Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
|
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Adding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Nominations are time-sensitive and for one-time use only. An automatic clock starts as soon as they are created. Do not create them in advance, save them for later or re-activate them. Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using
An 'Alternative' is created by adding a sub-section to the nomination page: ====Alternative==== VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2025 at 21:38:39 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/People#1890-1899
Info created by an unknown photographer, around 1895 – uploaded and restored by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby
Support. Nice reproduction and seasonally appropriate. -- JayCubby (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I think this is a good photo, regardless of the season. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2025 at 19:15:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family : Poaceae
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2025 at 05:49:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
Info Panixersee (Lag da Pigniu) above Andiast. Detail of the waterfall above the reservoir. The Aua dil Mer wasserfall feeds the Panixersee reservoir (Lag da Pigniu) above Andiast.
All by me -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2025 at 05:24:04 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1980-1989
Info created by Kurt Hagblom, Firma Hagblom-Foto – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support I hadn't heard of her. Very important person. Good photo and restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 22:46:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Giraffidae_(Giraffes)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Yofi! JayCubby (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Any coördinates though? JayCubby (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Done -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. JayCubby (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Any coördinates though? JayCubby (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Wow, this reminds me a lot of The Lion King wallpapers. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool Poco a poco (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Kiril, Poco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 22:10:51 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Lacertidae_(True_Lizards)
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 21:31:17 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Uzbekistan
Info Small Dome of Devonaboy mosque, Andijan. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment A very detailed image with a clean and clear composition. But I would strongly suggest, cropping the left symmetrically with the right side. --August (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Done @August --Mile (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Thank you. But what becomes obvious now is, that the camera was not centred exactely so the perspective itself is not symetrical. So unfortunately, I think this can't be fixed in post. --August (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The lack of symmetry is a dealbreaker for me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great picture. The lack of symmetry is not a dealbreaker for me. It does cause some tension, which I hope is intentional, but regardless, this is a very clear picture of a wonderful dome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 16:05:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#China
Info all by 瑞丽江的河水. Double Dragon Bridge (zh) in Jianshui County, Yunnan, China, is a masterpiece of ancient Chinese bridge architecture. It was originally built as a 3-arch bridge in the 18th century and was expanded into a 17-arch bridge in 1839. -- 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. -- 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- At last again a photo from China! Je-str (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Clear photo of a striking bridge. If you know the year of construction, please add that to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Added, thank you.--瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- The file description is on the file page, not in the featured picture candidates nomination. By the way, I don't consider either the 18th or 19th century ancient. I was thinking the description would say it was constructed in the 12th century or earlier, something like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Gotcha, and will write an article in EN Wikipedia as well asap. Unfortunately it was not so old 😂 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong: it's fine that it's not ancient; I'm just telling you how I use that word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Gotcha, and will write an article in EN Wikipedia as well asap. Unfortunately it was not so old 😂 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- The file description is on the file page, not in the featured picture candidates nomination. By the way, I don't consider either the 18th or 19th century ancient. I was thinking the description would say it was constructed in the 12th century or earlier, something like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Added, thank you.--瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment The desturbing twig at the right corner should be cloned out.--Ermell (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the suggestion. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 16:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kcx36 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose It's a nice building but the right crop is unfortunate, the main element is too centered and the main subject mostly in shadow, Poco a poco (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, I have cloned the crop out, hope this version increases the score. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 11:12:35 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Galaxies
Info The horizontal and vertical field of view is 212°, which corresponds to the target region of the astronomical survey. An additional border of a few degrees with a reduced signal-to-noise ratio was not cropped (to make the image circular).
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tk833 -- Tk833 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tk833 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support High level, high valuable picture, and very nice, also. Thanks for this and the others. --Harlock81 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment The image is not circular, though: it's cropped on at least 3 sides. Is it possible to uncrop it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 10:44:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 10:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Info The cloud forest (Fanal) on Madeira exudes a special magic. Its fascination is hard to describe and has a special charm, especially in the fog. I was lucky enough to experience exactly these weather conditions. From all the photos I took, I have selected two outstanding ones for nomination. This is now the second nomination. Forests, and trees in particular, never cease to fascinate me, but I have only rarely experienced this special atmosphere before. -- XRay 💬 10:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 10:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. Looks mystical -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support magical scene. --August (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Atmospheric depth, soft misty light, and the striking texture of the ancient tree. The balanced composition guides the eye naturally through the scene - a powerful and refined composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Not impressive as a thumbnail, but very nice at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Great mystic atmosphere, and I love the interplay of all these curved lines (branches, trunk and ground) which makes this work for me as a pure composition, too. – Aristeas (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 10:33:24 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Trentino-Alto Adige
Info Looking from the Signalgipfel of the Wilder Freiger over the Stubai and Ötztal Alps. The subject is similar to my last nomination. However, the shooting location is higher and offers a wider view. Additionally, the sun is higher in the sky, so there are hardly any shadows. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Well-annotated! JayCubby (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great picture! Congratulations! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 10:24:44 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Mareca
Info All by Charlesjsharp-- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Colorful and competently composed. ― JayCubby (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful bird, excellent picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2025 at 10:05:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail vehicles#United Kingdom
Info created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 10:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 10:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Lovely composition, but lacking in detail. The loco on right is blurry, the vegetation very blurry. Surprising given the high-end camera. Is a better version available? --Tagooty (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a Hasselblad, but I've often wondered how the best aerial cameras compare with the ones landscape photographers use on land? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Don't read too much into the Hasselblad name. They may have been involved in the development but the camera itself is a cheap plastic thing with poor quality control (seriously, this is my second Mavic 3, the first one was worse). DJI only cares about video quality and for 4K their cameras are good enough, while their photo quality is mediocre at best. Nothing I can do about that, unfortunately. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Weak support The 'Hasselblad' in DJI drones is in name only (see also what happened to RadioShack, Invicta, etc). It's not every day that nuclear fuel is schlepped around, and taken as a whole it's a pretty and interesting scene. JayCubby (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 22:06:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Russia
Info created by Mike1979 Russia – uploaded by Mike1979 Russia – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I don't love the shrubbery on the right, but it's a good composition, otherwise, a very pretty church and a quality photo. It does look like there's a little problem with a double image on the cross on top of the church and the ball below it, though. User:Mike1979 Russia, could you work on that a little? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Good light, colours, composition, excellent find. – Aristeas (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 18:12:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ardea
Info Grey heron (Ardea cinerea) on a chilly morning in London. Two photos stitched for some extra detail. We have several FPs of this species already, but I think the level of detail makes this worth a nom. all by — Rhododendrites talk | 18:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 18:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I agree with you. I feel a bit distracted by the disproportionately dark spot in the upper right, though. But I guess I'd say keep it, because it was there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Bottom part have some anomalities, see notes. Since that part of left is small, i would blurr is to be same "level" as sourunding. Also right part some mistake with stich. I would erase that "black dot" above-rigth. It took my vision to that place. I though you used handmade Hi-Res.--Mile (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)- You're right. Petro Stelte (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I missed that, thanks. How strange, though. This is one photo zoomed into the top half of the bird stitched with one of the bottom half. The first doesn't even include the ground, but somehow Lightroom got confused anyway. :/ I made an attempt to fix it (and removed the spot Ikan mentioned, since I was editing anyway). New version uploaded. — Rhododendrites talk | 16:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Risky job you had. So i suppose two panoramic (up+bottom) stiched. But i would put Manual exposure too. --Mile (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Cool hairstyle ;–). – Aristeas (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 17:46:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Aegithalidae_(Long-tailed_Tits)
Info Long-tailed tit (Aegithalos caudatus rosaceus). all by — Rhododendrites talk | 17:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 17:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice bird and very colorful bokeh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful colours, nice bokeh Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 09:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. – Aristeas (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 16:54:24 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky
Info The picture was taken from the Kokino megalithic observatory on 14 August 2015 during the peak period of the Perseids. In addition, the sky was clear and new moon occurred the same night, allowing for a better view in the upper parts of the atmosphere with no moonlight interference. Created by Petrovskyz – uploaded by Petrovskyz – nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Question Pretty picture, but what accounts for the colors in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- The sky appears purple as a result of the interaction between light and particles in the atmosphere. Note that the orange layer of the atmosphere, immediately above the ground, is light pollution. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Right, I figured that was caused by light pollution but was confused about the purple. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- The sky appears purple as a result of the interaction between light and particles in the atmosphere. Note that the orange layer of the atmosphere, immediately above the ground, is light pollution. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I've certainly never seen a night sky that looked purple. (Are there unusual chemicals in the atmosphere? It's well past sunset - I couldn't find sunset times for Kokino, but in Skopje, sunset on August 14 is at 7:35.) However, I accept Kiril's explanation. Beautiful picture, with a sort of magical appearance of the foreground mountains at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 16:18:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Russia
Info Offices of the Government House of Russia in Moscow. My photo. Юрий Д.К. 16:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good image: Overwhelming, suffocating... and we must remember that there are human beings behind it all. --Lmbuga (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 17:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Lmbuga. A bit depressing to me as a complete composition but less so when looking at the somewhat decorated details at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 16:14:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info Icon of the Resurrection of Jesus - Resurrection Gate, Red Square, Moscow. My photo. Юрий Д.К. 16:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent quality and interesting motif Cmao20 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support MZaplotnik(talk) 17:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 14:17:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Just a straightforward flower portrait but IMO a really nice one. created by F. Riedelio – uploaded by F. Riedelio – nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 15:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I changed my opinion. Good imo--Lmbuga (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Pleasant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful, excellent distribution of sharpness combined with good bokeh. – Aristeas (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 10:22:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Cervidae (Deer)
Info Red deer in light rain in Richmond Park, framed by bracken and autumn foliage. C/u/n by me. — Julian H.✈ 10:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support — Julian H.✈ 10:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Simply stunning and the deer is deeply detailed. Well done. JayCubby (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Pretty. A nice picture for Christmas.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Well-composed, atmospheric and technically excellent. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support You could sell this as a Christmas postcard, but instead you choose to share it with the world on Commons. We are privileged. Cmao20 (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 15:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 15:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. Has a magical touch thanks to the natural framing and the autumn colours. – Aristeas (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Wonderful shot.-- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Stunning. --Cart (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 10:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 09:37:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Roads#Sweden
Info Blue hour view of the street Hamngatan in Stockholm, Sweden. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I think Places/Roads#Sweden is a better gallery for this. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Well-composed, clean, and atmospheric blue-hour capture. I took the liberty of adjusting the gallery to Roads, which seems more fitting for this motif. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you!--ArildV (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very satisfying and well-composed photo Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Beautiful nighttime city photo. --Wobbanight 15:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 15:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice! I haven't been there for many years now. Is Malmskillnadsgatan were you took the photo from still "hooker street"? ;-) --Cart (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I would say no. I believe criminalization has led to it taking place less openly, and the dull banking districts from the 1960s and 1970s have been redeveloped, resulting in a more humane environment. Same view 2010 and 2025.--ArildV (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Classic and beautiful blue-hour city scene. – Aristeas (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 08:43:22 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Morocco
Info In this arid, drought-affected area, unusual rain the previous night brought out the natural range of colours. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful, and slight unsharpness at full size is excused by huge resolution Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 15:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I like the landscape in the back but wouldn't call the compo on the image extraordinary. The mosque is the main point attraction attention on the image and is too centered and the other buildings are not interesting Poco a poco (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I think the positioning of the mosque is fine but otherwise agree with Poco. Nice, valuable picture but not an extraordinary composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice colors, specially the greens and reds. --Yann (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Tagooty can you decrase exposure just on mosque ? --Mile (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Done @PetarM: Good idea, thank you! I've reduced the bright sunlight on the mosque and it has brought out some detail. --Tagooty (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Definately much better. --Mile (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 08:20:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Phasianidae_(Grouse,_Partridges,_Peafowl,_Pheasants,_Quail,_Turkeys)
Info All by Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not very sharp or exceptional. The image quality is markedly lower than three recently promoted images of similar species in the same location in the FP Gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Question Do you mean the gray francolins and the rain quail? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Yes, two francolins and one quail. --Tagooty (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice composition outweighs imperfect sharpness Cmao20 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 15:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I concur with Tagooty Poco a poco (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I think File:Rock Bush-Quail in Bhigwan August 2025 by Tisha Mukherjee 02.jpg is better. Would it be within the rules for that picture to be offered as an alternate, or would it have to be nominated separately? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- That photo is close enough and from the same photo session, so totally within the rules. Just remember that the nominator decides if they want to add it as an 'Alt'. There is a guide on how to add an 'Alt' further up on this page; the '#Adding a new nomination' section. --Cart (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I know it's up to Tisha whether to nominate an alt or not, but maybe some people didn't know that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I suspected you knew, my comment was more general since people often learn how FPC works though comments and fixes like this. It's better to be as clear as possible. --Cart (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I suspected you knew, my comment was more general since people often learn how FPC works though comments and fixes like this. It's better to be as clear as possible. --Cart (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was not aware of this. I have added that. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I know it's up to Tisha whether to nominate an alt or not, but maybe some people didn't know that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- That photo is close enough and from the same photo session, so totally within the rules. Just remember that the nominator decides if they want to add it as an 'Alt'. There is a guide on how to add an 'Alt' further up on this page; the '#Adding a new nomination' section. --Cart (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Perdicula argoondah (Rock Bush-Quail)
@Tagooty, Cmao20, Wobbanight, Poco a poco, Ikan Kekek, and W.carter: I have added an alternative and your views are valued to me. I hope you will take a look, thank you. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- I
Support this alt, which is sharper and has nice streaming bokeh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 14:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. – Aristeas (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I don't see a big change regarding sharpness, but pose and crop is better here Poco a poco (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 03:08:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Nymphalidae#Genus : Parasarpa
Info created by SVKMBFLY – uploaded by SVKMBFLY – nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Atudu (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Question Can Atudu please review saturation and exposure levels. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose for now per Charles. A cursory image search seems to indicate that the level of saturation here is abnormal for this species. Cmao20 (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I see your point. User:SVKMBFLY, would you like to clarify? Is this a variant, or is it oversaturated? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- This is the colour of the butterfly in case of post processing I do a little changes in shadow highlight not the saturation level. It may be happened due to low light and using flash or sometimes it may vary device to device. But this is the true colour of the species you can check the other photographs of the same species SVKMBFLY (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- The other photos I saw looked different from this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- This is the colour of the butterfly in case of post processing I do a little changes in shadow highlight not the saturation level. It may be happened due to low light and using flash or sometimes it may vary device to device. But this is the true colour of the species you can check the other photographs of the same species SVKMBFLY (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I see your point. User:SVKMBFLY, would you like to clarify? Is this a variant, or is it oversaturated? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Agree, will support when corrected Poco a poco (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2025 at 00:02:50 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Podicipedidae_(Grebes)
Info A great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) swimming – c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment The portrait of the bird itself is impressively crafted, but the centred position of the main subject in the frame without any further context makes the image boring in my eyes. I see this mistake – or let's call it this devaluation – in the composition very often with various photographers who deal with animal photography. I don't understand this, perhaps someone can explain it to me. Even if you don't have time when taking the picture to reposition the AF measuring field in the viewfinder to make the image more interesting, you still have options in post-processing to make the overall image more dynamic. This motif would be great in a 1:1 crop, give it a try... --Syntaxys (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- The neck and head are close to the center, but the bird as a whole is not, and there is lead room on the right side. I don't see a mistake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Syntaxys: Of course there is more context: the ripples in the water. They are fundamental to the composition. I don't quite understand you: It is not a bird flying. --Lmbuga (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Well, as I noted, I think the portrait of the bird is very well done and from that point of view I would support this image, but I'm not convinced by it's presentation. I'll stay tuned. Syntaxys (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Syntaxys: Of course there is more context: the ripples in the water. They are fundamental to the composition. I don't quite understand you: It is not a bird flying. --Lmbuga (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- The neck and head are close to the center, but the bird as a whole is not, and there is lead room on the right side. I don't see a mistake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would love to take a photograph like this. It's impossible for me. My admiration, Alexis Lours --Lmbuga (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive again. How do you manage to take photos directly above the water surface? Are you sitting in a boat or standing in the water? Holding the camera steady must be quite exhausting.Ermell (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks ! I'm on the edge of the lake, at a rocky spot. My shoes are slightly in the water but I can support the camera on some rocks that are just above water level. I took these two pictures that show the position I have to get these here and here. Using waterproof shoes, the position is not too annoying to hold for a few minutes with the handle of the lens turned upwards. -- Alexis Lours (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good capture. If it were my photo, I might consider cropping a little from the left and/or the bottom so that the bird took up more of the frame, but that is purely personal preference. BigDom (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I would leave a little more space over the head. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly, I don't have any space up there. The photo had slightly more water in the frame, this is how it looks uncropped. -- Alexis Lours (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Let this be as a lot of people has liked it this way but my personal opinion is I like the uncropped frame more with a little more space in front. Beautiful capture. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly, I don't have any space up there. The photo had slightly more water in the frame, this is how it looks uncropped. -- Alexis Lours (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Comic look! Excellent quality and composition. --Tagooty (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 09:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support very nice. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Outstanding! -- Radomianin (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Honestly magnificent Cmao20 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful soft light, love the water droplets on the plumage. – Aristeas (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support What a hair style! ;o) --Yann (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wolf im Wald 06:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 21:45:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#United_States
Info created by Szeremeta – uploaded by Szeremeta – nominated by Szeremeta -- Szeremeta (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Szeremeta (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I think this needs processing to be considered for a possible feature. In particular, the white fence that's alternating green and magenta chromatic aberration is unacceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not only the fence, this image is full of CAs. The white house behind, the wires above it, the gravestones, the cross on the top of the church, etc.
The picture would even miss the QI bar IMO, sorry. Syntaxys (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment This image has FP potential, but it probably shouldn't be promoted unless someone does something about the colour noise and chromatic aberration Cmao20 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)- I am ready to support if the technical issues will be resolved Юрий Д.К. 16:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 21:28:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info created by Szeremeta – uploaded by Szeremeta – nominated by Szeremeta -- Szeremeta (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Szeremeta (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Question What do you find compelling about this photo that makes it an FP to you? The reflections on the car? The overall composition? It's a good photo, but I'm not immediately clear on what makes it outstanding, so I'd like to hear you out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Neutral Can't make my mind up on this. The composition is nice, as is the bokeh in the background. The image quality is very high. But the light on the car is not very inspiring and the strong shadows obscure details. I also miss some lead room - the left crop is too tight and this detracts from the overall impression. Cmao20 (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The shadow and the dirty tire turned toward the photographer make the luxury car look too ordinary. --Thi (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I miss wow here, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Not exceptional --Tagooty (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 19:22:32 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 19:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Info The unusual combination of beautiful weather and strong waves caused by a storm led to this long exposure. -- XRay 💬 19:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 19:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 19:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great composition - foreground stones, foamy waves turned serene by long exposure, striking rocks, and clouded sky create dreamy, surreal tranquility. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I think it's very good and very beautiful, but on the left side of the tip of the rock, the edge between the sky and the rock has a dark halo (or something like that) at some points IMO. Also, on the right side of the tip, there is a slight dust spot. Despite this, I think I will vote in favour, but it would be better if it were remedied. At least the dust spot --Lmbuga (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Impressive. Per User:Radomianin --Lmbuga (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support: Striking, as per above. FYI XRay, there are a number of hot pixels (I'd suggest running sensor mapping). JayCubby (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see the dust spot, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Can the dust and hot pixels be removed with denoise? cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 06:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Why do you ask that? Do you have experience in this area? Can remove the noise remove a dust spot? What do you think? Why do you think orwhy do you ask, cmɢʟee? Lmbuga (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I ask as several people have commented on it. IIRC, Photoshop and the Gimp have denoise filters, but that also removes high-frequency detail. If it's just hot or dead pixels, applying a 3×3 cross median filter has less damaging effect. I can write a script to do so, but only if there's consensus that we should do that. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 06:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Why do you ask that? Do you have experience in this area? Can remove the noise remove a dust spot? What do you think? Why do you think orwhy do you ask, cmɢʟee? Lmbuga (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't stand up to you (poor English), Sorry. But you could have said something clever and intelligible before. Now, I'm sorry, I don't understand anything. --Lmbuga (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Done I removed some hot pixels—not with noise reduction, but by stamping them out individually. These were extremely difficult to find. (Noise reduction would have had too many negative effects.) I didn't find any significant noise anywhere. I removed the slightly visible dust spot. Unfortunately, I must have overlooked it despite searching several times. Sorry. I improved the slightly dark shadow on the rock, but did not remove it completely. -- XRay 💬 07:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I had voted for the picture with the dust spot and those shadows. Now that you've made the effort, I'm delighted to have voted for it. It's a great picture. Thank you. --Lmbuga (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks anyway! Hot pixels are difficult to find in daytime shots. And long exposures sometimes reveal interesting effects that might otherwise go unnoticed. Often these are even things in nature that we cannot perceive with our eyes. -- XRay 💬 08:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @XRay, for future reference, try dragging the image into this tool, which highlights errors in the image. See an example output. JayCubby (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Very interesting tool. I'll take a look at the output. Thank you! --XRay 💬 13:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I had voted for the picture with the dust spot and those shadows. Now that you've made the effort, I'm delighted to have voted for it. It's a great picture. Thank you. --Lmbuga (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking composition --Tagooty (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support beautiful! —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Magical mood Cmao20 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Striking and a tiny little bit from another world. – Aristeas (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the fixes. The rock is majestic, sticking up from the ocean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Neutral Too surreal for me. --Milseburg (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- And yet it is real — through the eyes of the camera. -- XRay 💬 10:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- ...for my eyes. Milseburg (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- And yet it is real — through the eyes of the camera. -- XRay 💬 10:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 18:05:39 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Close-up of a coral (Platygyra daedalea), Anilao, Philippines. This brain coral c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support One needs to read the article and see the lead picture to understand what we are looking at. Yann (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment What is the article? Which article is it? Where is it? I would like to give my opinion, but I don't have any criteria. If there are no photos in the article, I won't be able to give my opinion. I'm sorry, but I don't know any more than I already do, and I don't understand this picture. How can I tell if the photo is FP? I know Poco a poco and I believe in him. Is that enough to vote for his photo here? By the way, I've already looked for photos that might help me, but I feel very lost. I don't want to commit an injustice by not committing myself.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Lmbuga: I think Yann meant the Platygyra daedalea article, also linked in "info" above by Poco. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've seen it and read it without knowing it. It doesn't help. Will we have to vote blindfolded? Well, I'll vote blindfolded. I don't want to be mean. --Lmbuga (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Lmbuga: I think Yann meant the Platygyra daedalea article, also linked in "info" above by Poco. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support I think it's a great photograph. What's more, it was taken by an excellent photographer, but you can't ask me to take any more responsibility than that. --Lmbuga (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sometimes the system does not work. --Lmbuga (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm confused, what is the problem? this is a close-up of a coral of the species Platygyra daedalea. Why blindfolded? what else do you need to review the image? I've added to the description page another image of the very same coral in full size, I hope this helps. The distance between the walls is ca. 2–4 centimetres (0.79–1.57 in) Poco a poco (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support That does help. Both are interesting pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm confused, what is the problem? this is a close-up of a coral of the species Platygyra daedalea. Why blindfolded? what else do you need to review the image? I've added to the description page another image of the very same coral in full size, I hope this helps. The distance between the walls is ca. 2–4 centimetres (0.79–1.57 in) Poco a poco (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sometimes the system does not work. --Lmbuga (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent quality, detail, and nice composition Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice. --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 09:39:43 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Muscicapidae#Genus_:_Saxicola
Info All by Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Someone needs to tell that bird to wipe its beak! But seriously, that's a really good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very well captured --Syntaxys (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Syntaxys --Lmbuga (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Not the prettiest bird species, quality is ok, but compo is really good. Poco a poco (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 09:13:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info Park of Seehof Castle in Memmelsdorf near Bamberg, orthophoto. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 15:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Could be sharper but great compo Poco a poco (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good to my eyes. Pretty and nice composition as per Poco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 13:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 15:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good subject for an orthophoto, nice symmetry, and the fruit trees in blossom bring some pleasant variation into the pattern. – Aristeas (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan Kekek en Aristeas.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 07:11:12 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Mike Peel – uploaded by Mike Peel – nominated by Mike Peel -- Mike Peel (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. I like the painting (which is PD-old), and my photograph of it and its frame came out unexpectedly well. With thanks to User:Zen 38 for the categorisation, and User:ArionStar for suggesting to nominate it here. I'm not sure if I've got the right gallery, as this is a photo of non-photographic media. -- Mike Peel (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment This is a good reproduction of a nice painting, but compared to other painting reproductions we've featured, I doubt this is an FP, for at least 2 reasons: (1) the frame seems as emphasized as or maybe even more emphasized than the painting; (2) the bit of label is distracting enough to make the composition less than perfect. I would suggest keeping this but making a version under a different filename that lacks the frame and background and shows only the canvass. Even then, though, the resolution is probably too low to compete with the colossal reproductions we've featured that show individual dots of paint. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the feedback. I'd missed the bit of the label, so I've cropped that out, thanks for pointing it out! With the frame, I think that's a core part of the photo - this is how the picture is displayed and is normally seen, and Wikidata even has image with frame (P7420) specifically for pictures with their frame included. With the resolution, this is 37MPix, it's difficult to do much better without very specialised equipment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice, and for me, it's fine to have an FP with the frame, a bit of variety is always pleasant and not all images of artwork have to take the same approach. Re 'colossal reproductions we've featured that show individual dots of paint', I take Ikan's point but honestly who needs to see individual dots of paint? I prefer an image like this where I can actually view it without it taking up all my computer memory. Cmao20 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice painting, good resolution, frame is OK. --Yann (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support but I find the list very dominant.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 06:34:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#North Macedonia
Info created by Деан Лазаревски – uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski – nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Nice composition at full-page size, but at full size, it is not as sharp as File:Memmelsdorf Schlossgarten Seehof Luftbild-20240412-RM-171016.jpg, nominated above, though I have the feeling it was shot from higher (the numbers above sea level are certainly higher, but I don't know how those relate to the elevation above the ground). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I used this tool to find that the ground elevation is 416 m, so the camera is about 132 m above the ground. Note that it was necessary to elevate the drone so high in order to capture the lines of the river and the road with the surrounding ambient, as well as to avoid collision with the taller trees. So, there’s basically a trade-off between composition and sharpness, but, in my opinion, the sharpness is still very good given the distance from the ground.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Very nice composition and colours outweighs borderline sharpness IMO Cmao20 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I've uploaded a sharper version. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)- Mild
Support per discussion and Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Lovely photo. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2025 at 05:44:44 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Netherlands
Info Pulpit of Martinikerk (Bolsward) One of the four woodcarving panels on the pulpit (1662). This one depicts the season " Summer." Artwork by Johannes Kinnema 1620-1673.
All by me -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice composition in the carvings and the photo, and well executed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support A good addition to the gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful carving and well captured Cmao20 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Some Soviet symbols can be seen. Good QI and colors. --Mile (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2025 at 22:36:05 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Diogenidae_(Left-handed_Hermit_Crabs)
Info White-spotted hermit crab (Dardanus megistos), Anilao, Philippines. This species is present in the Indo-Pacific region from East Africa to the South China Sea, Australia and east to Hawaii and can reach a body length of about 20 cm (7.9 in). These crustaceans, that may live up to 30 years, usually inhabit a large shell of a gastropod, consequently only the cephalothorax and the first three pairs of legs (out of five pairs) are visible. Note: there is no FPs of this species on Commons. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I really like this, it is top-class even amongst the rest of your underwater FPs Cmao20 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MspreilsCN (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support This is very well done. --Syntaxys (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 15:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per others. This is a beautiful type of hermit crab. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2025 at 20:32:45 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Uzbekistan
Info Close-up of Kalyan Minaret (Минарет Калян, Minorai Kalon) in Bukhara. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Or to view in in 20 Mpx
Support -- Mile (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support very detailed shot with a clean and simple composition of structure and colour. --August (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Exemplary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I know I'm going to swim against the tide, but I don't believe the colour of the sky and for me, for that reason, it's not FP. I don't wonder how his camera translated the colour of the sky, I wonder how he saw it. If that's alright with you, perfect. --Lmbuga (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, it might be too dark, but otherwise exemplary, as I said above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Lmbuga few pictures above, rocks in sea... So you see them or "belive the color of sea" ? You saw it like that ? --Mile (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support To dark sky but beautiful photo Юрий Д.К. 16:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2025 at 19:14:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Delphinidae_(Oceanic_Dolphins)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 19:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. I like your trend of midair captures. Any GPS coordinates to add here, though? JayCubby (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Done -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- As always, thank you! JayCubby (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very good.Ermell (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice capture --Syntaxys (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Jakubhal 19:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Not only did you get the shot - the dolphin is even sharp! And furthermore, it's a good composition! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Excellent action shot per Ikan Kekek. @Giles Laurent: I guess you used focus-tracking in the A1? --Tagooty (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! I only used regular AF animal detection (which works very well and which I use almost all the time). You can't really use focus tracking on the jumping dolphin because you can't select it before it jumps out of the water and the movement is very quick and you also don't know where exactly it will come out of the water -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, useful information. Tagooty (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! I only used regular AF animal detection (which works very well and which I use almost all the time). You can't really use focus tracking on the jumping dolphin because you can't select it before it jumps out of the water and the movement is very quick and you also don't know where exactly it will come out of the water -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 15:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2025 at 17:58:24 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Furnariidae (Ovenbirds and Woodcreepers)
Info The rufous horneo, or red ovenbird, builds a complex oven-like nest from mud. As a nest-builder, does it have a match? Around human habitation, the nest may be more concealed. The hornero uses it only once. Other birds use it in subsequent years. No FPs of this bird family. National bird of Argentina. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 19:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Funny.--Ermell (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Agreed. JayCubby (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I would have chosen at least a more decentralised and tighter crop for this otherwise good image. The way the subject is presented detracts from it, in my opinion. --Syntaxys (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think the the crop is irrelevant with a sky background and a bizarre reason to oppose. In this case, it shows that the post is out in the open and allows anyone to crop to suit other wikis, the space on the printed page etc. But I can do any crop that the majority prefer - a portrait crop? Charlesjsharp (talk)
- I prefer the current crop to a possible portrait crop, let it breathe Cmao20 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support To me, it looks slightly tilted to the right, but the picture is so good that it doesn't matter. Perhaps it is better this way. --Lmbuga (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- It's not tilted but the nest is not quite symmetrical. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great, and I agree completely with Cmao20 about the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Syntaxys: So far, no one has asked for a crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- I really appreciate your work, Charles, you take great photos. But I find this one a bit boring simply because of the cropping you chose. The sky just doesn't provide enough context. If there were at least a little cloud to be seen... Syntaxys (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Well actually the whole point of the compostion is that, to me, it looks like a giant match. That is the 'context', but you don't have to like it! Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Syntaxys: So far, no one has asked for a crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Юрий Д.К. 16:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2025 at 12:45:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Ornaments
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good quality, well framed, and interesting subject Cmao20 (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 19:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I would add a bit more contrast. --Yann (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. (Just a word about names English-speakers give churches: with a few very well-known exceptions, such as Saint Peter's Basilica instead of the Basilica of San Pietro and St. Mark's in Venice instead of San Marco, we use the original name for churches. So if you look at the en.Wikipedia article about this church, its title is w:Abbey Church of Sainte-Foy.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Cmao20. Love these Romanesque tympana. – Aristeas (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2025 at 12:43:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice light and composition Cmao20 (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 19:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose An atmospheric image with a path that leads the viewer’s eye. Unfortunately, I don’t see it as FP. For a landscape of this kind, it lacks the exceptional quality that would be needed, in my view. The shrubs in the foreground are not very engaging and weaken the composition, while the sharpness on the main subject — the rocks — is good but not outstanding. --August (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I agree that it's a little soft, but I think that in spite of the photo's title, it's really not of the dolmen but of the dolmen in a big landscape with stormy clouds at sunset. I'd call it neo-Romantic, and I mean it reminds me of Romantic paintings (it's more realistic than Turner, though), I think it's special, and I think the shrubs work well as part of the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Neutral The subject is interesting and the atmosphere is nice, but I do find the foreground shrubbery distracting, although not enough to oppose. BigDom (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Юрий Д.К. 16:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2025 at 23:04:23 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Rosales#Family : Rosaceae
Info All by me -- Ermell (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Superb stack, as per usual. JayCubby (talk)
Support Flawless focus stacking, edge-to-edge sharpness, exquisite lateral lighting, and a clean background - technically precise and visually striking. -- Radomianin (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yes - this is a very high level of post-stacking correction and we should we should expect this in all FPC. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Per others --Famberhorst (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great closeup! I love looking at the details on the stem, the anthers and the petals. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 19:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice details --Syntaxys (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great light and detail. BigDom (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 15:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2025 at 21:28:39 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Brazil
Info created by Mike Peel – uploaded by Mike Peel – nominated by Mike Peel -- Mike Peel (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support There were previous nominations back in 2023 by @ArionStar: (1 and 2). I've since improved its post-processing to address the issues raised back then, and it's now an English Wikipedia Featured Picture and a Quality Image here, and I've been encouraged to have another go here. Please have another look! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support The picture has been substantively improved since the previous nominations and deserves a fresh look Cmao20 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Cmao20. -- Radomianin (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Per others --Famberhorst (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support nice colors, high quality. Look very unusal with ultra-wide lens. -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Interesting colors. --Mile (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 19:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great use of a wide FOV! JayCubby (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Different Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 15:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 16:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2025 at 18:05:02 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Historical
Info created by Vittore Carpaccio, scanned by Google, uploaded and nominated by Yann
Info Young Knight in a Landscape is a painting of the Italian Renaissance by Vittore Carpaccio. Dated 1510, this is the earliest full-length portrait in Western painting. Color correction was done matching the version from the museum. Since the size is huge, and the image may not display in some cases, I uploaded a downscaled version: File:Vittore Carpaccio - Young Knight in a Landscape - Google Art Project, DS.jpg, which is shown above. The original is available at File:Vittore Carpaccio - Young Knight in a Landscape - Google Art ProjectFXD.jpg.
Support -- Yann (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Thanks for posting the link to the downscaled version. I have 110.8 Mbps download and seemed completely unable to view the full-size image by any means: it seemed to download forever. But the downscaled photo is remarkable work, so for whomever has super-fast internet, the full-size version must be even more remarkable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment It would be useful if a smaller version of the image were referenced on the nomination page so that the overview page loads normally. I cannot display this image, which is very annoying because my browser tries to fetch this image every time I reload the page. Thanks! Syntaxys (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Syntaxys and UnpetitproleX: OK, done. Yann (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support but agree with Syntaxys. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 12:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Stunning reproduction of an important painting. Note the numerous interesting details (e.g. the birds in the tree, the piece of paper with the kight’s motto, etc.) which can be studied in all their diligent beauty thanks to the extreme resolution. – Aristeas (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Honestly not fond of these extremely high resolution digitisations of artwork but I guess it should be FP, yeah Cmao20 (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I upload a more compressed version (90% instead of 98%) over the original to see if the servers can create thumbnails. It greatly reduced the file size, but so far it doesn't make a difference. I will revert it after 24h unless something appears. Yann (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2025 at 16:52:36 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info created and uploaded by Rafael Lemieszek – nominated by Wobbanight -- Wobbanight (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Harmonious composition, but I think the strong vignetting is a problem Cmao20 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Cmao20: for what it's worth, and independently of this nomination, this was taken with an older Nikkor lens with an adapter, so there's no profile for automatic compensation, and I didn't try to remove it manually because I actually like how it turned out. Thanks for your input, in any case. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support The vignetting doesn't greatly concern me. Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- I would also reduce the vignetting, as it distracts from what is otherwise a good image. Syntaxys (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The light and composition are nice, but the vignetting is too strong for me. I take the point about the way the photo was captured, but ultimately I think it does detract from the end result. BigDom (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Reminds me much of photos from my childhood; yes, that was the look of the good old Nikkors. From today’s point of view the vignetting is a bit strong, but if I look at the photo in full size, it is really impressive, the vignetting emphasises the concentration on the cascades, so for me this one still keeps up with today’s best photographs, it just works a bit differently. – Aristeas (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2025 at 08:24:52 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info Mining-themed ornaments on the portal of Montanuniversität Leoben, created by Aciarium – uploaded by Aciarium – nominated by Aciarium -- Aciarium (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Aciarium (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Good detail shot. But I'm missing wow here. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support For me the wow is in the sheer richness of the details Cmao20 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MspreilsCN (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose I agree with Ermell on both counts - it's a very good picture of some nice details but not extraordinary. I might have liked it more if the top of the semicircle (part of a wheel?) with protrusions had not been cropped out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Agree that a bit more at the top could improve the composition, but after looking a while at it it works for me. – Aristeas (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
File:PIA rendezvous-edit.jpg (delist)
Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2025 at 07:13:37
Info Bad quality even for the year it was taken. Very obvious tilt and perspective distortion, low level of detail, and highly visible chromatic aberrations. Original nom had issue of sockpuppetry as well. Not even a QI, neither today nor back in 2009. (Original nomination)
Delist -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 07:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Delist I agree, this is certainly not an FP today, and with an original vote of 6 people legitimately voting to support, it wouldn't have passed under today's rules. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Delist -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Delist It's a nice concept with a plane against mountains, but poorly composed. JayCubby (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Delist Agree that the tilt and perspective distortion are a problem, and the original nomination was very marginal Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Delist Per others. --August (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Delist How did this ever pass? BigDom (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Delist How was this even nominated? --Wobbanight 15:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Delist Also a somewhat odd discussion on the original nomination – in addition to the votes which have already been marked as invalid/discounted, more of the users who participated have been convicted as sockpuppeteer. – Aristeas (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2025 at 17:20:59 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/People#1940-1949
Info created by USAF – uploaded by Jenejames – nominated by Ibo rm -- Ibo rm (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ibo rm (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support This photo is quite interesting to me. However, it's unclear whether the white spots are snow or damage, and I think that's probably why people have hesitated to vote on the nomination: they may be thinking it would be better for the photo to be digitally restored before it's given a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2025 at 10:13:48 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Regulidae_(Kinglets)
Info A goldcrest (Regulus regulus), c/u/n by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I like the busy/colorful bokeh for a change. JayCubby (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 07:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose It lacks sharpness Poco a poco (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Not your sharpest … but the bird so cute, the composition with the twig so fine, the background bokeh so beautiful. – Aristeas (talk)
Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2025 at 10:06:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical/People#1960-1969 (one could argue others)
Info created by the Black Panther Party from a photograph by Blair Stapp – restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice restoration with a noteworthy resolution. JayCubby (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Really valuable. I trust there's no copyright issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
- SI is usually quite diligent about their copyright. JayCubby (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
- Also, PD-nonotice is a pretty simple case. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- SI is usually quite diligent about their copyright. JayCubby (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 07:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight 16:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2025 at 09:43:45 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info Writer Simone Barrientos at the Frankfurt Book Fair 2025 – created and uploaded by Harald Krichel – nominated by Augustgeyler -- August (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- August (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support expressive portrait, very good --Gower (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Gower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Gower and Ikan Kekek --Wobbanight 21:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
concur with above users. JayCubby (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Neutral I don't think this promotion to light up a cigarette suits me.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I find it disturbing to see her smoking, but that didn't prevent me from judging the photo as good and worth a feature. I don't think it promotes smoking, though: it's a portrait of a writer/politician. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'd read that this woman is a writer/politician. So she's a role model. This means she's aware of the impact her behavior has on those around her. I also wonder if she's aware that this photo of her is going viral.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- Cigarette smoking is a very difficult addiction to kick. A few years ago, I read a report of a study that found the average number of attempts to quit by successful quitters of smoking was 7. It's said to be harder to quit than cocaine, heroin and alcohol. And when someone is an addict, it's no longer really a choice. So I don't think she's trying to model behavior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- I generally don't think public figures have a duty to be good role models in everything they do, honestly. Cmao20 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Cigarette smoking is a very difficult addiction to kick. A few years ago, I read a report of a study that found the average number of attempts to quit by successful quitters of smoking was 7. It's said to be harder to quit than cocaine, heroin and alcohol. And when someone is an addict, it's no longer really a choice. So I don't think she's trying to model behavior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'd read that this woman is a writer/politician. So she's a role model. This means she's aware of the impact her behavior has on those around her. I also wonder if she's aware that this photo of her is going viral.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I find it disturbing to see her smoking, but that didn't prevent me from judging the photo as good and worth a feature. I don't think it promotes smoking, though: it's a portrait of a writer/politician. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support The cigarette itself is important in the picture; the picture could even be a good example for the fight against smoking, why not?: "Unfortunately, Simone Barrientos smokes" (She almost certainly agrees, as I am a smoker). I do not believe that a change in the description of the picture is required in this sense. --Lmbuga (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Famberhorst. Quality is fine, but I can't find the 'wow' factor here IMO. --heylenny (talk/edits) 19:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support A well-adorned woman. A good portrait.--Ermell (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 22:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Agree, not sure about the extraordinarity of the image Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per other opposers about a lack of 'wow'. As someone who doesn't know anything about this person, the impression I get from this photograph is someone who's annoyed to be having their picture taken, rather than a sympathetic portrait. BigDom (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2025 at 00:14:23 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Palaces#Uzbekistan
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Красный -- Красный wanna talk? 00:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Красный wanna talk? 00:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice to me, and I actually like that this beautiful gate is shown as part of an everyday scene of ongoing construction, but I feel sure you'll get pushback about that, as many FPC regulars want photos that aren't expressly of crowds and so on to be as pristine-looking as possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support On the small side for FP but I find the gate beautiful and I don't mind the construction Cmao20 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment WB is not there. You should low down, at least orange-yellow. --Mile (talk)
- Not sure about that. Photo is made at the beginning of the goden hour and you can see the white wall behind the gates that is completely white with no colour shift. Красный wanna talk? 17:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment @ Красный Maybe clock was set on Moscow time ? --Mile (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- No, on Almaty time. IDK if you've noticed that being in Bukhara, but in this yellowish tone is more persistent there — all brick buildings are yellow, sun tends to go to yellow a bit earlier and so on. You can see the same effect here, it's an hour later, but still 2,5 hours before sunset. Красный wanna talk? 03:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment OK if so. --Mile (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose WB doesn't help, size doesn't help, and the detail of the bricks doesn't help, IMO. --Lmbuga (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Beautiful architecture. Well, yellow/orange bricks and warm evening sunlight will certainly give this effect, and while it looks a bit ‘monochrome’ at the first glance, it’s certainly both realistic and has a certain something. – Aristeas (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2025 at 14:26:10 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Italy
Info created by Maurizio Moro5153 – nominated by Ruthven -- Ruthven (msg) 14:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Ruthven (msg) 14:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Wish the quality was better, but other than that it's a very beautiful image. --Wobbanight 15:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support- Changing my vote to
Oppose. per Yann, Ermell, and JayCubby. Wobbanight 21:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Indeed, very beautiful. It reminds me of Adams's style, more so when I made b&w. JayCubby (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)- Changing my !vote. I just noticed the masking artifacts on the Alps. JayCubby (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
--Yann (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support
- Changing my vote to
Oppose. This was manipulated, and the manipulation not disclosed. Yann (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)--Ermell (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support
Oppose Have to change my vote. Too many errors and not enough quality. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It looks too artificial to me with visible traces of processing in the area of the snowy mountains. --Milseburg (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Milseburg. Almost all line of white Alps is processed. Many mistakes around, texture doesnt cover. --Mile (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Milseburg. Overprocessed and not even good at that. Je-str (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)- Regretful
Oppose, I like the mood and the composition but the signs of manipulation are unmistakeable and a little clumsy Cmao20 (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment The more I stare at this photo, the worse it gets. The mountains are so obviously manipulated. --Wobbanight 15:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2025 at 03:08:19 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Black and White#Objects
Info created and uploaded by Prburley – nominated by Falcão Alado -- Falcão Alado (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Falcão Alado (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Nice subject and good quality, but I don't think black and white was the right choice here Cmao20 (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. I'd like to see a photo of this statue in warm sunlight, or possibly sunset or sunrise, in color. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per above and discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. I'd like to see a photo of this statue in warm sunlight, or possibly sunset or sunrise, in color. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I don't know if color is better, but I like this black and white photo :-) Zquid (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Don't really understand the choice of monochrome here. BigDom (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 09:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per above Poco a poco (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2025 at 19:49:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info created and uploaded by Orthochrome – nominated by Wobbanight -- Wobbanight (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great architectural photograph. But to be clear, are you the same person as Orthochrome? Cmao20 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- No, I am not. Wobbanight (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Some crop above ? Love the structure. --Mile (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose The quality is very good, but the subject is not overwhelming and the light is dull. --Milseburg (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support Very good photo per others, and on the whole, I think it deserves a feature, but weak support because Milseburg has a point about the light. (I demur on the subject, because while I agree that none of the buildings are overwhelming, the combination of shapes is good enough to feature, in my opinion.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Looking again and again at this image, I get the impression that the unspectacular light is actually advantageous in this case because it shows all details of the façades nicely and seems to add a delicate soft glow to the scene – I can’t explain this, but it has a fine charm which I have never seen in photos with full sunlight. In the end this photo impresses me more than many much more flashy images, because it demonstrates that you can actually take a beautiful photo of mediocre buildings with unspectacular light – so hats off to Orthochrome! – Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's an astute observation.
- On a completely different subject, I'm noticing some magenta and green chromatic aberration on the upper reaches of the building to the left, on what I believe to be white slats in vertical rectangles inside the semicircular area and then more subtly on the conic roof. User:Orthochrome, if you're reading, could you work on that? I won't pull my support because these are small problems in context, but if I'm right that they're CA, that's not optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Yes, some CA was there, saw before vote, on Zebra patern (triangle roof and windows bellow). But User:Orthochrome wont be here, probably. --Mile (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- How do you feel about featuring it as one of the best pictures on the site? Is that a mistake? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 09:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Grafia e Areia
Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2025 at 16:54:28 (UTC)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Texture photography
Info created and uploaded by Breno Silva Ribeiro – nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 16:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- heylenny (talk/edits) 16:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but this is not eligible as a set, as it is just a random selection of images of one subject. You should pick up one and nominate it. Poco a poco (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- It is not a random cluster of images; it is a set of artistic texture photos called Grafia e Areia (Portuguese for "Writing and Sand") by the author, reminding a photographic exhibition uploaded on Commons, and seems valid IMO. Perhaps I didn't make that clear when I nominated them. heylenny (talk/edits) 22:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "reminding" in this context? It looked random to me. What makes it not random? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean "resembling" and not reminding. I often see that people speaking French/Spanish/Portuguese have problems with these words. --Cart (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- "Reminding" in the sense of making me imagine this as if it were a photographic exhibition. heylenny (talk/edits) 03:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- That would be "reminiscent of" or "reminding me of". But why does that exempt it from FP rules on sets? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- "Reminding" in the sense of making me imagine this as if it were a photographic exhibition. heylenny (talk/edits) 03:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- It is not a random cluster of images; it is a set of artistic texture photos called Grafia e Areia (Portuguese for "Writing and Sand") by the author, reminding a photographic exhibition uploaded on Commons, and seems valid IMO. Perhaps I didn't make that clear when I nominated them. heylenny (talk/edits) 22:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment A 'set' on FPC has a more scientific meaning, and it's usually not used for photos from an exhibition. It has only happened once, a special case, of notable photos of doctors and nurses during the Covid pandemic. Now, if this Grafia e Areia is a notable photo exhibition and these photos are all the photos from that exhibition, this would be a valid set, just like if it were all the illustrations from a notable book. In that case you need specify when and where the photo exhibition was held. But if this is just a number of images paired together on Commons, and that seems to be the case, it doesn't falls under the Set criteria here. In that case it would be better to select and nominate just one or two as regular nominations and withdraw this nom. --Cart (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight 00:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice set of pics! -- Falcão Alado (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Nice designs, but some of the pictures don't look that sharp to me, with some areas out of focus and visible chroma noise in other areas. And I am also unconvinced this is an appropriate set, because it would surely need to be every photo from the exhibition otherwise the set is incomplete, per Cart. Cmao20 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Some are unsharp and noise can be seen. --Mile (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per my comment above, since according to the nominator ("making me imagine this as if it were a photographic exhibition"), so not photos from an actual exhibition, but just a collection that they imagine could be an exhibition. --Cart (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as a set per others. I haven't considered any of the photos on an individual basis but would be happy to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Exactly per Ikan. BigDom (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment I would vote for some of these images if they were presented individually. Some may also need a very careful reduction of the colour noise (very careful in order not to damage the fine textures). – Aristeas (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2025 at 07:10:39 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Ukraine#Zakarpattia_Oblast
Info This image shows a scene in the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve in Zakarpattia Oblast, Ukraine. Created by Vian – uploaded by Vitalii Bashkatov – nominated by Syntaxys -- Syntaxys (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support There are probably several other FPs in this category, but personally, I am impressed by the beauty of the landscape and the professionalism with which this image was created. -- Syntaxys (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Nice Poco a poco (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support impressive, especially ice --Gower (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very beautiful and well done – thank you for finding and nominating this one, Syntaxys! Tiny CAs at the tree tops, but IMHO negligible. – Aristeas (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support The handling of the sun is excellent. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Vitalii Bashkatov: coordinates would be useful, could you add them? --Gower (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- He's been inactive for a half-decade, I'm afraid. JayCubby (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight 14:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support красота --Mile (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Terragio67 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Fantastic. -- JayCubby (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Stunningly beautiful Cmao20 (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 14:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Mounir TOUZRI (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Nice view, but unfortunately grossly oversaturated, especially in blue and green channels, making it look more like a fantasy sketch than a photograph. --Argenberg (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose It sounds on the basis of what you say like you might oppose if there were not overwhelming support for the picture. But in addition, I don't find this to be a great composition, although it has some great elements including the ice that was mentioned above. Or the short version is: I dissent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Zquid (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Support JackyM59 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Ikan and Argenberg. The colours are uncanny to my eye. BigDom (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 09:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Overprocessed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 21:52:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/People#1910-1919
Info created by James B. Schriever – uploaded and restored by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support. The man on the left is from his state's 218th GAR post. I don't know which state, though. -- JayCubby (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Presumably Pennsylvania. Very sharp photo, excellent restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. Yann (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support flawless --Gower (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Strong support Love historical photos. --Wobbanight 13:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Terragio67 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 14:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good photo with historical value in good reproduction. – Aristeas (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 07:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose A carefully restored and historically valuable image. Unfortunately, the decision to recalibrate the contrast so mildly, in my view, causes the picture to lose much of the visual anticipation one might otherwise have when looking at it. The intention to emphasise its age diminishes the dynamism the image would once have had when it was new, and it misses the opportunity that a digital reproduction could offer. --August (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Augustgeyler, thank you for the feedback. I'll leave the contrast alone in the future, but unfortunately I don't use layers and can't easily go back. Cheers! JayCubby (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 17:17:49 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Others
Info created by User:Julesvernex2 – uploaded by User:Julesvernex2 – nominated by Augustgeyler -- August (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- August (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the nomination, August, this is a personal favourite! Comparing it to the other image in this series, it's striking how much the human element and the matching colours add to the scene. Thank you also to Sebring12Hrs, who noted that the sky was posterised on the original upload. Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Question I don't suppose it really matters, does it, that we have three people using one User name? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Discussion on username policy
|
|---|
|
Support Great composition. Yann (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Great quality and composition. --Lmbuga (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Yes, great use of diagonals. JayCubby (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Exquisite composition, and the point is that you got the moment in which Jules passes the light of the window. – Aristeas (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support as per Lmbuga. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Анастасия Львоваru/en 11:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see a 'wow' here. --heylenny (talk/edits) 14:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I probably wouldn't have been a lone opposer, but I agree with you. Ordinary good (definitely not mediocre) photo to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry this a QI but i don´t get the "wow" factor here --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Good composition and colours. Who is Jules, though? cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 06:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- The pen name for one of the three anonymous persons in the creative collective behind the Julesvernex2 account. --Cart (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
File:Übeltalferner.jpg, not featured
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2025 at 13:11:33 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Trentino-Alto Adige
Info View of Übeltalferner, Sonklarspitze, Zuckerhütl and Wilder Pfaff seen from the Becherhaus in the Stubai Alps. On the glacier the shadow of the shooting location. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too much is in shadow. --Mile (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Very nice. I think the shade is just right. If there were little shaded space, it would be annoying. The only alternative, in my opinion, would be that there could be no panoramic FPs with shadows.--Lmbuga (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per Mile --Gower (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Indeed, that shadow spoils the compo, not the best timing Poco a poco (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Support I don't mind the shadow because it is clearly the shadow of another mountain peak so it doesn't damage the mood Cmao20 (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Support per Lmbuga and Cmao20. The shadow hints at the facing mountain and makes clear that we are mid in the Stubai Alps. – Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Per Mile and Poco a poco. That and the empty sky make for an underwhelming timing. Gyrostat (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose Per Mile and Poco a poco --Wobbanight 16:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, but the shadow of the Becher mountain with the house on it's summit in a special point here. Strange, that it's not accepted or even noticed here. I deliberately included the shadow and find it important, as it clearly shows the exposed location of the shooting position. Otherwise, as is well known, it's difficult to integrate the mountain you're standing on into a mountain panorama.--Milseburg (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 14:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Support Looking at this photo again, I see the shadow as a nice shape that contributes to the composition. The composition may not be completely conventional, but hewing too close to convention all the time is a bad idea in any art. I also take note of Milseburg's remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Thu 27 Nov → Tue 02 Dec Fri 28 Nov → Wed 03 Dec Sat 29 Nov → Thu 04 Dec Sun 30 Nov → Fri 05 Dec Mon 01 Dec → Sat 06 Dec Tue 02 Dec → Sun 07 Dec
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Sun 23 Nov → Tue 02 Dec Mon 24 Nov → Wed 03 Dec Tue 25 Nov → Thu 04 Dec Wed 26 Nov → Fri 05 Dec Thu 27 Nov → Sat 06 Dec Fri 28 Nov → Sun 07 Dec Sat 29 Nov → Mon 08 Dec Sun 30 Nov → Tue 09 Dec Mon 01 Dec → Wed 10 Dec Tue 02 Dec → Thu 11 Dec
Closing a featured picture promotion request
The bot
Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.
Manual procedure
Any experienced user may close requests.
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|gallery=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag featured or not featured – for example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate gallery of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to the appropriate gallery and section of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images. An image should only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the com-nom parameter. For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another Wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the talk page of the nominator. For set nominations, use:
== Set Promoted to FP ==
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|YYYYY}}, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of YYYYY. - Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedUploader|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the talk page of the user who has uploaded the image, if that user is not the same as the nominator. - Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotedCreator|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the talk page of the creator, if the author is a different Commons user than nominator and uploader.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
{{FPC-delist-results-reviewed|delist=x|keep=x|neutral=x|delisted=yes/no|sig=~~~~}}
(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg) - Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
delisted or not delisted
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2025.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- Edit the picture's description as follows:
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). If the image description page uses the old {{Featured picture}} template, replace it with {{Assessments|featured=2}}.
- Remove the image from all categories beginning with "Featured [pictures]" (example: Featured night photography, Featured pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments 2016, Featured pictures of Paris).
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" from the picture's Structured data.
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture must not be removed from the chronological list.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Manual archiving of a withdrawn nomination
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the occasion that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|gallery=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2025), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
