter's Square.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Statues on the colonnades of Saint Peter's Square.jpg

•  Info all by Livioandronico2013 -- LivioAndronico talk 13:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- LivioAndronico talk 13:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm trying to figure out the rationale for this crop. There are more statues. And you had an earlier version with more height that showed all the people at the top of the dome, which is useful. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-10-05 10-05-43 mosaic.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2014 at 10:54:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2014-10-05 10-05-43 mosaic.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014-10-05 10-05-43 mosaic.jpg

•  Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a better mosaic than the previous one, in that it doesn't have obviously missing bits, but still nothing special. Otherwise comments are the same as the other. -- Colin (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-10-05 10-10-13 mosaic.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2014 at 10:55:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2014-10-05 10-10-13 mosaic.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014-10-05 10-10-13 mosaic.jpg

•  Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose As a mosaic, this is really nothing special. As a photograph of a mosaic, this is really nothing special. This is an average QI and no more. Browse Category:Mosaics and press the "Good pictures" button to see what a great mosaic looks like. (BTW, I am amazed that this is categorized as Category:Tone-mapped HDR panoramas of Belfort -- a category surely nobody on earth needs -- but not categorised as a mosaic). Secondly, why HDR?) -- Colin (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've used HDR because it's necessary. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Mens dress shoes.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2014 at 10:09:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mens dress shoes.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mens dress shoes.jpg

•  Info Men's dress shoes. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Mile (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Such a simple and common subject needs to be arranged better. Tying the shoelaces is a good idea, but whatever the foot is resting on here is too distracting and colourful. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Please improve the categorization. Shoes is not good enough. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done --Mile (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Colin. You've made a good start, but the background needs to be simpler. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Uninteresting composition. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above. --Aftab (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Ectobius pallidus MHNT profil.jpg

Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2014 at 05:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ectobius pallidus MHNT profil.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ectobius pallidus MHNT profil.jpg

1668

3727

364

545

3974

4545

Ootheca

•  Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 05:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Preferred FP gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 05:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you for this lady laying eggs. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Sure! --LivioAndronico talk 19:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 11:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful roach! -- Des Callaghan (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support But I don't like them in real life. :) Jee 03:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Moscow State University.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2014 at 21:37:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow State University.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow State University.jpg/2

•  Info Please note: This is the full version initially uploaded by the photographer Dmottl in September 2012. It was subsequently deleted in October 2012, after which I transferred it to the English Wikipedia under w:Template:FoP-USonly and proceeded to nominate it for featured picture there. They asked for a tighter crop for EV (encyclopedic value) reasons, and I obliged, but I and several others noted that Commons might prefer the original, uncropped version. The crop ended up being promoted to English Wikipedia FP.
•  Info This month, the crop was transferred to Commons by A.Savin, but under the title of the original version. To prevent confusion, I have moved it back to the "crop" title and restored Dmitry's original upload at the original title. Since all the votes prior to this move were given to the cropped version, I am moving them down to the section below. @A.Savin, ArionEstar, PointsofNoReturn, Kbh3rd, Kikos, Daniel Case, DXR, Taxiarchos228, Böhringer, Tuxyso, Martin Falbisoner, Florstein, Colin, Kadellar, Slaunger, ProfesorFavalli, AmaryllisGardener: If you prefer the full version above, please transfer your vote to this section.
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Both alternatives are fine with me, but I'd actually prefer the original, uncropped version. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral I slightly prefer the crop. The need of uploading versions as separate files I never understood, btw. --A.Savin 06:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I prefer the crop. I did see the larger one in the version history but don't think it adds anything by putting the subject further away. I agree that they should be separate files since the difference in crop is not minor. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I also prefer the crop. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment And I prefer the crop too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for the notification. I prefer the crop too. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Alt

•  Info created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded and nominated by A.Savin
•  Support --A.Savin 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ArionEstar (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Kikos (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support As gaudy as Stalinist architecture can get, especially in this famous example, it can still photograph well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --DXR (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive building, nice light, well composed. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Kadellar (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Beautiful Girl Elena.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2014 at 19:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Beautiful Girl Elena.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beautiful Girl Elena.jpg

•  Info created by KAlexey - uploaded by KAlexey - nominated by KAlexey -- KAlexey (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- KAlexey (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very tender colors. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Insufficient contrast. Neither do I see a "wow" portrait even after normalization. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry. Lighting is nice and soft but image lacks contrast and sharpness. The subject's post and smile isn't ideal. -- Colin (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose low contrast, washed out colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Expedition 41 Rollout (201409230006HQ).jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2014 at 20:11:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Expedition 41 Rollout (201409230006HQ).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Expedition 41 Rollout (201409230006HQ).jpg

297

173

249

442

3919

2074

Excessive/badly masked noise reduction?

55

1473

885

235

3919

2074

Washed out texture due to excessive NR??

•  Info created by NASA/Joel Kowsky - uploaded and nominated by Ras67 -- Ras67 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Info Soyuz TMA-14M is rolled out to the launch pad on Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2014.
•  Support This image draws a line from the past (the abandoned facilities and surrounded scrap) to present (the time-honoured, polished Soyuz, the police helicopters and car, the fire engine) and future (research by the Expedition 41 members, which were transported to the ISS by this rocket). -- Ras67 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral Highly interesting, but for me several problems: Masts in BG loook weird and so does some annotated vegetation. Maybe noise reduction has been applied too agressively and/or not properly masked. I think the left hand side crop is too tight, and regarding the right hand side the lonely car there should either have had a bit more space or be cropped out - a lot of things are already happening, and it is all a bit confusing. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No way a D4 needs that much NR at ISO 250. Probably a combination of haze and suboptimal dof at 200mm and f/4.5, really an issue on full format. --DXR (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is heat turbulence, on the masts due to distance (probable several kilometers), on the vegetation due to the locomotive's hot fume. For me the picture is a puzzle with many things to explore include the lonely police car. --Ras67 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Great and very interesting photo with wow. I don't really mind the limited DOF here and the main subject is in focus.--ArildV (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Definitely important and historic, but that doesn't make it an FP, between the noted technical flaws and composition that makes me unclear about what the subject of the photo is. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Uninteresting composition. What in this pic is intended to be the subject? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Abtei St. Hildegard, Rüdesheim, Nave and Sanctuary b 20140922 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2014 at 19:24:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Abtei St. Hildegard, Rüdesheim, Nave and Sanctuary b 20140922 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abtei St. Hildegard, Rüdesheim, Nave and Sanctuary b 20140922 1.jpg

•  Info all by me, -- DXR (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support The interior of Eibingen Abbey. The outside of the church is neo-romanesque and thus makes the church appear very old even though it was only built around 1904. Quite differently, the interior is colorful and has many detailed paintings mainly celebrating the life of Hildegard von Bingen, something very unusual for churches in my region which are usually rather plain. -- DXR (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I had to restrain myself from making a deep YAICP sigh when seeing the image (Yet Another Interior Church Pano). But then again it should not be held against you that we have recently seen so many nice church panos that it is hard not to feel "saturated". Excellent exposure control, detail level and technique. Wow too, although not as much as other ICPs we have seen recently. I appreciate the interior is from a slightly different period and of a different style, then most other things we have seen. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. Ahh, the ol' YAICP problem. ;-) But I suppose we have much more exterior building photography, are you also tiring of those Slaunger? In any case, I'm soon going to start uploading some ICP from Lithuania and Latvia and I regret that you may see one or two of them here also! The problem I find is that almost all of my ICP images are of very similar technical quality, so the question remains: Which one should I nominate? It feels like cheating by only nominating the most interesting/beautiful interiors because I'm only capturing it; I didn't create it. So I like to see the less ostentatious interiors too. Diliff (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yeah Diliff, there are also certains types of exterior architectural shots, which could use a bit more diversity;-) But of course I am mostly joking regarding the YAICPs, but it would be nice to also have more nominations of other types of interiors than churches for a change. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Haha, not wrong, but churches are usually nice subjects since they do not charge you to enter (well, at least in Germany), they are usually out of copyright and calm enough to concentrate on panos. An you have them basically everywhere. Palaces etc. are tougher to shoot without being told off, espc. with tripod, train/subway stations around my location (Frankfurt etc.) are very busy and still not out of copyright... --DXR (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
      • It's much the same reasoning for me. :-) I'd love to be able to shoot more varieties of interiors but as you say, churches are usually free and less likely to restrict tripods. The only thing that staff in many of the English cathedrals were quite concerned with was if I was shooting 'commercially'. I said I wasn't, which is true, but I knew it would ring alarm bells in their heads if I tried to explain the Creative Commons licensing and how it could be used commercially, so I kept the conversation short. ;-) Diliff (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support nice quality and composition. Great work! Nikhil (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I have no problems with YAICP :) This photo is imho special and the interior with plenty of wall paintings quite unique. Technically very well done. I hope other church interior photographers will not become frustrated because such interior panos need a lot of post-processing and are technically challenging and usually require special pano hardware. Diliff (and you) set the bar very high :) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Kadellar (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Dahlia 'Moonfire' 002.JPG

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2014 at 17:17:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia 'Moonfire' 002.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia 'Moonfire' 002.JPG

•  Info Dahlia 'Moonfire'. A brilliant selection. Warm colors combined with dark leaves. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral Colors, light and bokeh are good. The bottom crop is arbitrary. DOF could be better. For me it looks like a good flower picture, but not really among your very best, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not bothered by the crop when everything else is right. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Areni church by franek2.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2014 at 09:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Areni church by franek2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Areni church by franek2.jpg

•  Info created by franek2 - uploaded by Kikos - nominated by User:Kikos -- Kikos (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kikos (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment good picture, but the description should at least say from where the photo was taken/in wich direction and what we see behind it. --Don-kun (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Oenothera rubricaulis 2014 G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2014 at 05:22:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Oenothera rubricaulis 2014 G1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oenothera rubricaulis 2014 G1.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Info Oenothera rubricaulis flowers
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 16:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support It's all well photographed: the plant is sharply against background blurred, plants and flowers in rich and pastel colors, becoming and passing away are visible in bud, flower and withering bloom. Congratulations! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:MonroeStreetBridgea.jpg

Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2014 at 02:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:MonroeStreetBridgea.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:MonroeStreetBridgea.jpg

•  Info created by W.O. Reed, uploaded by Durova, nominated by G755648 (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- G755648 (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Buthus ibericus.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2014 at 21:09:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Buthus ibericus.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buthus ibericus.jpg

•  Info created by Mario Modesto Mata - uploaded by Mario Modesto Mata - nominated by Mario modesto -- Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Better meet this on a picture than IRL. ;o) Yann (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Procellarum Rifts.tif

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2014 at 19:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Procellarum Rifts.tif Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Procellarum Rifts.tif

•  Info created by Ernie Wright (NASA) - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support WoW, although the image is unbalanced, desperately needs more space (in both senses) on the right (IMO). -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 20:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support high detailed, but unfortunately my browser can't display TIFFs --Ras67 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 11:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Good example of false-color imagery, informative and raises questions. I added "on the Moon" especially for nitwits such as yours truly who have never heard of Procellarum Rifts. 213.148.254.126 08:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support It's "biurifôu"! ArionEstar (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Amphiprion ocellaris(1).JPG

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2014 at 12:44:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Amphiprion ocellaris(1).JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amphiprion ocellaris(1).JPG

•  Info created by M. Krafft - uploaded by M. Krafft - nominated by M. Krafft -- M. Krafft (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- M. Krafft (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose for the large out-of-focus area dominating the lower left quadrant of the image. Sometimes that works, but I don't think it does for this image, sorry. Otherwise there's lots to like here. --Kbh3^rdtalk 23:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice but Amphiprion a bit too small or/and composition a bit busy. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 11:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  CommentDo you think that a crop in the upper part may help? That would remove a part of the unsharp areas and the fish is more dominant... --M. Krafft (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  IMO a crop would not help here because even with a big crop there will always be a disturbing part of the purple blurred rock just in the front of the fish, sorry. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Lepista nuda LC0372.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2014 at 12:27:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lepista nuda LC0372.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lepista nuda LC0372.jpg

•  Info Wood Blewit (Lepista nuda); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
•  Support -- LC-de (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 11:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Chrumps (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Image:Uchibo Line ; 209 series train runs while looking out over the Keiyo Kombinat aside.JPG

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2014 at 06:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Uchibo Line ; 209 series train runs while looking out over the Keiyo Kombinat aside.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Uchibo Line ; 209 series train runs while looking out over the Keiyo Kombinat aside.JPG

138

1633

199

216

3872

2592

color distortion

9

2333

320

173

3872

2592

color distortion

•  Info created by Nanashinodensyaku - uploaded by Nanashinodensyaku - nominated by 名無し野電車区 -- 名無し野電車区 (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- 名無し野電車区 (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image seems blurred (moved?), and there are evident color distortions on the left side. --Ruthven (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ruthven. --Johanning (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Image:潮来 嫁入り舟.JPG

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2014 at 06:13:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:潮来 嫁入り舟.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:潮来 嫁入り舟.JPG

•  Info created by 名無し野電車区 - uploaded by 名無し野電車区 - nominated by 名無し野電車区 -- 名無し野電車区 (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- 名無し野電車区 (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose. The subjects are not sharp enough. They should be as sharply focused as the baskets at the front of the boat. The faces of the men are too dark in shadow, and bright reflected light gives the woman's face a red cast. It's a very good subject, but I don't think this image is a Featured Picture. Sorry. --Kbh3^rdtalk 00:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Augurbussard-Serengeti.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2014 at 07:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Augurbussard-Serengeti.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Augurbussard-Serengeti.jpg

•  Info created by Tobi 87 - uploaded by Tobi 87 - nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johanning (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Not easy task with 500mm,I like composition despite a bit tigth crop. Wingspan make it. --Mile (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 16:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Stunner! -- Des Callaghan (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Chrumps (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Schloss Lenzburg - Gesamtansicht1.jpg

Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2014 at 06:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Lenzburg - Gesamtansicht1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Lenzburg - Gesamtansicht1.jpg

•  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support perfect (Question: 25.6 MB is high, would the picture be of an equal quality with less MB?)--CHK46 (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The image size is already strongly reduced from the original stitching. 36 megapixel with a low compression rate is appropriate IMO and 25 MB not as big in this relation. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 11:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose More than half of the castle (and of the hill) is in unfortunate shadow. Wrong shooting time. Light is imho more important than resolution. Nochmal auf Deutsch: Mehr als die Hälfte der Burg (und des Hügels) befindet sich in unschönem Schatten. Falsche Aufnahmezeit. Das Licht ist aus meiner Sicht deutlich wichtiger als eine hohe Auflösung. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolution is not main point but light has not necessary and every time to be from back. This is a popular but also wrong proposition. Nothig has hard shadow, everythink is visible well. Rather this light let the hill and castle be more three-dimensional. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

More than half of the castle (and of the hill) is in shadow This thesis is obviosly not true. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Surprise, surpise - someone who has a differing opinion from your's is surely wrong - so far, so predictable. To the photo: Nearly the complete right side of the builing is in shadow, some bottom parts of the building are also in shadow - no complex math is necessary to calculate that to more than half of the building. I agree with you that shadows can help to bring out the plasticity of a building and are a widespread stylistic device in architecture photography. But this shadow style only works well for me if the shadow parts are remarkable smaller than the light parts of a building and if the front parts of a building are not in shadow. To take plasticity again and again as argument for a photo at unfortunate light is imho no valid argument.Und noch mal auf Deutsch: Überraschung, Überraschung - jemand hat eine andere Meinung als du und liegt natürlich falsch - so weit so vorhersagbar. Zu dem Foto: Nahezu der komplette rechte Teil des Gebäudes befindet sich im Schatten, einige Teile am Fuße des rechten Gebäudesteils ebenso. Man braucht keine höhere Mathematik um dies zu mehr als die Hälfe zu addieren. Ich stimme dir zu, dass Schatten helfen können, die Plastizität eines Gebäudes hervorzuheben - ein weit verbreitetes Stilmittel in der Architekturfotografie. Für mich funktioniert dieses aber nur sinnvoll, wenn die Schattenteile deutlich kleiner sind als die Gebäudeteile, die im Licht sind. Ebenso ist es nicht schön, wenn die Vorderseiten von Gebäuden im Schatten liegen. Dies ist offensichtlich der Fall hier. Auch wenn du Plastizität immer wieder als Grund dieser Schattenfotos anführst, macht dies keinesfalls ein Foto bei ungünstigem Licht besser.--Tuxyso (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tuxy: Neither the hill nor the castle are more than 50 % in hard shadow. If you don't belive just look at the image. It's always the same old story. Apart from that I have argued why it's a better choice to have this light conditions. (For me you don't need to translate in German.) --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment @Wladyslaw There are some areas that I think should be fixed, I have marked those I found -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 20:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I think the few blurred areas aren't really relevant and distracting I'll fix them. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lauro Sirgado  Done --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment It is a very good photo, I think. I agree with you Wladyslaw regarding the lightning, it comes in from the side, giving rise to nice texture and rather pleasant light. I noticed at least one of the areas Lauro has pointed out in the foreground as being optimizable by perhaps adjusting the position of a seam in the stitch away from foreground vegetation. With that fixed I will support. The scaffolding and the cranes in the background to the left are a bit distracting, but unavoidable and not overly distracting IMO.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for the update. This is good stuff! -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Great, thank you, is a magnificent panoramic. I agree with you, are details, I appreciate the attention and I particularly thought are an improvement, thanks again. : ) -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 21:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Nikhil (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Kadellar (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose With regret. There is much to like. The lighting on the left hand side, and over the grassy hill is excellent; on the right is shadow as pointed out but it seems from Googling other photos that this is unavoidable -- you can't have excellent lighting all over a building that curves round. The time of year and weather is good for colour. The resolution is excellent (though I suspect the third car, the black one, has lost its front in stitching error -- this isn't very obvious, though). But the far left of the building is covered in scaffolding. This is where the best light is, and where the leading lines from both left and right take the eye. It isn't noticeable in thumbnail but very distracting full screen. If you are able to return, the viewpoint in this photo looks very good, where the castle is placed in its surrounding scenery. -- Colin (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The (downsized) original file of the stitching

• For your preferred viewpoint I was to late on this day and it has the disadvantage that the castle will be also covered in scaffolding, now at the right side and much more then in my picture the left side. I has to admit that this view is very nice but it is definitly a completely other picture and a different intention so it isn't really good to compare. "Your" image is more a landscape image with the castle, my pretension was to show first of all the building itself and not so much the surrounding. For architectual studies too much landscape is distracting.
• Black car: I have checked the original files: the car wasn´t disaggregated because of the stitching. The brushwoods are so dense that it is almost coverd. If you look carrefully you'll find the A-pillar of the car gleaming.
• Maybe I have time to visit this castle this autumn and make your preferred view, we'll see :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Promulgação-Constituição-1988.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2014 at 20:41:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Promulgação-Constituição-1988.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Promulgação-Constituição-1988.jpg

•  Info created by Agência Brasil - uploaded by Alexanderps - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment: I don't know whether the importance of the moment overcomes the obvious photographic shortcomings of this image. Also, it would be nice if ArionEstar or someone would provide an English description to the image page so that more people can appreciate the subject. Google Translate seems to do a pretty good job with it, but I won't paste that in myself. --Kbh3^rdtalk 00:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kbh3^rd:  Done. Description: Deputies in the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress of Brazil in Brasília, Brazil, commemorating the promulgation of the Constitution of Brazil, in 1988. At least here in Brazil, it is very important, so that the day was this fact is remembered. ArionEstar (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: ArionEstar this is a great picture but maybe it fits better in COM:VI. Regards --· Favalli ⟡ 01:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Leichtathletik WM 2013 Moskau 100 m Vorlauf.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2014 at 19:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Leichtathletik WM 2013 Moskau 100 m Vorlauf.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leichtathletik WM 2013 Moskau 100 m Vorlauf.jpg

•  Info created by Tobi 87 - uploaded by Tobi 87 - nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. Nice feeling of motion - only wish it were a bit bigger. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Very weak  Support. It's really good, but IMO it would be good to see a better resolution. The size is just 2.5 MP.--XRay ^talk 06:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral. I was going to oppose for too much motion blur. But the more I look at the image the more I appreciate that. If the head and face of the fellow in the middle looking at the camera were sharper and somehow more of the focal point in the image I think it would be a winner (even though he is in 3rd or 4th place. ;-) Nothing immediately draws my eye to him even as he faces me, however. --Kbh3^rdtalk 01:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support - Resolution could be higher, but interesting image. Humans (in motion!) as FP would be nice. Pugilist (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support perfect --Mile (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support For the creativity in its creation. Falls short of many of the usual technical expectations for an FP, but lets try something different. It has a lots of mitigating wow. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the idea, but I cannot get by the blurriness of the image. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support reminds me of this other image. I love panning, it is impossible to get all runners sharp, you can only follow one with your camera and they all go up and down while they run, it's not like a car. Maybe 1/15 was too much time, but FP imo. --Kadellar (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is a good idea but you can see why the picture in the telegraph works and this doesn't. Everything in the other photo leads you to Bolt's sharp face and his name on his chest is a bonus. This one has too many distracting elements and the eye wanders around with nothing sharp to focus on. -- Colin (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I like this one better then the one in the Telegraph. --Lošmi (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Färentuna kyrka September 2014 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2014 at 19:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Färentuna kyrka September 2014 02.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Färentuna kyrka September 2014 02.jpg

•  Info Aerial view of Färentuna church, a historic important 1100's church at Ekerö outside Stockholm. The Church is surrounded by a historic cemetery. To the right is a modern parish hall designed by Ralph Erskine. The picture is taken from a chartered helicopter (part of Wikimedia Sverige aerial photo project) with doors removed. Created, uploaded and nominated (Following a recommendation by Christian Ferrer and Slaunger ) -- Arild Vågen (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- ArildV (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support well done and nice IMO -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 19:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ArionEstar (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --P e z i (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support good isometric angle, very good composition --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Bystrzyca Kłodzka, stare miasto 11.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2014 at 17:29:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Bystrzyca Kłodzka, stare miasto 11.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Bystrzyca Kłodzka, stare miasto 11.jpg

•  Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful view, good colors, blameless sharpness -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ArionEstar (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Ruthven (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Kadellar (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Nice --LivioAndronico talk 19:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Sky is a little noisy in spots, but otherwise everyone else is right. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Chrumps (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:FEZ trial gameplay HD.webm

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2014 at 16:19:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:FEZ trial gameplay HD.webm Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FEZ trial gameplay HD.webm

Play media

•  Info A rare free use release of extended, unedited gameplay from a high-profile video game. Created by Polytron Corporation - the rest by me -- czar ♔ 16:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- czar ♔ 16:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very good midia, the game sample is well prepared and 2D and 3D overlap mechanics is creative, a good example of platform game. The sound balance (soundtrack x game sound) this a bit lost, but negligible. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (whoops sig)
•  Support Very good and refreshing. Good resolution and long example with lots of details. To be honest I ffw'ed the last two minutes, shame on me. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support — TintoMeches, 13:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Bryum capillare leaf cells.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2014 at 09:50:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bryum capillare leaf cells.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bryum capillare leaf cells.jpg

•  Info created by Des Callaghan - uploaded by Des Callaghan - nominated by -- Des Callaghan (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Des Callaghan (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Baresi F (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent job. The picture is overcategorized, please correct. --Cayambe (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done Des Callaghan (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful capture and good resolution of cells -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 15:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ArionEstar (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 22:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. --XRay ^talk 06:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Arcalino (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support great. --El Grafo (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Like it! --Ruthven (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Would make a great desktop ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 14:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:Victoriahuset September 2014.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2014 at 07:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Victoriahuset September 2014.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Victoriahuset September 2014.jpg

•  Info The Victoria house at Bergius Botanic Garden, Stockholm. The Victoria house was inaugurated in 1900 and the purpose was to cultivate and put on display the giant water lily, Victoria. Today, the house is classified as a historic building and it is unique in its kind, since similar conservatories in Europe have disappeared for various reasons. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- ArildV (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 16:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ArionEstar (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Wickelskink Corucia zebrata.jpg

Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2014 at 00:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wickelskink Corucia zebrata.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wickelskink Corucia zebrata.jpg

•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice image however, the size/quality make it not enough outstanding IMO. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 18:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too blurry. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Wasserbahnhof Mülheim Morgen 03 2014.jpg

Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2014 at 07:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Wasserbahnhof Mülheim Morgen 03 2014.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wasserbahnhof Mülheim Morgen 03 2014.jpg

•  Info Wasserbahnhof located at river Ruhr in Mülheim photographed at morning light with some fog in the background
  all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose It is a nice picture and a good QI. I find the sky is boring, the reflection in the water is very nice, the main subject in itself I find not very interesting. The fraction of the image used for the water surface is perhaps a bit too large for my taste. Overall a little dark. Composition is good but not quite spot on. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your detailed comment, Slaunger. I for myself find the object very intersting. The building with its architecture, position directly at the water and its function is very unique. The German Wikipedia article Wasserbahnhof, an approximate translation is Water Station, directly points to the building shown here - also very unique. In combination with the nice reflections (the reasons why I cannot crop more of the water) and the morning light I find the photo good enough to nominate it here. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, I understand the boundary conditions, and I certainly agree it is good enough to nominate. It just does not feel spot on from a compositional point of view for me. I see other reviewers have another opinion, and that is just fine. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment A bit dark. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done, King of Hearts, I've slightly increased brightness and shadows parts. Please keep in mind that this is an early morning shot with early morning light, no midday. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 18:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Münster, Schloss -- 2014 -- 6771.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2014 at 14:32:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Schloss -- 2014 -- 6771.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Schloss -- 2014 -- 6771.jpg

•  Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Great! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Watzmann ^Talk 11:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose. Nice atmosphere and composition. I think the sky should be cropped a bit more. Nice exposure control on the lamps - it is not easy. I am not happy about the detail level of the main building, which has a washed-out appearance with not many details visible. I think the building facade is a bit too dark. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Better now, thanks. There is some strange light bands on the edge of the roof on the left hand side, and also on the left-hand side of two of the chimneys. Light on the trees to the left look a bit artificial/strange too. Not much structure in the roof and brickwork, but better than before. On the positive side: Very nice compo. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    •  Fixed I reduced the light bands. You're right, it's better now.--XRay ^talk 05:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Fixed Thanks to Tomer T for nominating. It's one of two similiar images that's waiting for nominating. The other one should be an alternative, but now I'm waiting for the reviews of this image. I just uploaded a new improved version with a better resolution and a little bit cropped sky (Thanks Slaunger).--XRay ^talk 05:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 12:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support plus  Comment I clearly prefer the nominated one to the small alternative picture called: other one.--CHK46 (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose. I do like the light but it is really not sharp. Was an in-camera HDR used? Possibly the frames taken didn't align well. The CA round the lamps hasn't been fully removed. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for your review. I just removed the CAs and the new image is uploading.--XRay ^talk 12:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm still seeing red CA on the right edge of the left lamps and the leftmost "chimney". -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Kłodzko, budynki nad rzeką, 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2014 at 07:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Kłodzko, budynki nad rzeką, 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Kłodzko, budynki nad rzeką, 01.jpg

•  Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Question Are you sure the WB is correct? It appears to be that it is too cold. A bit hard to say, as I do not know what is supposed to be white, but whitish surfaces appear to have a blue tint. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment The yellow buiding at right is a bit disturbing, and I agree with Slaunger that it is too blue. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 16:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I changed color balance.--Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --XRay ^talk 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's always far too much blue IMO, see buldings at left, the shadowed buldings must not be blue. With Lightroom an increase of +45 or +50 at the color temperature seems to produce a nice result. I oppose until a better WB. -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Conditional oppose I agree. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)--Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Image:Torhaus & Speicher Schulze Hessing, Südlohn (DSC00573).jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2014 at 22:57:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Torhaus & Speicher Schulze Hessing, Südlohn (DSC00573).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Torhaus & Speicher Schulze Hessing, Südlohn (DSC00573).jpg

202

767

1391

1887

4638

3027

Medieval granary, cultural heritage monument of Südlohn, district of Borken, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Spätmittelalterlicher Wehrspeicher des münsterländischen Gräftenhofes Schulze Hessing in Südlohn-Oeding, Kreis Borken, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland.

1694

232

2934

2533

4638

3027

Gatehouse of a farmhouse in Südlohn, district of Borken, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. It's a cultural heritage monument of Südlohn.

Torhaus des münsterländischen Gräftenhofes Schulze Hessing in Südlohn-Oeding, Kreis Borken, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland.

•  Info created by Watzmann - uploaded by Watzmann - nominated by Watzmann -- -- Watzmann ^Talk 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ---- Watzmann ^Talk 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose. Unfortunately the shadow of the tree is a bit distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per KoH. Yann (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support--Möhren schrappen (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacks a clear compositional idea. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose strong CAs at left, the composition is a bit blocked, and the light seems a bit off (maybe a bit overexposed) -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 16:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Putti Kalvarienberg Frauenkirchen DSC 4862w.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2014 at 16:06:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Putti Kalvarienberg Frauenkirchen DSC 4862w.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Putti Kalvarienberg Frauenkirchen DSC 4862w.jpg

107

4079

3400

480

4000

4692

Not horizontal, but I am also unsure if it should be.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Info Putto at the recently renovated Calvary Frauenkirchen, Burgenland, Austria
•  Support -- P e z i (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment The light on the main subject is very good. I have pointed out a distracting element, which you could consider cropping. I notice that the building elements in the foreground are not horizontal. I am not sure they should be from the vantage point, but I do get the feeling of point-and-shootish composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for review. I've cloned out the distracting element. For the horizontal line: The angle is caused by the point of view. It was taken intentionally from a not centered position to have a view at the left wing of the putto. From a centered view the special expression of the statue would not be visible. --P e z i (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Neutral Thanks, that helped. The wow is not that high for me, so I will go neutral on this one. Thanks for the explanation about the perspective. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 16:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico talk 12:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Male Aix sponsa portrait.jpg

Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2014 at 15:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Male Aix sponsa portrait.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Male Aix sponsa portrait.jpg

•  Info Close-up portrait of a male wood duck, Aix sponsa. The illumination of the iridescent feathers has meant that, inevitably, some white feathers have gone over; however, I can't find any portraits of a wood duck where this hasn't happened :). All by me, -- Baresi F (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Baresi F (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Maybe some oversharpening over there, but nice portrait. Remember the right category for a cautive male and link to wp article in description. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wilfredo - done --Baresi F (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support I think the colour palette in the background works well. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 17:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Support DOF is a liiitle shallow, but main parts are sharp. Perhaps a tad oversharpened for my taste. Background bokeh is very nice as well as the colors, timing and light.-- Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- I also think it looks a bit oversharpened... but very nice overall --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
•  Info Many thanks for the comments, and I agree about the sharpness. I thought I'd only applied some subtle sharpening to the eye when editing the JPEG, but the in-camera RAW-JPEG conversion has obviously applied some of its own across the whole image before I did that. I've reconverted from RAW using the off-camera Oly software, and applied -ve sharpness and it seems to be smoother now. Thanks again!
•  Support --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment This is a great image. I'm not sure if the reflection of the fence and photographer in the duck's eye makes it better or worse, perhaps the former. I would support, but it is a zoo animal :-( -- Des Callaghan (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed pale colors in captive animals, however, all this can be fixed with a little saturation and vibration. This comment is merely technical, beyond cruelty to omit the reality of these animals --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Sant Vasily cathedral in Moscow.JPG

Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2014 at 10:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sant Vasily cathedral in Moscow.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sant Vasily cathedral in Moscow.JPG

•  Info St. Basil cathedral nigth shot. It's older photo made with compact, no downsizing, made some corractions. All by PetarM -- Mile (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support amazing! -- Ruthven (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ArionEstar (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak  Support. A little oversharpened, and the whites are a bit overexposed, but nice picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• weak  Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very nice motive and a good capture, but too much clipping/overexposure in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

 Info I did underxpose the highlits (overexspoed) areas, as much could be done. --Mile (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. Sadly, I don't think there is enough information in many of the areas. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support per Ruthven. ArionEstar (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. Perhaps clever work with masks on the original raw image could improve the whites, perhaps not. There's stunning sharpness and clarity overall, though, for which I'm willing to sacrifice a few whites if necessary. --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Lohusuu õigeusu kirik.jpg

Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2014 at 22:32:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Lohusuu õigeusu kirik.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lohusuu õigeusu kirik.jpg

•  Info created and uploaded by Amadvr - nominated Kruusamägi (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Question Main tower leads quite a lot to the right. Is it leaning in reality or is it just the perspective? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I can't check the original raw file right now, but I think it's rather perspective than actual leaning. Please note the vertical lines on the right side being also slightly towards center. I did adjust the perspective to the point where the collateral distortion of horizontal lines was still bearable, but did not remove it completely. -- Amadvr (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. I understand the compromises, hmmm, I can't make up my mind, as I do find the leaning both ways a bit distracting, on the other hand I do not like over-compensating for perspective either. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Fishermen at Sunset, Playa Santa Teresa, Costa Rica.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2014 at 12:25:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fishermen at Sunset, Playa Santa Teresa, Costa Rica.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fishermen at Sunset, Playa Santa Teresa, Costa Rica.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Christopher Crouzet.

Those guys are standing on slippery but sharp rocks that are constantly being hitten by the waves. Needless to say it's a bit dangerous. All this to catch a few fishes with a simple line, forget about the fish pole. Oh, and they don't mind the low light. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad balance. Sea too big, fishermen too small. Kleuske (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— TintoMeches, 13:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Stift Melk Gartenpavillon 01.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2014 at 07:15:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Stift Melk Gartenpavillon 01.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stift Melk Gartenpavillon 01.JPG

•  Info Garden Pavilion in the park of Melk Abbey, Lower Austria. All by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico talk 13:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose the cut plants at left and right are disturbing -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Images} 16:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— TintoMeches, 13:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)

Sun 05 Oct → Fri 10 Oct
Mon 06 Oct → Sat 11 Oct
Tue 07 Oct → Sun 12 Oct
Wed 08 Oct → Mon 13 Oct
Thu 09 Oct → Tue 14 Oct
Fri 10 Oct → Wed 15 Oct

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

Wed 01 Oct → Fri 10 Oct
Thu 02 Oct → Sat 11 Oct
Fri 03 Oct → Sun 12 Oct
Sat 04 Oct → Mon 13 Oct
Sun 05 Oct → Tue 14 Oct
Mon 06 Oct → Wed 15 Oct
Tue 07 Oct → Thu 16 Oct
Wed 08 Oct → Fri 17 Oct
Thu 09 Oct → Sat 18 Oct
Fri 10 Oct → Sun 19 Oct

Closing a featured picture promotion request

The bot

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

Manual procedure

Any experienced user may close requests.

1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
   Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg)
2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
   featured or not featured
   For example:
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
   becomes
   === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
3. Save your edit.
4. If it is featured:
   • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
   • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
   • Add the template {{Featured picture}} or {{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 Assessements 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.

1. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
   {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
   Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2014), 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/October 2014.
4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
   1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
   2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
   3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.