Commons:Featured picture candidates
Formal things
Nominating
Guidelines for nominators
Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.
This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
- Scope – In addition to falling within the Commons scope, candidates must be static two-dimensional images. All other types of files should be nominated at Commons:Featured media candidates.
- Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
- Resolution – Raster images of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. This does not apply to vector graphics (SVGs).
- Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
- Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
- General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
- Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
- For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates.
- For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful color adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
- Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
- almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
- night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
- beautiful does not always mean valuable.
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents
There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.
Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.
Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.
Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.
Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
- Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
- Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
- Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
- Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."
Photographs
On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
- Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
- Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
- Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
- Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
- Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
- Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
- Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
- Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
- Color is important. Oversaturated colors are not good.
- Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
- Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
- Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
- Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
- Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or color AND texture, etc.
- Noise refers to unwanted corruption of color brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
- Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
- Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.
Video and audio
Please nominate videos, sounds, music, PDFs, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates.
Set nominations
If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
- Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
- A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
- A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
- A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).
Adding a new nomination
If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories and licensing, then do the following.
Step 1: Copy the image name into this box, after the text already present, 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
Galleries and Sets: All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.
Step 3: Manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
- {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}
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: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports An image will only appear ONE time in the galleries. After a successful nomination, the image can be placed in several of the Featured pictures categories.
Optional: If you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.
Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters. They should be added by, or at the request of, the nominator.
An 'Alternative' is created by adding a sub-section to the nomination page: ====Alternative====
[[File:Foo.jpg|300px]]
*{{info}} A short description.
Voting
Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 100 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages) can vote. Everybody can vote for their own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.
You may use the following templates:
- {{Support}} (
Support), - {{Oppose}} (
Oppose), - {{Neutral}} (
Neutral), - {{Comment}} (
Comment), - {{Info}} (
Info), - {{Question}} (
Question), - {{Request}} (
Request).
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator.
A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.
Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
- No reason
- "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
- "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).
Featured picture delisting candidates
Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
| Text to use | Displays as | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| {{Keep}} | It deserves to remain a featured picture. | |
| {{Delist}} | It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore. |
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
| Text to use | Displays as | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| {{Keep}} | Do not replace the old image with the new image as a FP. | |
| {{Delistandreplace}} | Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement. |
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box:
In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
- Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
- A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
- Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.
As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose.
Featured picture candidate policy
General rules
- The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
- Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome.
- Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome.
- Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 100 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages) can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
- Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
- Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{Withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
- Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
- Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5):
- Pictures are speedy declined if they have fewer than two support votes.
- Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) This does not apply to nominations containing at least one ‘Alternative’ image – because it is possible that another image can overtake the one in the lead during the last days, such nominations are never closed early.
- Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
- Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
- Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
- Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.
Featuring and delisting rules
A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
- Appropriate license (of course)
- At least seven
Support votes (or 7
Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days - Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
- Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, they should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.
- Only two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5.
The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules.
Above all, be polite
Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care.
Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken.
See also
- To edit the list of nominations go to: Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
- For a chronological list, see Commons:Featured pictures/chronological
- For an archive of previous nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log and the archival categories
- For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished
- Basic list of photography-related terms
- Quality image candidates
- Valued image candidates
- Photo challenge
- Photography critiques
- Help:Scanning
Table of contents
List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).
Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.
Refresh page for new nominations (Purge cache)
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2026 at 16:06:14 (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#Other_objects_in_landscapes
Info created by – uploaded – nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 23:57:57 (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
Info created by Jules Verne Times Two – uploaded by Jules Verne Times Two – nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support In my opinion, it’s so good that it needs no further comment.-- Lmbuga (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Miguel, thank you for the nomination and warm words! Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support A wonderfully creative interpretation. Photos like this are (unfortunately) very rare on Commons. --XRay 💬 11:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 22:25:02 (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/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors
Info created and uploaded by Joydeep – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Though I do wish a more straight-on angle had been taken. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 18:39:25 (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
Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Not my best picture, not even a QI, not my usual camera (one from my office), but we don't have so many pictures of inside the cathedral a few days after the fire. Minor improvements like slight rotation. Of course the lack of vertical PC is on purpose. I beg for the recognition of mittigating circumstances. I hope it will be interesting for you, as it was very moving for me-- Jebulon (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Granted, the circumstances are special. But the really important bit (the burnt part) is wayyyy overexposed and shows JPEG artifacts. Maybe you can see what the RAW (if you shot) to recover highlights somewhat, but HDR would be appropriate here. JayCubby (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Oh man… imagine… I already did my best… Jebulon
Support Yes, the image has issues. But what a record of contemporary history! I’m deeply moved. Therefor a Pro. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 17:20:44 (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/Mammals/Primates#Family : Tarsiidae (Tarsiers)
Info No tarsier FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support An expressive expression, well-photographed, and not oversharpened or otherwise overprocessed. JayCubby (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support A pity the tail is cut. Nevertheless good. Yann (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes; I tried some photos with the tail but they didn't work because of the lighting difficulties. The tail is very long and usually obscured, so I settled for focus-bracketed close ups and those massive eyes (bigger than its brain). Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sometimes, when I'm shopping, it happens that my eyes are bigger than my brain too ;)
- But seriously, it's a great shot:
Support! I’d also be interested to know how you created the stack. Usually that takes a few seconds—at least that’s my experience with my camera. Do the animals stay still that long, and do you use a tripod for this? Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC) - The R6 Mark III shoots at up to 40fps on Electronic shutter. I used in-camera focus-bracketing pre-set at 15 shots with the camera mounted on a 4-section Manfrotto monopod that is long enough to allow me to shoot animals that are above me. I shoot only CRAW (no jpg) to minimise buffering. ISO was set at maximum 6400. The R6 stacks in camera so I can see if the start point for the stack was OK, but I process later at home using Helicon Focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes; I tried some photos with the tail but they didn't work because of the lighting difficulties. The tail is very long and usually obscured, so I settled for focus-bracketed close ups and those massive eyes (bigger than its brain). Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 08:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 15:01:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed#Posters and advertisements
Info Magazine advertisement for Ratna Moetoe Manikam, a 1942 film directed by Sutan Usman Karim for New Java Industrial Film. It follows a romantic relationship between a human king and a celestial being descended to Earth. Created by New Java Industrial Film, uploaded, restored, and nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very well. --Yann (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. The halftone is scanned at a high enough res that there is no moiré shenanigans. Some scratches to fill in the top, if you want. JayCubby (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 11:34:04 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Single_stained_glass_windows
Info Stained glass window Saint Elijah Orthodox church, Stara Pazova, Serbia. I could not find who is depicted. Saint Elijah is normal with beard and beside fire, but will try to find out. -- Mile (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Can you provide some information about the subject? authorship? age? the shot is good and the stained glass is pretty but still I wonder what is extraordinary about it Poco a poco (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support but more details would be appreciated. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 11:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 08:24:19 (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/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus_:_Rupornis
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very nice. JayCubby (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - The expression reminds me of the O RLY owl. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)For a change I'm not convinced of this nom, sorry. It's a big bird and relatively common in America but the level of detail is not good. Only the eye is sharp. In fact, so sharp that it doesn't match at all the rest of its body. It looks overprocessed. Poco a poco (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose- Thank you for your review but to me the whole body is clearly sharp and in focus and it doesn't look overprocessed to me either -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe my review was too harsh, I looked at it again and will move to
Neutral Poco a poco (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe my review was too harsh, I looked at it again and will move to
- Thank you for your review but to me the whole body is clearly sharp and in focus and it doesn't look overprocessed to me either -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 08:21:38 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Cervidae_(Deer)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This was probably much harder to get than birds. Even in raining conditions. I would add some Vibrance, at least on animal. --Mile (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Elegant pose! --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful soft lighting. JayCubby (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 11:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Great shot, and the pose is nice too. It’s just that the background makes the image a bit too busy. Maybe you could darken it a bit, or a slight vignette might also improve the image. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 05:49:23 (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/Fagales#Family : Fagaceae
Info created by dllu – uploaded by dllu – nominated by Dllu -- dllu (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- dllu (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support the contrast really makes the tree stand out. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 11:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful. – Aristeas (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 05:25:27 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Seed buds of a Helenium autumnale. in March. Focus stack of 40 photos. Nearly empty seed capsules of a Helenium autumnale. Only a few seeds remain hanging at the bottom of the capsules. (Diameter of the seed base ~8mm.)
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Interesting shot, i would still put some background on bothe side. Also middle one could be solved beter on part of it. Good anyway. --Mile (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2026 at 04:44:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Iceland
Info Búðakirkja is a small wooden church known for its striking black color. This color is the result of a traditional practice of treating the wood with tar to protect it from the harsh Icelandic weather. It stands isolated in the middle of the vast Búðahraun lava field, right on the coast with views of the Atlantic Ocean and the Snæfellsjökull glacier. Thanks to this barren, cinematic backdrop, it is considered one of the most photographed buildings in Iceland. Created by Eric Kilby – uploaded by WC-QHS – nominated by me -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Búðakirkja is an iconic landmark in Iceland, and we don’t yet have any FPs of this subject. The placement of the church in the right third creates a dynamic tension; the white gate on the left serves as a visual counterbalance and, together with the mountain in the background, frames the scene beautifully. The dramatic cloud cover underscores the rugged character of the Icelandic landscape. The strong contrasts between the black facade and the snow-capped mountains in the background are very striking. -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support painterly (as in I actually thought it was a painting). --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- JackyM59 (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I'd have prefered to see more crop on the left but overall ok and a really interesting subject Poco a poco (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --XRay 💬 11:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong support Beautiful combination of soft mood, sharp angles, and contrasting colors. Though many components of this picture are starkly distinguishable from each other in one way or another, they come together to form one wonderful cohesive scene – Julian Lupyan (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Indeed a stark photo of the church; light and shadows (the mountains in the background are in the shadow) emphasize the special character of this church. – Aristeas (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2026 at 21:32:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
Info Chola glacial lake at the base of the north wall of the Cholatse-Taboche massif (6440 m. a. s. l.) with alluvial fans and glacial moraines under a blanket of clouds, south of the Great Himalayan Range in Mahalangur Himal, Nepal, Himalayas. All by --Argenberg (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The scale is quite enormous. The photograph is from 2009 and is a historical record now, stark and primal, as the landscape has likely changed due to global glacier retreat. There is another version at File:Chola Lake, Nepal, Himalayas.jpg. --Argenberg (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I think that stone in the middle does not help. I would try to shot from there, also lake show to much sharpening. --Mile (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think those aren't so much sharpening artifacts but rather ripples on the water. The other version is without the foreground rock (the rock adds presence). --Argenberg (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Good, but the other picture is even better. Yann (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- So, I put up an alternative based on your hint. --Argenberg (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This one works better for me; agree that the stone in the foreground adds depth and orientation. – Aristeas (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Support --Argenberg (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Also good, although IMHO the other one provides the more interesting composition. – Aristeas (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2026 at 21:30:42 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Cupressaceae
Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Info Trunk and crown of a Giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), Focus stack
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose There are blurred or unfocused areas at the edges. Also: use categories please. --A.Savin 22:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Whats do you mean with use categories? The photo has a proper category. Can you please specify what you mean by unsharp edges (plural)? The very few pixel in the front are imho ok, further cropping would lead to an odd image ratio. —Tuxyso (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- I cite from the heading: "Voters must check: [...] Categories (what, where, who, when)" --A.Savin 20:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Example (adding at least some of these categories). – Aristeas (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Whats do you mean with use categories? The photo has a proper category. Can you please specify what you mean by unsharp edges (plural)? The very few pixel in the front are imho ok, further cropping would lead to an odd image ratio. —Tuxyso (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2026 at 21:30:43 (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/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_Kingdom
Info created by dllu – uploaded by dllu – nominated by Dllu -- dllu (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- dllu (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Question What's that below "Bookmarc"? A row of e-scooters as a ghost? --A.Savin 22:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- It seems that there was a guy who was walking. It is ghosted due to the long exposure of 7.5 seconds. Good eye, I didn't even see that at first. dllu (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Overexposed, somewhere burnt. Good compo, but Time Exposure to low down. --Mile (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good and impressive photo of that special building. I would not call it overexposed – the overall impression is realistic, many difficult areas like the windows of Bookmark are handled perfectly, and a few small burnt highlights are more or less inevitable given the extreme contrast in the scene. – Aristeas (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2026 at 16:57:16 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Germany
Info View into the Rhine gore at Bacharach. All by me.--Milseburg (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Blown whites. Copmo could be better (left side, tree). --Mile (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support A splendid and very educational panorama, congrats. The highlights are a little problem; the overall impression is absolutely realistic, and it’s almost impossible to avoid small blown areas in such a scene under this (good) light, but still it would be great if some of the larger white areas could be partially recovered. – Aristeas (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2026 at 14:45:16 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
Info All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2026 at 13:11:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail vehicles#New Zealand
Info created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 13:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Info Not many rail vehicle FPs for New Zealand. —Bruce1eetalk 13:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 13:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very well, nice colors, great composition. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Harsh contrast but okay for me. --Milseburg (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful location, nice composition with diagonals, good handling of the difficult (harsh) light, impressive contrast of colours. – Aristeas (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2026 at 07:31:35 (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/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by US National Park Service – uploaded by OptimusPrimeBot – nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Gbawden (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- vip (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 18:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Compo. --Mile (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral Plus: unusual, interesting composition, good colours. Minus: Focus is on some feathers on his head instead of on his eye. – Aristeas (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)- Good, but I would like a larger crop. Yann (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose No doubt that there is FP potential here, but the crop everywhere is awkward: we miss the whole feathering, not sure what is the object in the bottom middle and it's also confusing what we see in the far right. Furthermore the focus is wrong (the face is out of focus). Poco a poco (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2026 at 05:29:49 (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/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info Katholische Pfarrkirche St. Georg Cultural heritage protection in Switzerland. Beautifully carved wooden entrance to the church under an arch in authentic colors.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The delicate combination of colours, the beautiful wood texture of the door, and the broom make this one stand out from many other photos of church portals. – Aristeas (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 21:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2026 at 22:19:57 (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#France
Info all by me Jebulon (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --You'll never see this again. It was before the 2019 fire... Jebulon (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- It was mostly reconstructed. I don't see anything outstanding about the compo here JayCubby (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- "It was mostly reconstructed" :)) Thank you my friend for information ! I was inside the church a few days after the fire, so I have some ideas about the fact that it was mostly reconstructed...--Jebulon (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Jay. Certainly a high-value subject, but the image isn't convincing to me in regards of the composition, partial obstruction and noise. --Aciarium (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 18:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Good for me. But this: 40 mm, 1/4000 s, f/7.1, ISO 800 wasnt helpful. --Mile (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Aciarium, sorry. It would make a difference if this was a rare photo of a little known, but highly important monument which was damaged later, but there must be millions of photos of Notre-Dame de Paris from every perspective on ground, so we cannot handle this as a special rare document. It also does not show a special moment (like this featured picture). Furthermore, as a photo of the cathedral, it neither features a striking composition nor outstanding resolution or technical quality. – Aristeas (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I concur Poco a poco (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support OK for me Юрий Д.К. 14:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2026 at 19:56:03 (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 Coral (Heliofungia actiniformis), Anilao, Philippines. This species is no sea anemone but, in fact, a mushroom coral, with very large polyps. It's found in shallow water in the Indo-Pacific region and is considered vulnerable by the IUCN. Note: we have no FPs of the whole genus Heliofungia. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Please, correct the WB. JayCubby (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose
- JayCubby: When you oppose and ask for a correction, do you have a clue how it should look like? handling WB underwater is not like fixing a falling line of removing a dust spot. I've uploaded a new version (a bit warmer) but neither on Commons nor on the web I will find a blueprint for this. Important in terms of WB is that the areas that should be white are actually white, and I think that in this case it applies to the knobs, but I'm always happy to learn something new. Poco a poco (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe the tips should be white, but sometimes cream. Also, thank you for reducing the AI sharpening. Maybe dive in the future with a ColorChecker? I initially write in jest, but I got to Googling, and it turns out there is quite a corpus of research on underwater colorimetryǃ This paper laid out the principles, and there is an open-source program on GitHub. I will attach a desired image more consistently in the future. Diego, I now
Support and thanks for the fixes. JayCubby (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe the tips should be white, but sometimes cream. Also, thank you for reducing the AI sharpening. Maybe dive in the future with a ColorChecker? I initially write in jest, but I got to Googling, and it turns out there is quite a corpus of research on underwater colorimetryǃ This paper laid out the principles, and there is an open-source program on GitHub. I will attach a desired image more consistently in the future. Diego, I now
Comment The limitations of post-processing are unfortunately quite noticeable. Perhaps something can still be done about it.--Ermell (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, I reprocessed it with in a more moderate manner, what do you think? Ermell Poco a poco (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Much better. I also like the WB.--Ermell (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Thanks for all your underwater work! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Great now. Yann (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the additional effort. – Aristeas (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2026 at 18:59:55 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info An Audi A6 limousine of the Austrian Federal Police patrolling in Vienna. By me. -- Aciarium (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Aciarium (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I don't usually support compositions that are too obviously European, but this one is quite interesting. ★ 19:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Question It's some time ago, but might 'Recht am eigenen Bild' apply? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: This is a very good question, which I cannot answer with certainty. On one side, the image shows two police officers on duty in the context of a public event in a public space (National Holiday celebrations in the Vienna city center, pictures and videos are absolutely expected to be taken on this occasion); on the other hand, COM:IDENT states that commercial usage of pictures of identifiable people without their consent is not valid in Austria. Is the personality-rights-warning template a sufficient solution to this issue, or is the image perhaps not compatible with Commons at all? I don't think that the two officers depicted would be de-minimis here. --Aciarium (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Update: I have added the personality-rights template. --Aciarium (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special, plus messy background --A.Savin 10:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2026 at 18:26:45 (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/Non-photographic media/Others#Historical
Info created by Victor Meirelles – uploaded by Myxomatosis0 – nominated by ★ -- ★ 18:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Impressive painting depicting the abolition of slavery in Brazil (signing of the "Golden Law", called Lei Áurea, by Princess Isabel as regent of the throne at that moment, because her father, Emperor Pedro II, was not present in Brazil; a fact that led to her being known as "the Redemptress" and made the country the last in the Americas and Western world to do so). -- ★ 18:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 18:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2026 at 13:31:38 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Paradoxornithidae (Parrotbills)
Info created by Becky Matsubara – uploaded/nominated by me --Юрий Д.К. 13:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 13:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Would be good if these nice images were used outside of Commons. e.g. enwiki. Also, if promoted to FPC, you should change parrotbills to parrotbills and sylviid warbler Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done (both images). Юрий Д.К. 12:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Great find, beautiful image! -- Radomianin (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 17:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin; the light from the right is especially nice here. – Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very nice shot and also very well executed! --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2026 at 13:31:24 (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/Passerellidae#Genus : Pipilo
Info created by Becky Matsubara – uploaded/nominated by me --Юрий Д.К. 13:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 13:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment If promoted to FPC, you will need to create a new section with Family : Passerellidae (New_world_sparrows) for genus Pipilo Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good for me. I'll create if the file will be FP. Юрий Д.К. 12:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done because the photo has a good chance of being promoted. – Aristeas (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you
Юрий Д.К. 19:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you
- Done because the photo has a good chance of being promoted. – Aristeas (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good for me. I'll create if the file will be FP. Юрий Д.К. 12:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 17:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2026 at 10:11:38 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Columbidae (Pigeons and Doves)
Info No FPs of this genus. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice shot, natural sharpness (please do reduce the sharpness on the dragonfly, below) JayCubby (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- I just saw that wasn't possible. Never mind. JayCubby (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice bokeh. ★ 20:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very nice! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2026 at 22:40:25 (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/Asparagales#Family_:_Iridaceae
Info Open flower of a crocus. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Stunning! Especially the pollen grains —brainandforce [yap] 02:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow! -- Radomianin (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Aciarium (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Great stack. Everything from the pollen grains to the petal tip is in focus. JayCubby (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice light and high level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 17:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent. – Aristeas (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Yes, very well executed and a nice composition! --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2026 at 22:33:07 (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/Natural/Russia#Siberian Federal District
Info Rock monoliths at a confluence in the Ergaki Range, where multiple valleys blend and intersect. Paleozoic metamorphic schists, gneisses, basalts, and granites. Western Sayan Mountains, Siberia. All by -- Argenberg (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Argenberg (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Dramatic granite formations, rugged alpine landscape, natural lighting, balanced composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support + --Mile (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. – Aristeas (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2026 at 19:51:18 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Portugal
Info Granite staircases in the old Castle of Numão, northeast Portugal. From here it looks quite dangerous, and I suppose it is! Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 11:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2026 at 19:05:22 (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/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info The hospital in Luxeuil-les-Bains: the older section, known as the "Grammont Hospital" or also called the "castle," was built in 1882 and includes a chapel with an imposing Comtois-style bell tower. Other extensions (not visible) were added behind it in the 1930s, 1950s, and 2000s. The facade is particularly difficult to photograph due to the numerous trees, especially tall, dark conifers. Created, uploaded & nominated by A.BourgeoisP
Support -- A.BourgeoisP (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Visible purple
chromatic aberration at the right side of the picture, looking at the leaves of the trees, which covers part of the subject… but keep calm, I can suggest better ones for FPC: 1 (an example of deforestation with a car as scale), 2 (a church and a green hill, so French), 3 (a fortified tower with a French flag)… ★ 20:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nice weather but the composition with cars in the foreground doesn't work in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2026 at 16:38:45 (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/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Biology
Info Illustration of the dinosaurs Barosaurus and Allosaurus, styled after the historic mounts in the American Museum of Natural History. Note that this is the first instance of paleoart being nominated and as such there are no "dinosaur" or "paleoart" categories of featured pictures. Created by Fred Wierum – uploaded by Fred Wierum – nominated by IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- IJReid (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It is a cool illustration, sure, but it gets worse as I look more closely. The ground is largely in focus, but all the bushes are OOF, yet the bush shadows are generally sharp. The dinosaurs look like hand drawings superimposed on a diorama-style backdrop. A lot of work went into this, but there are hard-to-miss flaws. JayCubby (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose +1 --Aciarium (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per JayCubby. Also, why overwrite your original illustrations instead of uploading this one separately? TheBritinator (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think the style of filling in is a common graphic technique. JayCubby (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Filigrane at the lower left corner + different styles (drawing + photo) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2026 at 14:30:24 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Monetary items#Stamps
Info created by USSR Post, uploaded by Matsievsky, nominated by Matsievsky -- Matsievsky (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Matsievsky (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Question Why uploading both a PNG and a JPEG versions? Why proposing the PNG version? Yann (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- I concur. Uploading in PNG seems needless. TheBritinator (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- PNG is needed when editing an image. Matsievsky (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- On other platforms, PNG may be preferred. Matsievsky (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm surprised why PNG isn't uploaded along with JPG. Matsievsky (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Agree that for archival purposes PNG is certainly preferable to JPEG. If somebody scans a document, it makes sense to upload the original (or only slightly edited) scan in PNG format and to upload derivative, edited versions in JPEG format. – Aristeas (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- I concur. Uploading in PNG seems needless. TheBritinator (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2026 at 13:53:26 (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/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info An abandoned old house in the fortress-village of Almeida, northeast Portugal. A creepy detail can be seen through the upper window (a larger view is here. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I like such motifs. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support I like it, but I feel like it would be cleaner without the edges of the roof. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Done You are right, thank you! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Different… ★ 20:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support To me, this shot of decay is beautifully captured.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nicely captures the charm of decay. Have taken the liberty to add a few more categories. The house number probably reads ‘15’, not ‘13’, because it uses the typical stencil shape of a ‘5’. Hint: The detail resolution could easily be higher; ƒ/10 is usually too much on cameras with a APS-C sensor like the X-T5, because diffraction eats the fine details, and is also not required for a flat subject like a house façade. – Aristeas (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that, but it is difficult to forget the old habits associated with a full frame sensor user... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and I did not want to criticize you. I just wanted to give a hint because it seems often people are not aware of the negative effects of small apertures (more depth of field, yes, but also less details due to diffraction). – Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support It's a bit scary place, but I like this theme. Юрий Д.К. 14:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2026 at 11:51:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
Info Statue of Karl Malden (born as Mladen Sekulović) in Belgrade, Serbia (2026). -- Mile (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Aciarium (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 14:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The well-chosen perspective makes most of the statue (compare e.g. this photo which is useful but has much less effect). – Aristeas (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2026 at 11:36:30 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Picidae (Woodpeckers)
Info created by Neal Lewis – uploaded by OptimusPrimeBot – nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Gbawden (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- vip (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The look of intention really makes this one stand out. —brainandforce [yap] 03:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕️ 11:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose The bokeh is nice and the bird pretty, but the level of detail is below what I'd expect for FP, even for a small bird like this one. I find e.g. the VI of the category of higher quality that this candidate. Also a minus is the fact that we cannot see the tail. Can you please add any information about where the photo was taken? the sole information is the species. Poco a poco (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Agree that the level of details could be higher, but it is still good, and posture, composition and background are really impressive here. – Aristeas (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2026 at 22:57:20 (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#North Macedonia
Info This building is famous for featuring in Milcho Manchevski's Dust. All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong support a dazzle camouflaged...building? I love how the stonework masks the building's position and orientation. —brainandforce [yap] 03:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose There might be a cinematographical value here but the church is 26 years old, the compo is too static and there are no other elements (like the lighting) than overcompensate that for me to support. Sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I think it is beautiful brickwork.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Very well done for a building that wasn't meant to be a real church. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The simple-compo Kiril's shots are charming. ★ 03:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2026 at 17:04:06 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Ireland
Info created – uploaded – nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support but this belongs to Religious building interiors gallery. I've taken the liberty to change gallery link to that. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 08:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral The view is nice but level of detail is not at FP level, the perspective correction can be improved (both sides leaning out, especially the right side) and the nave is rather simple Poco a poco (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 18:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support IMHO a perfect perspective correction is not possible, as often with old buildings, because the verticals are apparently not consistently vertical in reality. Detail resolution could be higher in 2025, but we have promoted photos with similar or less detail resolution in the last months, so I can’t object. The architecture is not the most ornate one, but certainly the interior has beauty and atmosphere. – Aristeas (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2026 at 10:47:46 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info Peugeot 308 B (2013-2021), french car. Created, uploaded & nominated by A.BourgeoisP
Support -- A.BourgeoisP (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Question Can you elaborate what is so special about this shot that it should become one of our finest. In terms of subject, compo, lighting and detail level I cannot see anything extraordinary here. Poco a poco (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Subject: Whether it’s a church, a knife, cut wood, or a car, any subject can be interesting and worthwhile.
- Composition: The subject is the car, and the framing is centered on it. A front three-quarter view was chosen because it is the most dynamic angle. This effect is amplified by the turned wheels, which showcase the rims.
- Lighting: The side angle relative to the sun helps properly bring out the details of the grille and the lines of the hood and bumpers. The low light gives real depth to the blue paint, whose reflections range from sky blue to violet through different shades of blue, giving strong intensity to the color rendering.
- Detail level: Very high. The image is already very sharp from the start, so I didn’t need to artificially and excessively increase the sharpness, unlike some others who destroy the details of their photos, making them look as if they were generated by AI. A.BourgeoisP (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, I see a boring composition (as you say, centered), unpleaseant background, a very commons car (at least in Europe), special cars have always better chances (lookt at the corresponding gallery). Detail is good but and DoF also fine, though. Overall to me a good QI but we expect more for FP, sorry. My opinion. Others are also welcome to give feedback. Poco a poco (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- This reads like an oppose, but I don't see the vote. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco You're mocking me fiercely and violently; you just voted for four images whose subjects are perfectly centered : 1, 2, 3, 4. It's very strange that you weren't bothered by those 4 photos, but apparently, it bothers you about mine... This other image did not attract your attention because of its boredom : 5. You intervened on my proposal less than two hours after its publication, just for the pleasure of destroying me and using your notoriety here to influence others and rob other users of their free will. That's a high level of morality and intellect! Bravo! A.BourgeoisP (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have nothing against you, and will not comment on other FPCs here, it's not the point here. You just need more for FP even if you don't understand/accept that right now. You are nominating your work as FPC expecting feedback from some community members. If you cannot accept criticism though of experienced users, you shouldn't keep doing that as you will ended up frustrated and maybe also disrupt the process or frustrate other users. Poco a poco (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- @A.BourgeoisP: I fail to see why Poco's (or anybody else's) objective feedback would be "fiercely and violently" mocking you. Please try to understand FPC/VIC and especially the code of conduct/etiquette a bit better — constructive criticism is welcome, ad-hominem attacks not. --Aciarium (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Good way to illustrate the Peugeot 308 B, but nothing special beyond that. GGOTCC (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- @GGOTCC However, this image is very special ! And much better than mine, that's clear! A.BourgeoisP (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Very good QI, and with a better background possibly even an FP. --Aciarium (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Dismissing other people's photos because your own work is not succeeding is not critique at all – it is simply poor conduct. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing spectactular here, sorry. A good QI, for sure. TheBritinator (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment While I agree that this is technically a great image, I agree that the background distracts too much for FP. The horizon of the parking lot is askew and there are several poles. Contrasting with the other images in the category, you can see that backgrounds tend to be more uniform or, where busy, showing the entirety of a building. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Colors are amazing and technically very good, but I've to agree that background spoils this image. So, I can't support this, sorry. Юрий Д.К. 14:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A standard composition with a frame that's too tight, shadows cut off, and distracting poles in the background. --XRay 💬 18:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but IMHO the subject is not outstanding (IMHO just yet another car with a very typical design for its time), the surroundings are not beneficial and the composition is good and useful, but not excellent. – Aristeas (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination and I thank those who took the time to write comments with clear, precise, and nuanced arguments. A.BourgeoisP (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2026 at 02:00:45 (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/Non-photographic media/Others#Historical
Info created by Victor Meirelles – uploaded by Dornicke – nominated by ★ -- ★ 02:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Great painting of a historic occurrence (Christie Question). Thanks Dornicke for uploading it! -- ★ 02:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Question Is it really so dark? --Milseburg (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Milseburg: yes, it's a common Meirelles' technique to have dark and light parts in his paintings. See: File:Meirelles-bacante.jpg and File:Victor Meirelles - Rua João Pinto, antiga Rua Augusta.jpg. ★ 17:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 18:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Good reproduction, interesting style and technique. – Aristeas (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2026 at 09:56:12 (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/Places/Natural#Morocco
Info Serried mountains covered with live oak forests give an unusually verdant look to this dry region. A striking contrast to the FPs in the Gallery. Tazekka National Park, Taza Province, Morocco. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support the greenery had me thinking this was a tropical forest such as the Nilgiris. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose There are some ingredients for FP but overall not achieved IMHO. I like the rythm of the mountains range in the middle and also the mountains in the back but the lighting is not adding up. Poco a poco (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 14:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support The composition makes it work for me, although the light was indeed difficult. – Aristeas (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2026 at 07:46:39 (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/Plants/Fagales#Family_:_Juglandaceae
Info A solitary, leafless Walnut tree (Juglans regia) in spring standing on a green field under a clear blue sky in the southern Palatinate. In the background, the upper part of a modern wind turbine creates a technical contrast to the natural shape of the tree. Created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Abstain as author -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment @ Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys I think i voted for QI before, but i see much more better if croped (anoted). Put Alt maybe. --Mile (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but you left a note to this one for FP support. I also prefer this version because the angle gives the image a slightly surreal feel. I'd like to wait for some more feedback, but I can, of course, include the other version as an alternative. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I do like the other version more. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but you left a note to this one for FP support. I also prefer this version because the angle gives the image a slightly surreal feel. I'd like to wait for some more feedback, but I can, of course, include the other version as an alternative. Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Love the juxtaposition of tree and wind turbine. – Aristeas (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This will make a fine addition to my desktop wallpaper collection. —brainandforce [yap] 18:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I love this kind of perspective and the quality is excellent. A.BourgeoisP (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support You can also submit the other photo at a later time.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I looked at the photo several times, and in the end the composition does not work for me. I also do not perceive a clear or guiding idea behind the image. Additionally, the light is not distinctive enough to justify FP status, in my opinion. Composition: There is too much empty space on all sides, especially in the sky, which feels unbalanced and does not add to the image. The interaction between the wind turbine and the tree is also not convincing — they appear disconnected, and the turbine is even oriented away from the tree, which weakens any potential visual relationship. - Tuxyso — Preceding undated comment was added at 09:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Minimalism as its best. --Milseburg (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas and Milseburg. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Fun composition. JayCubby (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕️ 11:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 13:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- XRay 💬 18:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info This is the more minimalistic version. It's not a crop, I took two different images from this subject. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I prefer the other version. This is too simple. Milseburg (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support For me the surroundings look better here for some reason, and I really like the minimalistic composition. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 19:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The original version is not bad, but I like the calmness of the alternative. --Aciarium (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support In my opinion, the tree can manage just fine without a windmill, but I would have nominated the photo separately for FP later on.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 13:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Minimalist -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Very good portrait of a tree with character, although I like the other photo even better. – Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2026 at 22:37:53 (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#Hinduism
Info created by Miskin ca.1590–95 – photographed by the Met – uploaded and nominated by UnpetitproleX -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Good quality reproduction of an early Mughal miniature. The Met has this informative video explaining the painting's significance. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral It seems tilted. ★ 21:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- @ArionStar: corrected tilt (as far as could be possible, the source image isn't perfectly rectangular to begin with). UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- I was saying something like this one: [1]. ★ 00:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- @ArionStar: corrected tilt (as far as could be possible, the source image isn't perfectly rectangular to begin with). UnpetitproleX (Talk) 00:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per nomination; very beautiful miniature, and the reproduction is not huge, but very good, not oversharpened or interpolated. – Aristeas (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2026 at 22:35:31 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg -- Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent sharpness and detail, showing the characteristic texture of the finish and the fine forging lines. The textured stone background provides contrast and highlights the aesthetics of craftsmanship without distracting from the knife. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Question The brigther area on the bottom of the knife - is that engraved in the knife of is it due to a reflection in combination with a probably dry surface of the knife (the note). --Tuxyso (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- It was either caused by the grinder or by someone who used a light abrasive in the last production steps. You can see that the kurouchi finish (the dark area above your selection) has been touched slightly as well so that the lighter steel underneath peeks through. Most people who buy handforged knives like this don't mind irregularities; actually, I like them as a form of reminder that this is a handmade piece, not one of those industrial-production knives that are perfectly uniform. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the explanation. In that case the photo is very good. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- It was either caused by the grinder or by someone who used a light abrasive in the last production steps. You can see that the kurouchi finish (the dark area above your selection) has been touched slightly as well so that the lighter steel underneath peeks through. Most people who buy handforged knives like this don't mind irregularities; actually, I like them as a form of reminder that this is a handmade piece, not one of those industrial-production knives that are perfectly uniform. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't understand why everyone seems so captivated by this image. It's certainly sharp and deserves QI, but it's nothing extraordinary. Nothing justifies it being one of the best images here. It's just a knife lying flat on a rock, how boring! The knife is dark and dull while the background is striped and multicolored. It doesn't do it justice at all. There are much more interesting and legible photos that are rejected; the choices are absurd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.BourgeoisP (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment @A.BourgeoisP: Thank you very much for your review. I understand the concern, but I see the strength of this image precisely in its restraint. It is not about spectacle, but about clarity and craftsmanship. The controlled lighting reveals fine forging traces and subtle tonal transitions in the blade, while the textured stone background provides contrast without competing for attention. The composition keeps the focus exactly where it should be. This is not a generic object, but a handcrafted knife with individual character - and the photograph communicates that convincingly. For me, this combination of technical precision, material rendering, and understated aesthetics justifies its nomination. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I did wonder why Frank took his kitchen knife outside to photograph it on a rock. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I think the background choice is intentional - using stone in product-style photography helps give the object a more distinctive, material-focused context. It works well here. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)- Actually, that is not what Frank did. He went to a landscaping center in Chico and bought a stone slab. He then created an indoor lighting setup for a product shot and worked for hours on getting everything right. Thanks for asking. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Sorry that I annoyed you, Frank. I was not suggesting you walked the streets looking for a rock. I just wondered why you had chosen an outdoor setting as a background for an indoor knife... Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Petro Stelte (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 13:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The rock, even if store-bought, supports the handmade nature of the knife. Softbox photography on a flat background would be better for a mass-produced implement. JayCubby (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Exactly. I would photograph an industrially made German kitchen knife very differently. This is a hand-forged piece with a rustic kurouchi finish (on the black upper part of the blade). Masashi Yamamoto, who made this knife, is known as a "badass" who "forges knives in his flip-flops" while "lighting cigarettes off glowing pieces of steel he is working with." --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call that being a badass. From my experience from a blacksmithing class, dropping a piece of hot steel on one's foot, or coming in contact with it at all, is to be avoided. It was rather alarming to hear my forge partner's hand sizzle... JayCubby (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin and Jay. – Aristeas (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2026 at 17:40:24 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Trucks and buses
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support That deserves my support. --Petro Stelte (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support different. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting, but I'm missing the “wow” factor here --Ermell (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, it is something different, but per Ermell it lacks wow. Could have been exciting from another perspective! --Aciarium (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I concur, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I agree, nothing crazy here. TheBritinator (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 18:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral I appreciate the charm of decay and like rusty colours, but something is missing here, probably more beneficial light which would emphasize the three-dimensional features of the wreck. – Aristeas (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The vehicle's color contrasts nicely with the background. This composition is impressive and leaves plenty of room for the imagination... A.BourgeoisP (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2026 at 16:14:32 (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/Architecture/Palaces#Austria
Info created, uploaded and nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Info With this image I wanted to reproduce the look of some preview architectual imagery (before they are build). The image was taken during some holiday (probably easter) to reduce the people/students in the shot.
Support -- D-Kuru (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A solid architecture shot, but neither light, quality or composition are outstanding enough for FP status. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 15:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose -- E bailey (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Good composition and a very good portrait of that interesting building in its place. No people distract from the clear shapes of the architecture; the trees, with their delicate spring foliage, frame the scene on the left and right; the reflection significantly enhances the view. The light is beneficial because it avoids harsh shadows as well as burnt highlights and shows all details. – Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2026 at 20:48:12 (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/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
Info Piazza Santa Maria Novella, Florence, Italy. The square was opened at the initiative of the Municipality starting in 1287 and completed around 1325, after the houses in it had been demolished. It was used to accommodate the increasing number of prayers who flocked to the sermons of the Dominican friars, who lived in the adjacent convent. Thanks to its size, it later became the setting for festivals and spectacles such as the Palio dei Cocchi (a race with carriages similar to Roman chariots), established by Cosimo I in 1563. In the square stands out the façade of the Basilica of Santa Maria Novella, considered the most important Romano-Gothic church in Tuscany and is a World Heritage Site that started its construction in 1290 and it took almost 200 years to be completed. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support TheBritinator (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The far edges look a bit stretched out (maybe due to PC), but overall a good shot. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) — Preceding undated comment was added at 10:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)*In my opinion, some people on the left are severely distorted.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral
- Famberhorst: I made some improvements regarding aspect ratio (both sides), better? Poco a poco (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the effort to improve the photo, but I still think the ladies on the far left are severely distorted. They probably don't want to be depicted like that in public. Sorry.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Question Can you elaborate what is so special about this shot that it should become one of our finest. In terms of subject, compo, lighting and detail level I cannot see anything extraordinary here. A.BourgeoisP (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'd have liked to be asked in a more genuine/respecful way instead of just copy&pasting the question I asked in your candidate above (I wouldn't call this edit a best practice), but ok. I enjoy the wide view of this popular square that offers a nice compo from a big part of the square while the numerous tourists don't spoil it. The facade of that magnificient cathedral is also a nice eye-catcher that balances the closer column. The lighting is an addon that offers a contrast between left and side, the sky is interesting with some clouds and detail is pretty decent. Poco a poco (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- From time to time, there are nominations on FPC where I fail to grasp the photographer's vision of why this should be an FP (which may very well also apply to other users looking at my nominations, I am convinced). However, I don't think that this is the case at all here. Pleasant composition (maybe a bit much sky, but that's a matter of taste, I guess), overall good framing of the quite wide (and not too easy to capture) square; faces are a bit overprocessed, yes, but all in all this is an image I can
Support. --Aciarium (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice perspective, lighting, and detail, but the women on the left appear over-processed and slightly distracting. A light touch with the blur/smoothing brush could even out the faces - perhaps you could apply this, Poco a poco? Thank you very much in advance. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, I uploaded a new version. I believe that there is now no relevant deformation at the far left. I also added the personality rights template, although I think thqt it's hard to recognize anybody. FYI, too Famberhorst Poco a poco (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- I withdrew my vote so as not to be a spoilsport. But I would effortlessly recognize myself in the photo, yet I hereby close the discussion.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Good and impressive photo of this beautiful place. From my own memories I can tell you that often there are even more people, cars, etc. in this place, so this is actually a good, relatively quite photo of the the piazza. ;–) – Aristeas (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Swiss Hotel Management School - Caux Campus 01.jpg, not featured
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2026 at 16:14:24 (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/Architecture/Exteriors#Switzerland
Info The Belle Époque Hotel Caux-Palace was built in 1902 by the Swiss architect Eugène Jost on Mont Caux in Switzerland, overlooking Lake Geneva. Prominent figures such as Prince Ibn Saud, Rudyard Kipling, John Paul Meagher, and the Maharaja of Baroda visited the hotel before World War II. Since 1994, the Caux-Palace has been home to the Swiss Hotel Management School (SHMS), a private hotel management school; created by Llez| – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Pretty building but mediocre sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Done Sky improved --Llez (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- You changed the shade of blue, but you can't make this amorphously overcast sky interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Question This was the original sky when I took the picture, but which of these skies would you prefer? ;-)
--Llez (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's not unusual for people to say on FPC that the wrong time or day was chosen for an FP. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Sky is fine. --Yann (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose I really like the subject but unfortunately the dull lighting just isn't doing it for me, sorry. TheBritinator (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The right part does nos add to the composition (unformtunate crop of the main subject) and is too disturbing for me.--Jebulon (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose poor composition and light. -- E bailey (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with E bailey Poco a poco (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral Perspective and composition are good, the building is interesting, but the light appears indeed rather dull. However I think this is a also a question of the post-processing. I guess the camera wanted to underexpose this scene because of the high contrast and the many bright parts in the building and the sky. It’s probably possible to cancel this in post-processing and also to increase the contrast of the scene, working around the somewhat dull appearance. Of course that’s certainly not simple, but if you could give it another try and play around with the ‘white’/‘black’, contrast and brightness settings you could have a change to improve the image substantially, so that it could and should be renominated later. I can also give it a try and try to improve the image, if you want; just drop me a note. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Sun 22 Mar → Fri 27 Mar Mon 23 Mar → Sat 28 Mar Tue 24 Mar → Sun 29 Mar Wed 25 Mar → Mon 30 Mar Thu 26 Mar → Tue 31 Mar Fri 27 Mar → Wed 01 Apr
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Wed 18 Mar → Fri 27 Mar Thu 19 Mar → Sat 28 Mar Fri 20 Mar → Sun 29 Mar Sat 21 Mar → Mon 30 Mar Sun 22 Mar → Tue 31 Mar Mon 23 Mar → Wed 01 Apr Tue 24 Mar → Thu 02 Apr Wed 25 Mar → Fri 03 Apr Thu 26 Mar → Sat 04 Apr Fri 27 Mar → Sun 05 Apr
Closing nominations manually
The following description explains how to close nominations manually. Normally this is not necessary, as FPCBot takes care of counting the votes, closing and archiving the nominations. When the Bot has counted the votes, a user needs to check and approve the result; everything else is done by the Bot. Therefore, the following instructions are normally only needed for delist-and-replace nominations that the Bot cannot (yet) process, and in case the Bot malfunctions. The closing can be done by any experienced user. If you need help, just ask on the FPC talk page.
Closing a featured picture nomination
- On Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the nomination, then [edit].
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=(“yes” or “no”)|gallery=xxx|sig=~~~~}}
(You can leave thegalleryparameter blank if the image was not featured. If the nomination contains alternatives, you must add thealternative=xxxparameter with the name of the selected image between thegalleryand thesigparameter. See {{FPC-results-reviewed}} for examples and more explanations.) - Edit the title of the nomination and add
featuredornot featuredafter the link – for example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured === - Save your edit.
- Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line):
- 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.
- Add the picture to the appropriate featured picture gallery page and section. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images on Commons:Featured pictures, list to find the gallery page, and search for the correct section. (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-nomparameter. For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted in the nominationCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use{{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}You also need thecom-nomparameter if the image gets renamed. - If the image is already featured on another Wikipedia, just add
featured=1to the {{Assessments}} template. For instance,{{Assessments|enwiki=1}}becomes{{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- If it was an alternative image or part of a set nomination, use the
- Head over to the structured data for the image and add the “Commons quality assessment” claim (P6731) “Wikimedia Commons featured picture” (Q63348049).
- Add the picture to the chronological archives of featured pictures. Place it at the end of the gallery using this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Title'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|xxx}}, {{o|xxx}}, {{n|xxx}}- The
#should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other entries on that page for examples. (If you want to do everything perfectly, link that number to the nomination subpage, just like FPCBot does this. It allows users to jump directly to the nomination.) - The
Titleshould be replaced by the bare name of the featured picture, without the ‘File:’ or the file extension (such as .jpg .tif .svg). - The
xin{{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}should be replaced by the count of support, oppose, and neutral votes respectively. - If the nomination was a set nomination, use this format:
File:xxxxx.jpg|# '''Set: Title (Z files)'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]<br> {{s|x}}, {{o|x}}, {{n|x}}
Replace theZin(Z files)by the count of images in the set, and use the name of the first image from the set instead ofFile:xxxxx.jpgand for the title.
- The
- Add
== FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}}to the talk page of the nominator. For set nominations, use:== Set Promoted to FP ==, using the names of the set files instead of the XXXXXX and the title of the set instead of YYYYY.
<gallery>
File:XXXXXX.jpg
File:XXXXXX.jpg
</gallery>
{{FPpromotionSet2|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.
- Add candidate archive categories to the nomination so that people can easily find and evaluate past nominations (this applies also to unsuccessful, {{FPX}}-d, {{FPD}}-d and {{Withdraw}}-n nominations). It’s best practice to wrap all these categories in a
<noinclude>...</noinclude>section because they apply only to the nomination itself, not to the log page etc. which transclude it. You need three or four categories:- A category for the month and year, like Category:March 2026 featured picture candidates for the current month.
- A category for the type and result of the nomination, like Category:2026 successful candidates for featured picture status; replace “successful” by “unsuccessful”, “FPXed”, “FPDed” or “withdrawn”, depending on the final result of the nomination (see the supercategory for common values).
- A category for the subject of the nomination, like Category:2026 featured picture candidates of plants. Replace “plants” by one of the possible subject keywords like “animals”, “architecture”, etc.; see the base category for all common keywords. Basically the subject keywords correspond to the first part of the gallery link.
- If the nomination is a set nomination, add Category:2026 featured picture set nominations.
- As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}-d, {{FPD}}-d and {{Withdraw}}-n nominations), you have to move the transclusion (the {{ }} and the text within those) of the nomination to the current log page.
- To find the current log page, visit the first page of the log for this month. If the header of that page contains a link with the text “Next part of this month”, the log for this month has been split into several parts because it contains too many entries. Click on the “Next part …” link and repeat this until you reach a page where the header does not offer a “Next part …” link; that’s the last and current log page.
- Now open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you are closing. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}or:{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/XXXXX}}. - Copy that line to the bottom of the current log page and save that page. Then remove the same line from the candidate list and save that page.
Closing a delisting nomination
- On 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) - Edit the title of the delisting nomination and add
delistedornot delistedafter the image title; for example:=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted === - Add candidate archive categories to the nomination; this works the same way as described above for featured picture nominations. The only difference is that the category for type and status must be of the form Category:2026 successful candidates for delisting from featured picture status, or Category:2026 successful candidates for delisting and replacing featured pictures if this is a delist-and-replace nomination. Substitute “unsuccessful”, “FPXed”, “FPDed” or “withdrawn” for “successful”, depending on the final result of the nomination.
- Move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
- 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=1tofeatured=2(do not remove the {{Assessments}} template; 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); but not from categories about featured pictures on specific Wikipedia editions, like Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English.
- Remove the "Commons quality assessment" claim (P6731) "Wikimedia Commons featured picture" (Q63348049) from the picture's Structured data.
- In the {{Assessments}} template on the image description page, change
- Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in the chronological archive 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 archives.
- 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 section above. 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.
Archiving a withdrawn nomination
If a nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator by using {{Withdraw}} or is cancelled with {{FPX}} or {{FPD}}, wait 24 hours after the nomination was last edited. If there has been no objection to the cancellation within this time, the nomination can simply be archived. Just add candidate archive categories to the nomination itself, then move the transclusion of the nomination to the current log page; please see above for an explanation how to find the current log page and how to move the nomination to it.
