Commons:Featured picture candidates
Other featured candidates
📽️ Media
|
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal thingsNominatingGuidelines for nominatorsPlease read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsThere are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file description page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." PhotographsOn the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, color, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audioPlease nominate videos, sounds, music, PDFs, etc. at Commons:Featured media candidates. Set nominationsIf a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
Adding a new nominationIf you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate name, quality, image description, categories and licensing, then do the following. Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button. All single files: For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2
All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".
Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:
Nominations are time-sensitive and for one-time use only. An automatic clock starts as soon as they are created. Do not create them in advance, save them for later or re-activate them. Galleries and FP categories: Please add a gallery page and section heading from the list at Commons FP galleries. Write the code as Page name#Section heading. For example: Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify them using
An 'Alternative' is created by adding a sub-section to the nomination page: ====Alternative==== VotingEditors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 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:
You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator. A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~). Featured picture delisting candidatesOver time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:
This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:
If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box: In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:
After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose. Featured picture candidate policyGeneral rules
Featuring and delisting rulesA candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between when the bot has counted the votes and before the nomination is finally closed by the bot; this manual review can be done by any user familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be politePlease don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember… all rules can be broken. See also
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents
All users eligible to vote on FPC are invited to vote on this page.
All users eligible to vote on FPC are invited to participate here.
Featured picture candidates
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 15:04:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Class : Maxillopoda (Barnacles, Copepods and a Number of Related)
Info created by Janeklass – uploaded by Janeklass – nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Janeklass (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Well-framed and with good lighting (darkfield microscopy tends to yield wonderful results). How big is it? JayCubby (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 12:55:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Coraciiformes#Genus : Halcyon
Info Brown-hooded kingfisher in South Africa. Сreated by Andy Morffew – uploaded and nominated by me Юрий Д.К. 12:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Question EXIF? Can you ask photographer about end of upper mandible please Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
On hold Юрий Д.К. 17:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 11:53:55 (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/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Germany
Info Ceiling of the church of St. Laurentius in Ebern. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment There is a disturbing asymmetry relative to the central left-right axis. Also, the image would benefit from a 90º rotation. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice angle. --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 11:44:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Rail vehicles#United Kingdom
Info created by Kabelleger – uploaded by Kabelleger – nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 11:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 11:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak support not very sharp but... --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 11:26:46 (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/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Uzbekistan
Info Dome of Devonaboy mosque, Andijan, UZB. Сontrast was that strong, not much adopting black. -- Mile (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Aciarium (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 10:31:03 (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/Places/Natural/Austria#Tyrol
Info View oft the Wilder Freiger (3418 m) in the Stubai Alps as seen from the Aperer Freiger (3261m). A rarely seen perspective of this prominent mountain from a difficult-to-access location and with high resolution. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 12:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2026 at 03:29:24 (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#Family_:_Ramphastidae_(Toucans_and_toucanets)
Info Almost no pictures of this species on Wikimedia commons.
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The bird is well depicted. The blurry and overexposed foliage in foreground (not fixable) and trunk on the right (fixable) spoil the composition. --Tagooty (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Done, image cropped @Tagooty -- Giles Laurent (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Good crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 07:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Appealing and of encyclopedic value; good composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support OK levels of sharpening, good crop. JayCubby (talk)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 17:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2026 at 21:58:42 (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/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Greece
Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)- A traditional house in Hydra, Greece. I like how it stands above the wild and uninvating vegetation and the slightly dramatic sky.
Support -- C messier (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 07:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. --Milseburg (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nice image, good quality and composition. But not exceptional, justifying the star. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent composition; the clouded sky adds a painterly quality. Best appreciated in full-screen view. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2026 at 21:10:49 (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/Plants#Family_:_Malvaceae
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky talk 21:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Pretty photo with amazing details! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 07:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support It's lovely and appealing to me and has definitely a Wow! factor. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2026 at 16:34:53 (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/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Amazing motif. Is this a single shot? Some of the tiles seem significantly less sharp than others, and there doesn't always seem to be a pattern to which ones. Is that mainly down to the appearance of the tiles, except near the right margin? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment It may be that some of the tiles are just poor quality.Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment @ Ikan Kekek and Charlesjsharp. Yes, it is a single shot and the tiles are over 300 years old. The Porcelain Pavilion in Schwetzingen Palace Park is a small, pavilion-like building designed by the architect Nicolas de Pigage with a single room of only a few square meters. The walls of its interior are covered with tiles. The impressive Delft tiles originate from Rotterdam manufactories (Delft faience) and were delivered for the pavilion's furnishings as early as 1723. The porcelain pavilion itself was built was built between 1762 and 1764, 40 years after the tiles were delivered, as part of the palace gardens in the 18th century. The wall coverings depict landscape motifs (landschap in achtkant op gesprenkeld fond met uitgespaarde lelie) and equestrian tiles (Ruiter; hoekmotief: spin). The tiles are among the most valuable furnishings of the building. -- Llez (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Well done, I like photos like that. -- XRay 💬 20:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very interesting motif. It seems like all tiles depict similar, yet different sceneries. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I like the work, too. Its layout and composition appeal to me, and it conveys an interesting uniformity that unfolds as an intriguing object of exploration upon closer inspection. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Reminds me of XRay's recent door composite. JayCubby (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Beauty is often a fundamental component of Photography, and symmetry a well-known component of beauty. In this case, symmetry is obviously not enough to make the image asthetically appealing. On the other hand, there is no exceptional historical value in the set of 17th century tiles. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 02:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per discussion, others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2026 at 04:57:11 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Ploceidae (Weavers)
Info Ploceus ocularis in South Africa. Detailed shot of interesting bird. Сreated by Andy Morffew – uploaded and nominated by me Юрий Д.К. 04:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 04:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Cuting negative space is not so good idea. It just could be cut some less space, while central is so-so. Would "s" if wouldnt saw original. --Mile (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)- Ok, I've added original as alternative. Юрий Д.К. 15:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info Original of the upper photo Юрий Д.К. 15:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 15:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Yeah, this is a better composition. Beautiful bird and great details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan. Oppose was relative, one should pass, good yellow colors. Some mono CA, but probably older camera. --Mile (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This solution is no better than the original, given the small empty space on the right (and also on the topo and bottom). This is one of thouse situations where the rule of thirds would apply. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- I partially agree with you about the crop. But I think that overall value and quality of the photo (colors, details, sharpness) still makes it FP. Also this is a quite rare photo of a bird (face to face view). Юрий Д.К. 20:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Subject is too far to the right. --Tagooty (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2026 at 00:26:00 (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#Lighting_devices
Info Ceiling lights in the main hall of Prague Main Railway Station. Created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- AVDLCZ (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- AVDLCZ (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I like this. --Laitche (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support It's a good idea for a detailed shot and a characteristic feature of the train station. Technically well executed. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow! - strong graphic composition showing a distinctive interior feature, well executed. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Exciting composition --Aciarium (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 15:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice layout. However, I had to think about whether I liked the cut-off lights. -- XRay 💬 20:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Unusual composition, a bit mysterious --Tagooty (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2026 at 19:57:11 (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/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created, uploaded and nominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Maybe your intention is to feature the construction zone along with the church, but it really messes up the view to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It would be interesting to know the reason for this nomination. The other images in the church category also have technical flaws, but at least they address the main subject better. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, it is a clear QI, but I can't support FP promotion as the construction zone very distracting from main object. Юрий Д.К. 06:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2026 at 19:01:54 (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#Others
Info created by Fernand Léger, uploaded and nominated by Yann
Info Still Life with Candlestick is a 1922 painting by Fernand Léger, which was stolen in May 2010 from the Museum of Modern Art of the City of Paris.
Support Notable painting. Since it is still missing, no higher resolution is possible. -- Yann (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Good and important. Horrible that over 15 years later, it still hasn't been found. The filename is misspelled and needs to be corrected after the nomination period is over. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: What is the error? Yann (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- "Fernanrd leger" instead of "Fernand Léger" Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Ah OK. I thought there is a spelling mistake in the English title. Yann (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- "Fernanrd leger" instead of "Fernand Léger" Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: What is the error? Yann (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Not really my type of art, but this is a notable painting. --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Quality OK given the status of the painting. JayCubby (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2026 at 16:28:45 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Aerial lifts (Cableways)
Info Created, Uploaded & Nominated by Me. A nice view of 2 cabins of the Santiago Cable Car with the Gran Torre Costanera in the Backround - Robert Motecinos Holda (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Robert Motecinos Holda (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The crop on top and left is too tight around the tower. Also the cabins and the cables in front of the city is not the optimal composition. Yann (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I usually don't object to photos because the composition is "too busy", but as Yann says, this one doesn't work well. The degree of noise is also unacceptable for an FP, and I'm surprised it passed QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunately, many images that pass through QIC are anything but high quality. Apart from that, the image was taken with a 17-55 mm zoom at 55 mm, which does not contribute to the overall impression. A slightly wider exposure angle would have been possible and advantageous. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Yann. --Aciarium (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2026 at 15:43:56 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Reliefs
Info I think this relief from 1894 is quite striking and strange at the same time (the previous nomination is available here). All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Question There don't appear to be any guidelines on renominations apart from /2 instruction. Are there any? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any additional guidelines as they would probably be specified in the comprehensive introductory box. Furthermore, re-nominations are nowadays more common (see this as a very recent example). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Nine years vs a few monthsǃ Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think there are any additional guidelines as they would probably be specified in the comprehensive introductory box. Furthermore, re-nominations are nowadays more common (see this as a very recent example). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2026 at 09:33:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/In their habitats#Mammals
Info created and uploaded by Prasan Shrestha – nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Needs a substancial crop of the foreground. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately, the image has some technical flaws: the mountain in the background is overexposed, while the shadows on the horse are very dark. Dust spots are visible in the sky. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- It's a good camera and good image. Maybe @Prasan Shrestha can tweak it from the RAW? Surely there is more dynamic range there. JayCubby (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment The horse is nice, and the foreground is fine, but the snow on the mountain is indeed overexposed. Yann (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I agree entirely with Syntaxys. Kiril, you're OK with all that in an FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment The small area of overexposed snow is okay given the bright sun at high altitude. The dust spots need to be removed, and cropping the bottom up to the rock on left will improve the composition. I'll support if edited. --Tagooty (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2026 at 07:42:37 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Towns
Info created by unknown – uploaded by Theklan – nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Theklan (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Full size is not working, but very good at 2,560 × 1,858 pixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support
Comment The angel's wing has been cropped. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Charles is right. Please see [1] for the missing part. That's a pity, the reproduction is very good. Yann (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for noting it! I thought it was a composition issue. I'll try to re-upload it with the full image shown. Theklan (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed thanks. I've crossed out my vote for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Charles is right. Please see [1] for the missing part. That's a pity, the reproduction is very good. Yann (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2026 at 05:50:34 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Carduoideae
Info Fruits of the Arctium lappa greater burdock. Focus stack of 11 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Impressive, and a fine composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very accurate piece of work. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Burrs are pretty plants, especially when flowering, but a nuisance of the highest order. JayCubby (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 04:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - --GRDN711 (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. – Aristeas (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)}
Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2026 at 02:50:00 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical/1900s#1940-1949
Info created by Toni Frissell – uploaded and restored by JayCubby – nominated by JayCubby -- JayCubby (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Info To generate the file description, I used this tool I got ChatGPT to make (AI has its place on FPC). It has some bugs, which I might someday fix. I have a list of other browser-based tools at User:JayCubby/Browser Tools, additions to which are invited.- ː
Comment It is unwise to allow AI to generate a file description. Not that it matters, as many wartime photos were posed, but the other beds seem to be empty. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp, AI doesn't generate the file description. I just got ChatGPT to write a tool to automatically parse the JSON into a human-readable file description. JayCubby (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- JayCubby (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Good, both for historical and artistic reasons. --Yann (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Also, very good quality. -Theklan (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per others. It would be interesting to know who the child was and what became of them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Not only an important historical document but also a very good photograph. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I guess the identity of the child cannot be established, as many wartime civil-defense photographs depict anonymous subjects. The image is photographically strong, with clear composition and effective use of light, and has high encyclopedic value as a concise visual record of civilian life in air-raid shelters during World War II. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- +1
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- +1
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Aciarium (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 20:46:09 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Porcellanidae (Porcelain Crabs)
Info View of an aprox 4 centimetres (1.6 in)-long porcelain crab (Neopetrolisthes maculatus) on a Mertens' carpet sea anemone (Stichodactyla mertensii), Anilao, Philippines. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Interesting crab, good WB. JayCubby (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Vivid view showing mouthpart bristles, clearly documenting an important ecological feature. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 02:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Felino Volador (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Unusual setting! --Tagooty (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The carpet anemone is almost as interesting as the crab. Acroterion (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -Theklan (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Impressive photograph! What is that kind of hair between the front legs of the crab? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 20:38:47 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Cirrhitidae_(Hawkfishes)
Info Spotted hawkfish (Cirrhitichthys aprinus), Anilao, Philippines. It is widespread throughout the tropical waters of the Indo-West Pacific region found in rocky and coral areas of subtidal coastal reefs. This species, that attains a maximum total length of 12.5 centimetres (4.9 in), perchs on benthic invertebrates such as sponges and corals, using their thickened lower pectoral fin rays and feed on small fishes and crustaceans. Note: there are no FPs of this species on Commons. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Great picture of a fish in its environment. --Yann (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 14:08:16 (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/Natural#Malta
Info created by Berit Watkin from Redhill/Surrey, UK – uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) (edited by Wilfredor) – nominated by ArionStar -- ★ 14:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support A nice photo of a rock formation that no longer exists. -- ★ 14:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment There is already a featured picture of the formation (even before its partial collapse that took place before this photo). --C messier (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- The light is better here, and it's good to feature the phases of inevitable natural rockfalls. ★ 22:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree about the documentary value. I like the older photo because the people show the scale of the formation. This is a good QI/VI. I don't know whether it has the composition to be an FP to me and will check again later, but to be fair, I don't think the existing FP from 2011 would pass without some edits today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- A worrying lack of parental care in the existing FP... Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree about the documentary value. I like the older photo because the people show the scale of the formation. This is a good QI/VI. I don't know whether it has the composition to be an FP to me and will check again later, but to be fair, I don't think the existing FP from 2011 would pass without some edits today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- The light is better here, and it's good to feature the phases of inevitable natural rockfalls. ★ 22:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Unbalanced composition, in my opinion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 02:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support This is better than the existing FP, and also otherwise FP to me on its own. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per UnpetitproleX. --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful colors! --Aciarium (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per UnpetitproleX. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Grat documentation. A large section of the pillar is already missing. It's very interesting to compare the candidate with the existing FP, and not just from a photographic point of view. --Milseburg (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 14:00:41 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greece
Info created and uploaded by Wilnel José Verdú Guerrero – nominated by ★ -- ★ 14:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support We have far fewer Greek photos compared to other European countries (like Germany or France). -- ★ 14:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment The location is certainly impressive, but I'm not sure if this particular photo is the best in the category (too much shadows - harsh light). --C messier (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per your remarks about the harsh light. I'm slower to be put off by that than many other FPC reviewers, but this is particularly harsh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: do you consider File:Shipwreck at Navagio Beach Zakynthos Greece (45557496695).jpg better? ★ 02:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: do you consider File:Shipwreck at Navagio Beach Zakynthos Greece (45557496695).jpg better? ★ 02:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support FP for me Юрий Д.К. 02:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The composition is not convincing for me, mostly due to the imposing foreground on the left. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 11:52:04 (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/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Papilionidae#Genus : Papilio
Info Apart from this photo, I can't find any FPs of a butterfly in flight. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --E bailey (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support No overprocessing, natural sharpness, striking colors. JayCubby (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Jay. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support It's very hard to get a sharp photo of a butterfly in flight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I wonder if it is possible to get everything in focus with a conventional camera because of the way that butterfly wings move? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Felino Volador (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Lovely colouring and composition --Tagooty (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan and Tagooty. Acroterion (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -Theklan (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 12:16:51 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Domes
Info created by – uploaded by – nominated by Kuldeepburjbhalaike -- KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) 12:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) 12:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 14:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Really odd ceiling - ornate in the middle and otherwise very plain. I feel sure there used to be ornate decorations. Good, striking and unusual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Cool shot with Samsung Galaxy. Юрий Д.К. 02:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sory, but the cropping in the right makes the geometrical pattern non symetrical, and that breaks the magic. -Theklan (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not particularly striking as a ceiling. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The ceiling is beautiful but the crop is bad, and the detail is borderline. Would be a disservice to the ceiling to feature this. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Ikan Kekek. --heylenny (talk/edits) 03:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per UnpetitproleX. --Aciarium (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 10:45:46 (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#Uzbekistan
Info Islam Hoja Minaret, Khiva, Uzbekistan. -- Mile (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not the best composition and framing, imo. I also don't like the strong shadows. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Dunno, it's pretty striking to me. Leaning toward support but will decide later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I think the shadows are fine because they help contrast with the minaret. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Dunno, it's pretty striking to me. Leaning toward support but will decide later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose
Underexposed overall, not only in the shadows. --Aciarium (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 08:41:20 (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/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Cichorioideae
Info Close-up of a dandelion seedhead, created and uploaded by GentsBilder – nominated by Achim Lammerts -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support In my opinion, this is a very good close-up that keeps the viewer engaged in the image and documents the finer characteristics of the species very well. It is also the best image in the category in terms of detail. -- Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support An amazing photo. Definitely organic, almost scaring! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I like this a lot. Imaginative and a great closeup! I might have preferred a square composition, but that's a minor quibble since the composition is quite good as is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Юрий Д.К. 02:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support An unexpected view into the interior of a dandelion seed head. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -Theklan (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per nomination; very interesting and of encyclopedic value; file should be renamed with a more descriptive name after the nomination ends. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 06:08:07 (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/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Morocco
Info Interior of the Mosque of Chellah. The white stork (Ciconia ciconia) roosting on top is one of about 70 that inhabit this historic site. Rabat, Morocco. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Info This ruin was built in the 1300s. --Tagooty (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I like the cat and the stork, but neither is sharp and they are not really the subject of this photo to my mind. The subject is the peaceful-feeling interior (maybe not quiet, because the stork probably calls, etc.). I'm likely to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I like the shadows, which are part of what makes the photo feel peaceful. It would be awfully boring if it were somehow all in the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 02:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the composition and the distrating shadows. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support the animals (esp. the stork) give the image a mystical feel. Though not the focus or the subject, their presence definitely elevates the image. FP to me. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Agree about the shadows, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 05:46:26 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Italy
Info Perugia plains as the weather cleared after overnight rain, looking southwest from Via Metastasio, Assisi, Italy. Created by Tagooty – uploaded by Tagooty – nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Nice view, but maybe too much sky. Also, that staircase in the right corner is a little distracting. --heylenny (talk/edits) 20:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A bit boring composition, lacking some feature that meets the eye. Also, the out-of-focus foreground on the left is disturbing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Very nice view but I can't support it due to distracting staircase on the right. This is a sole reason why not. Sorry. Юрий Д.К. 02:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Heylenny, Юрий Д.К., and Alvesgaspar: Thanks for the reviews. I've proposed an alternative below with a different aspect ratio, removing the distracting railing. --Tagooty (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Distracting railing. --Yann (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Alternative
Info An alternate version without the railing in bottom right, with less sky. --Tagooty (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Tagooty (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Ok now Юрий Д.К. 03:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 14:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support This one is better. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment It is indeed much better, and the compositions benefits from the nearly symmetric foreground. One small disturbing detail is the TV antenna, which should be cloned out. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar:
Done Thanks for the comments, please see the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar:
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 04:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 05:20:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info ILanz, Reformierte Kirche Ilanz, Main entrance of the old church in Lanz (National monument built in 1494). A dreary September day in Lanz. It's been raining all day. Still, I wanted to photograph this beautiful old main entrance. And I succeeded. Perhaps a little sad, but authentic in my eyes.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 20:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A nice and correct photo. But not exceptional, sorry. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice idea! I don't know why but this photo is very calming me. Юрий Д.К. 02:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar, no wow-factor. --Tagooty (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Conditional support contingent on gallery change; very beautiful but belongs to the Architectural elements#Doors gallery, not religious building exteriors. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your advice and support.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The exposure of the door as an important architectural and historical feature of this church has been very well executed. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per above Poco a poco (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nice simple photograph but not interesting enough for me to consider it an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 22:07:18 (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/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info In the Balkan Orthodox Christian countries, Our Lady of the Sign is known as Panagia (Greek: Παναγία). All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 00:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 15:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 20:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Vivid, well-lit documentation of the mosaic with accurate colors and clear architectural context; a narrow, tapering white strip is visible along the right edge and should be corrected. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Done Corrected. Thanks for spotting it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Thank you very much for the correction; appealing view with vivid details, clearly showing the mosaic within its architectural context. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support This is really worth looking at and well done. Could you please add the year or approximate year of composition to the file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've added an approximation as it wasn't possible to find the exact year. I hope to be able to get that information by contacting the monastery monks. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --B. Jankuloski (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Aciarium (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 19:13:03 (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/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Spain
Info The mirrored ceiling of Encants Barcelona, a flea market in Barcelona, Spain. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Striking composition --Tagooty (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but it doesn’t work for me aesthetically. You have cropped it at the bottom, probably to get rid of irritating cars etc. and to respect the privacy of people in the foreground (cf. your other photo); that’s understandable. But the bottom part is still crowded and confused, distracting from the roofs, and now the fences, the tent roofs, the information board at the right etc. are cut in half. Therefore the bottom crop appears abrupt and arbitrary, and the traffic lights and the street lamp look a bit grotesque – distorted and enlarged by the perspective and stretching themselves uselessly above the nothingness since we can’t see the road to which they belong. So we have still a crowded composition with distracting elements without seeing why the bottom is so crowded. (In any case, you should at least crop or clone out the fragments of street lamps at the lower left edge.) The roofs themselves are highly interesting, but from this perspective they look distorted and mostly just blackish. The reflection is not beautiful because it is neither a clear reflection (or a mosaic of clear reflections) of the area below nor sufficiently blurred to develop abstract beauty. And I wonder what was supposed to be sharp here – the sharpest point I can spot is the ‘Precio especial’ poster, but the edges of the roofs appear mostly a bit out of focus, I am missing crisp contours there and elsewhere. IMHO we either need another perspective which gives us, at least, an appropriate, more complete and less distorted impression of the building, or details of the roofs with their reflections. – Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose A very interesting and undoubtedly impressive subject, both architecturally and conceptually. For me, however, the image does not unfold a sense of visual lightness or inner tension, but feels heavy and somewhat blunt overall. Large areas of the image are very dark, which makes it difficult to clearly perceive the reflections. The reflections remain insufficiently differentiated, rather than developing a clear or convincingly abstract visual effect. From a compositional point of view, the image feels unsettled to me: distracting elements appear in several places, such as the street lamps on the left, which could at least have been reduced through retouching (with appropriate disclosure). Overall, I miss a clear visual guidance or a resting point that holds the viewer's gaze. The subject itself has great potential, but in this execution the image overwhelms me rather than drawing me in or sustaining my attention. For an FP, this impact is unfortunately not sufficient for me, which is why I cast a Weak oppose.
- As a side note: If I were to support one of your recent works, it would be this one: Compianto - Niccolò dell'Arca. In that image, the expressive power of the sculpture is captured exceptionally well; it would only benefit from a very gentle noise reduction limited to the background. I was also immediately struck by your very abstract composition Composition with greens - Porto Covo, which triggered an instant Wow! response when I first saw it. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Thank you for your careful feedback, Aristeas and Radomianin, you are both right! But you know (or suspect) that my two last nominations were more intended to make a point than to see my pictures promoted. If I were convinced that any of them really deserved the star, I would have made the nominations a long time ago. What I'm trying to do is to persuade the reviewers to take a closer look at the candidates, one that goes beyond the very first impression and pixel-peeking considerations. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your perspective, Alvesgaspar. I understand your aim to encourage reviewers to look more closely, beyond first impressions. Some longtime participants may feel nostalgic and even jokingly call for a Make FPC great again approach; personally, I don't see FPC as having declined - in fact, it has evolved positively, with clearer standards and a more collaborative atmosphere than in earlier years. Mistakes happen, of course, but the process is still challenging and meaningful. Honest critique and differing opinions are welcome, and while framing FPC as fallen seems unnecessary, I also want to acknowledge that, as discussed on the FPC talk page, there have been times when an intimidating climate was a real problem for some users, making it harder to oppose nominations freely. While this is less of an issue today, it is important to recognize that concern. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment The poles distract me a little. ★ 15:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 12:54:54 (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#Germany
Info created, uploaded and ominated by FlocciNivis -- FlocciNivis (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- FlocciNivis (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Interesting composition. --Laitche (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support but I'd crop it a little like 315px on the left side and 100px at the bottom, so the roof can be centered. --heylenny (talk/edits) 21:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 00:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Striking composition --Tagooty (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The tension between the square plan layout and the sloping stair elements that affect our perception of the space is interesting to contemplate. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Acroterion. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose Beautiful composition, but I think it would look significantly better in BW. Also, contrast-wise it seems rather flat. --Aciarium (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 11:42:12 (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/Settlements#Greece
Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)- The small seaside village of Vlychos in Hydra island, Greece, which retains its traditional architecture.
Support -- C messier (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I'd crop out the bottom part (see note) to get a better aspect ratio and make the sea more prominent. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- It now is at 2:3, and I like how the beach leads to the settlement. C messier (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support the picture, including the bottom part of it. --Zquid (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I haven't decided whether to support this nomination or not, but I love the clarity and colors in the shallow water! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment In my opinion the image underexposed. I've seen many such white Greek houses but on the photo they appear more gray than white. I may be wrong, however. Overall compo and sharpness at FP level imo. Юрий Д.К. 15:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 08:47:27 (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/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Muscicapidae#Genus_:_Phoenicurus
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose It's a nice compo and bokeh but he level of detail is not FP. It's a small bird but not that small. Poco a poco (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The bar on bird photos in now quite high on strictly technical terms, and this photo is a bit below par, espeially in sharpness and detail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment It's small for a 2025 featured picture. ★ 14:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Other very recent FPC nominations of birds suggested to me that this was a sharp enough picture of this size of bird to pass pretty easily. I'm kind of surprised, but I support on that basis and because of the nice composition and pleasant light and colors. I also feel like the size of the picture is irrelevant and only the size of the bird in the picture is relevant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 08:01:01 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Coraciiformes#Family_:_Momotidae_(Motmots)
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 09:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment It looks unnatural that the tips of the bird’s talons blend into the tree branch ;-) --Laitche (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- It also looks like that in the unprocessed image but I'll upload a new version with less sharpening on the feet once I get time and access to my computer and good internet (I'm currently abroad) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Done, but as I've said the original image has the tip of feets and the claws like that so I'm not sure it will change your impression of the area -- Giles Laurent (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- It also looks like that in the unprocessed image but I'll upload a new version with less sharpening on the feet once I get time and access to my computer and good internet (I'm currently abroad) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Vivid, well-defined plumage, balanced sharpening and noise reduction, natural lighting, strong composition with the subject clearly isolated. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment There is something artificial about the extreme sharpness of some parts of the feathers. AI help? Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- The feathers were sharpened just a bit but the unprocessed image already had good feather definition and sharpness because the bird was at close range and not moving much. Zero AI was used, only regular slight sharpening -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- The feathers were sharpened just a bit but the unprocessed image already had good feather definition and sharpness because the bird was at close range and not moving much. Zero AI was used, only regular slight sharpening -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Ermell (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 15:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Impressive detail, and the bird has a strong presence. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 01:44:11 (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/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#China
Info created and uploaded by Kcx36 – nominated by Wobbanight -- Wobbanight (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Wobbanight (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Just a QI to me. Well-shot picture of the building with randomly spaced pedestrians whose presence does not serve the composition, somewhat noisy sky, random bits of a tree at the left margin. Good, useful, not outstanding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan, it's QI but not outstanding for FP with some technical issues. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose It's a nice subject, but I agree, the level of detail is not at FP level, it lacks a perspective correction, people not helping to the compo Poco a poco (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Just a hint: It looks like lacking a perspective correction, yes, but actually some of the verticals, e.g. of the two walls (?) in the foreground or of the blue booth at the right, are not really vertical in reality, and comparing all vertical lines I get the impression that the perspective is already perfectly corrected. Agree with the other points of criticism. – Aristeas (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I think that the building itself deserves FP star but a lot of people and some technical issues mentioned by reviewers above, don't make this image FP to me, sorry. Юрий Д.К. 00:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2026 at 08:26:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Aix
Info all by Stephan Sprinz -- Stephan Sprinz (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Stephan Sprinz (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment You're so lucky. I couldn't find the ice when I was at Park Sanssouci in June last year.Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MB-one (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful duck and the feathers are not overprocessed. It looks like a building is reflected in the eye? Very good detail! JayCubby (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support An obvious FP - its featured quality is immediately apparent. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support An obvious candidate for POTY 2026! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Gorgeous. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Great shot and pose, very well done! --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support —Bruce1eetalk 08:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support And even the image quality under these circumstances is splendid! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- (you may add geocoordinates if you remember the exact location ;) ) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 00:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Jay and PantheraLeo. – Aristeas (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 15:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -Theklan (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2026 at 12:15:02 (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/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
Info created by Granada – uploaded by Granada – nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support There are eight FPs of this species but none was nominated since 2017. This one won a third prize in the WikiDaheim 2025 competition in Austria (nature/close up) and maybe it's worth a try here. Photographed just after having molted in our own garden pond. -- Granada (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not sharp enough, sorry, especially when compared with most photos of darters in the FP galleries. I don't care about the noise in the bkg.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that the FPs of this species are all sharper than this photo, but the only FP that can be directly compared to this one is File:Libellula quadrimaculata 3 edit.JPG, which shows a Libellula quadrimaculata that has just molted. It's sharper than this but I think not dramatically so, and the composition of this photo is nicer, IMO, including the relationship between the insect and the shed skin, and I think the background is fine. So I think it could reasonably be considered for FP. But are there FPs of other species of dragonflies with their molted skin that we should be comparing to this photo? I'm not sure how to effectively search for such photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Noisy background. I suggest denoising. Юрий Д.К. 21:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Sharpness and noise are not a problem IMO. --MB-one (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Overall, I think this photo deserves the star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose The picture was probably taken in passing, so there wasn't much time for composition and accurate focus, or even a focus stack. For FP, however, at least the elements in the main focus should be crisp and sharp. The description could also be supplemented to indicate that the object to the left of the dragonfly is probably the shed skin (exuvia) of a dragonfly larva. Some more EXIF metadata would also be useful. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Agree, the bar for level of detail is higher Poco a poco (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2026 at 02:29:04 (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/Places/Other#Japan
Info Evening view of the pond at Oizumi Ryokuchi Park. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Laitche (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I find it interesting (and unexpected) the lattice plantation in the foreground! But the crepuscular rays are not especially attrctive to me, sorry. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Lattice? I suppose you mean lettuce? But they look more like cabbage to me. Yann (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar and Yann: Just to be clear, all of these are lotus leaves floating on the pond :-) --Laitche (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I did mean lettuce and it looks very much like it... Thanks Laitche for the clarification. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Amazing light and mood Юрий Д.К. 21:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
New version uploaded Press Ctrl+F5 to show it. --Laitche (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)- @Kiril Simeonovski and Юрий Д.К.: It seems the white balance was adjusted incorrectly. I’ve made a fairly significant correction, so please feel free to change your vote if you wish. --Laitche (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- I like this even more as the colours are warmer and the crepuscular rays remind me of this picture. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Pretty multi-layered composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Wobbanight (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I am attempting to identify some exceptional aspects in this image in order to vote for it … --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar Poco a poco (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Юрий Д.К. --heylenny (talk/edits) 21:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Per Ikan Kekek. ★ 15:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar and Poco.Ermell (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2026 at 14:35:06 (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/Natural/Spain#Aragon
Info Summit Pico de la Mina (2708), as seen from Forau de Aigualluts. Huesca, Aragon, Spain.
Created and uploaded by Basotxerri – nominated by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as nominator -- MB-one (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Great scene and capture. --Milseburg (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 18:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Dramatic mist and clouds that echo the shape of the mountain help the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Mist and clouds are used compositionally, echoing the mountain's form and adding depth without obscuring detail. The scene remains clear, balanced and controlled rather than merely dramatic. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Ikan. – Aristeas (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sory, but the composition is not convincing for me. And the tree foregroud is too blurry. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak support all about the cloud texture, though I think it could've used a tighter crop — Rhododendrites talk | 23:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 02:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2026 at 10:55:55 (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/Animals/Birds#Family : Ciconiidae (Storks)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment
Dust spots, and it looks like the masks of the individual birds extend into the surrounding sky --Aciarium (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- No mask used, but there was colour bleed into the sky. Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- But they look like dust spots. And there are also tiny white spots, most prominently behind the 4th stork from the lower right. What are those? I guess the double image on the leftmost stork (probably the irksome smudging Jay refers to) is due to motion blur and can't be helped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- One stork has lowered its legs and the white spots are its poo. And yes, some motion blur from the hard-working lead stork. There are a few insects around too. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Would the color bleed be mitigable? --Aciarium (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- (Clear cache to) see latest upload... Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Aciarium (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- (Clear cache to) see latest upload... Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- But they look like dust spots. And there are also tiny white spots, most prominently behind the 4th stork from the lower right. What are those? I guess the double image on the leftmost stork (probably the irksome smudging Jay refers to) is due to motion blur and can't be helped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- No mask used, but there was colour bleed into the sky. Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support in spite of the slightly irksome smudging. Well-handled shot with satisfactory sharpness. JayCubby (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Jay. Nice shape of the flock, high level of difficulty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It only becomes interesting when the image in enlarged and we see the details of the birds. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2026 at 09:28:13 (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#Others
Info created and uploaded by ElenaLitera – nominated by Красный -- Красный wanna talk? 09:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Красный wanna talk? 09:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment This motif is beautiful, so it's hard not to support the photo. I wish it were a bit sharper, though, possibly more brightly lit, and I'd prefer more generous crops that showed the entire part of the arch from the lower crop up. I will deliberate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose It doesn't feel like quite an FP to me, though it's close. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think that crop the arches is a good idea Poco a poco (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose I also think that the cropping is much too narrow, or, if it is only about the representation of the upper mosaic, much too generous. In addition, I am currently trying to explain to myself what the brightness and saturation gradient is based on, as it appears to be a photograph taken in even sunlight. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2026 at 09:12:08 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family_:_Fomitopsidaceae
InfoWhite bone-hard polypore (Osteina obducta) in the Bruderwald forest in Bamberg. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very interesting mushroom. About how wide was that tree stump? Also, you might add a category for the black mushroom on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Info The diameter of the stump is approximately 30 cm, and the remains of the dark fungus on the right side cannot be clearly identified.--Ermell (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support. Nice photo. The dark mushroom possible, is very old Pluteus cervinus in the decomposition stage. -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose A high quality illustrative depiction of the species. But no magic. The framing is too tight, making the compsoition unattractive. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The species is very well documented, and I also find the shooting angle appropriate. The focus stack is apparently not 100% seamless; there are some areas of slight blurring in places, but the overall result is very good. However, I would also document the other species in the image. Below the main object, Xylaria hypoxylon is probably growing, and I cannot identify the fungus to the right of it either. It is definitely the best image in this category. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Xylaria hypoxylon seems to be correct. However, I didn't write that down because they are not completely visible and are not the main subject. But I can do that. Then there is also the moss and the tree stump ;-) --Ermell (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2026 at 18:00:40 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Single stained glass windows
Info created by and uploaded by Terragio67, nominated by Yann
Info The Annunciation, stained glass window no. 14 of the Notre-Dame Basilica, Geneva. Created by Claudius Lavergne, and installed from 1857 to 1875. This could replace File:Vitraux de la basilique Notre-Dame, Genève 23.jpg (by me).
Support -- Yann (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 18:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Very nice vitral, high quality image. But not extraordinary, deserving the FP star. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I think you should do this as a delist and replace, and I would vote for the replacement. Unless you plan on nominating photos of all the windows, in which case it should be a set. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Terragio67: What do you think? Yann (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Yann, I'm really honored because you chose to nominate a picture that coincides with a previous FP of yours. I think the delist can be postponed if this picture will be promoted. Thank you very much. Terragio67 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support after deliberating. It deserves the star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Terragio67: What do you think? Yann (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Procedural question
|
|---|
|
Support Clearly a truly exceptional candidate because it shows the stained-glass window with its surroundings, both in best quality. This is much more informative as well as aesthetically much more pleasing than the traditional ‘stained glass on black(ish) background’ photos; only a few of our FPs achieve this, and from my own one I know how difficult it is to combine a proper exposure of the stained-glass window with a proper exposure of the surroundings without loosing sharpness, detail resolution, etc. – Aristeas (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I would certainly have voted for it if it had been part of a set. Although the resolution of this image is lower than that of the previously promoted images by the same author (01, 02), I still consider the quality sufficient, and the photo's pleasant atmosphere is, in my view, a key factor. Including the immediate surroundings of the window was a good choice, as it enhances the mood of the scene. I would also support a delist-and-replace nomination afterwards. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2026 at 16:22:03 (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/Birds#Family : Phalacrocoracidae (Cormorants)
Info Great cormorant at Tennōji Park in Osaka. c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Info No AI-based processing ;-) --Laitche (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Vivid bird and pleasant background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 18:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutral We have a bunch of FPs of this species, once yours (same place) and I'm not convinced that this one is standing out. Poco a poco (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support You could put some -EV. Too bright, hard for eyes.But ok compo, colors. --Mile (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Done Press Ctrl+F5. --Laitche (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Better now... – Terragio67 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I preferred it brighter, but it's not enough of a change to make a big difference to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think Mile’s comment that it is too bright makes sense. The background may have been better in the previous version, but when focusing on the main subject—the bird—it does appear too bright. --Laitche (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like the harsh lighting. Overall a pleasant picture but something special lacks for such a common species. --Stephan Sprinz (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support IMHO the brighter version was even better, but it’s still very impressive. Interesting enough this seems to depend on the monitor. On my office screen, the previous version indeed appears too bright and “hard for eyes”. On my calibrated Eizo CS monitor, it’s the other way around: the bright version looks magnificent, the new version less so. Maybe the difference is in the contrast the monitor can display without clipping bright or dark colours: office screens often offer high contrast, that’s great for most jobs, but cannot differentiate very bright and very dark colours, so high-contrast images like this one look harsh. – Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutral hovering between neutral and weak oppose. It's a good photo, but the lightning and the lack of foreground/background separation make this IMO weaker than our current FPs, including this one of yours from the same spot. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per above. --heylenny (talk/edits) 16:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2026 at 14:27:23 (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/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music and Opera
Info created by John Kosh (album design), Iain Macmillan (photograph), 26 September 1969 – higher resolution uploaded by Nyescum – nominated by Heylenny -- heylenny (talk/edits) 14:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Per this nomination, this one is also a unique photo, and it's with a higher resolution now. -- heylenny (talk/edits) 14:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- One question: How was it made higher resolution? If it was merely enlarged, that's a mistake and should be reverted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Apple Music has the higher resolution of the album art, that’s where it’s from. Nyescum (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- OK, cool. Then that's what we should feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Miklogfeather: why did you revert to the lower resolution version? heylenny (talk/edits) 23:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- The higher res version doesn't offer any extra detail—Paul's collar, for instance, is more pixelated than the lower res, and the colours are cooler and less accurate to pressings of the album. Miklogfeather (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Ok. Ikan Kekek, do you agree with that? heylenny (talk/edits) 23:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- No, I don't think I do, because if I zoom the smaller version to the same size as the full size of the larger version, it looks darker and much more unfocused, though because the larger version is brighter, the noise in it is also brighter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Ok. Ikan Kekek, do you agree with that? heylenny (talk/edits) 23:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- The higher res version doesn't offer any extra detail—Paul's collar, for instance, is more pixelated than the lower res, and the colours are cooler and less accurate to pressings of the album. Miklogfeather (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Miklogfeather: why did you revert to the lower resolution version? heylenny (talk/edits) 23:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- OK, cool. Then that's what we should feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Apple Music has the higher resolution of the album art, that’s where it’s from. Nyescum (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- One question: How was it made higher resolution? If it was merely enlarged, that's a mistake and should be reverted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment You should change the file name. It isn't the cover, but the photo used for the cover. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- This is the album cover. This image corresponds to the published album cover; no uncropped original photograph is publicly available on Commons. heylenny (talk/edits) 14:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Only the 2019 Anniversary cover, not the original. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: The photo was taken on 26 September 1969, as written in the description. heylenny (talk/edits) 18:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
The image quality is far to be great, but well... Yann (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support
- Removing my support, as the image is now below 2 Mpx. @Miklogfeather: You must inform voters if you make significant changes to a FPC. Yann (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't know that this was a featured picture candidate when I made the change, apologies. Miklogfeather (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann and Miklogfeather: I think that, even if the user wasn't aware of this discussion, if we're already in a process and people have already supported the higher resolution version, it should be kept and the other one reverted. heylenny (talk/edits) 15:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Heylenny: Well, if the higher resolution is of inferior quality, there is no point to have it. May be this will have to wait for a better scan of the album. Yann (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- It is better, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Heylenny: Well, if the higher resolution is of inferior quality, there is no point to have it. May be this will have to wait for a better scan of the album. Yann (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Yann and Miklogfeather: I think that, even if the user wasn't aware of this discussion, if we're already in a process and people have already supported the higher resolution version, it should be kept and the other one reverted. heylenny (talk/edits) 15:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't know that this was a featured picture candidate when I made the change, apologies. Miklogfeather (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Removing my support, as the image is now below 2 Mpx. @Miklogfeather: You must inform voters if you make significant changes to a FPC. Yann (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose An interesting historical document, but not exceptional enough - either historically or aesthetically - to become a FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- One of the most recognizable album covers in history is not a FP? Anotado. heylenny (talk/edits) 02:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I agree with you. I consider it absurd not to feature Abbey Road. Some photos are so historical they have to be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- One of the most recognizable album covers in history is not a FP? Anotado. heylenny (talk/edits) 02:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Valued images is a better project for a historical image. The image quality is not on par with the others, and it is in the public domain only under U.S. law. --Thi (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think you may be confusing the purpose of Featured Pictures with Valued Images. heylenny (talk/edits) 12:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Agree with Ikan. This is an iconic album cover, and it was aesthetically very innovative at its time because of the complete omission of band name, album title, etc.; actually that was a statement, because it implies that the Beatles were so famous that people did not even need to read the band name in order to buy it (see the article). The reproduction is adequate, even the original photo (negative or slide film) probably doesn’t contain much more information because we already can spot some film grain. From all album covers in the collection of my parents, The White Album and this one have impressed me most, and IMHO both hold up very well more than 50 years later. And yes, the music on this album is still great, too … ;–) – Aristeas (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas; the image is historically significant, visually striking, and clearly documents the subject. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 08:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Highly historical/historic enough to be featured. ★ 15:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - Kudos to the uploader for discovering its US-PD. What can I say? The most recognizable and most reproduced (even graffitied outside the West) album cover ever. Each element has its own little story, from the "funeral attire", to Paul's cigarette and him walking out of sync, to the licence plate, to the place becoming a listed place for its cultro-historical importance. At 3k x 3k, it's a good scan for a 30cm x 30cm cover. Hugoaway (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, this vote is invalid because it is only the user's third edit and does not meet the minimum requirement of 50 edits. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2026 at 15:47:17 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes/Corvidae#Genus_:_Corvus
Info All by -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very well-done. Wolverine X-eye 17:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 00:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Correct composition, image quality so-so, but not exceptional, especially when compared with other excellent images of birds. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Agree, it's a common bird, too. It feels like the exposure was lifted to a proper one during postprocessing Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I somehow prefer this bird to the other one by the same author a few blocks below. It looks simple, but at the same time the whole scene feels homey and soothing, so I can look at it for a long time and connect with the subject and surroundings, via more depth and perspective. The bird looks intelligent and is in a comfier place. Good quiet colors, composition, and execution. --Argenberg (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose good but not exceptional. --MB-one (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support In thumbnail size, it appears a bit uninteresting, but when I view it in full size, the photograph becomes impressive and quite distinct from the existing Corvus FPs. Argenberg has explained this very well. – Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 15:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutral Overall like the image but my eyes keep being drawn to the distracting little green stalk running in front of the tail feathers. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak support When searching through the categories, I couldn't find a photo that better represents this species in a good image composition. I am also bothered by a few minor flaws, but overall I would recommend this photo as a preferred image. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Fri 23 Jan → Wed 28 Jan Sat 24 Jan → Thu 29 Jan Sun 25 Jan → Fri 30 Jan Mon 26 Jan → Sat 31 Jan Tue 27 Jan → Sun 01 Feb Wed 28 Jan → Mon 02 Feb
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Mon 19 Jan → Wed 28 Jan Tue 20 Jan → Thu 29 Jan Wed 21 Jan → Fri 30 Jan Thu 22 Jan → Sat 31 Jan Fri 23 Jan → Sun 01 Feb Sat 24 Jan → Mon 02 Feb Sun 25 Jan → Tue 03 Feb Mon 26 Jan → Wed 04 Feb Tue 27 Jan → Thu 05 Feb Wed 28 Jan → Fri 06 Feb
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.
- 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 === - 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 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.
