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.
Featured picture candidates
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.
Support -- JayCubby (talk) 02:50, 26 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#Order : Decapoda (Crabs, Shrimps and Relatives)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Delete 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)
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)
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)
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 11:57:12 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#India
Info created by – uploaded by – nominated by Kuldeepburjbhalaike -- KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) 11:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) 11:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Too many distractions and bad angle of the building. --heylenny (talk/edits) 20:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Also not very sharp. I was thinking it was borderline for QI, and we can see at Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 05 2026 that it failed QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Photo of the building may be FP but not in this case, sorry. Many distracting elements and not sharp at all. Юрий Д.К. 02:24, 26 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)
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)
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)
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 Юрий Д.К. 02:29, 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)
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)
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/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Switzerland
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)
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2026 at 04:15:40 (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/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Daphniidae
Info created by Janeklass – uploaded by Janeklass – nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Janeklass (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Info A water flea of the genus Simocephalus photographed under a microscope. This rare frontal angle effectively demonstrates the symmetry of the crustacean's anatomy and the distinct median line running down the center of its bivalved carapace. The use of reflected light emphasizes the shell's surface texture and shimmering areas, with the head visible at the top. The image was captured using an 8x objective and focus stacking technique to ensure sharp detail throughout the subject.
Question Cut on both sides. Don't you have a version not cut? Yann (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Not for this specific image. I decided to crop it tightly on purpose to focus on the textures and details of the body, rather than the whole shape. Janeklass (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The fact that the whole animal is not shown much affects its illustrative value. Also, focus-stacked photos are usually much crispier than this. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback, but to fairly evaluate this work, it is important to understand the specific challenges of the subject. Not all focus stacking is the same; the difficulty depends entirely on the angle and the specimen.
- There is a reason why images from this specific angle are so rare: orienting the specimen into this position under a microscope is notoriously difficult. Most examples are lateral views because they are much easier to capture. This unique perspective creates immense depth, making the stacking process significantly more complex than with a flat side-profile.
- Regarding the illustrative value and crispness: the details are actually quite distinct where it matters. The body’s reticulated texture is clearly resolved, and the compound eye reveals actual internal structure, not just the 'black blob' typical of standard shots. The value of this image lies precisely in showing these anatomical features from a perspective that is rarely achieved. Janeklass (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose Nice details, but I agree about the crops. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Would support full image of the animal if exist. Юрий Д.К. 02:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination But okay, I’ll withdraw my nomination. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere right now, so it would just be a waste of time. Janeklass (talk) 06:17, 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)
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)
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)
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 11:03:28 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera/Papilionidae#Genus : Graphium
Info created by Anitava Roy – uploaded by Anitava Roy – nominated by Atudu -- Atudu (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Atudu (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose @Anitava Roy, please don't clone like that. JayCubby (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
I withdraw my support Due to below comment. --Laitche (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment The end of the lower tail has been cloned from the upper one. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Per Charles, poor Photoshop manipulation -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment A bit confussed, we have bellow Moroders photo in Alps, where tree is rising from air and have around 20 supports, while here is solving some part of problem and "minus front" came. --Mile (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC) p.S. @Atudu i would suppport if you solve "without" mistakes.
Comment Yes, it is scarcely believable, with all the debate about FPC voting, that so many voters ignore easy-to-correct faults in an otherwise FP-level nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Very weird, to see a buttherfly with the tips of both wings absolutely identical. It's alrigh to fix minor issues with cloning, but this is like cheating. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
| Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Poor undisclosed manipulation. Yann (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Erizo café (Tripneustes depressus), Los Cabos, Baja California, México, 2024-12-17, DD 69.jpg, not featured
Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2026 at 09:10:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Echinoidea
Info White sea urchin (Tripneustes depressus), Los Cabos, Baja California, Mexico. This large species of sea urchin is found on the seabed in the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean including Mexico, Panama, Ecuador and the Galápagos Islands and has a men diameter of 11.5 centimetres (4.5 in). Red filamentous algae is the main dietary constituent but pieces of sponge and other invertebrates have been found among its stomach contents. Note: there are no FPs on Commons of this species. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Aesthetically not appeling. And the depth-of-fied should be much more generous in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvesgaspar (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Well, @Alvesgaspar: I nominated it because I do like the composition, the good level of detail (in spite of a challening enviroment, this is not comparabe with a studio photo) and the fact that we have no FPs of this species. But ok, will move on. Poco a poco (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment When taking underwater photos such as this sea urchin, the primary problem is that the water itself affects the optical properties of the image. The refraction of light in water causes objects to appear blurred when viewed through a flat or curved lens (as is the case with many standard cameras or diving masks without special corrections). Although a macro lens was used here, the exposure parameters show that the shot was not easy to take. Even if the shutter speed had been maintained and the sensitivity increased to achieve a smaller aperture, this would not have resulted in much more depth of field. Most underwater creatures move, which makes it considerably more difficult or impossible to create a series of images with precisely shifted focus points (focus stacking). Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree. As Poco a poco has increased the quality level of underwater photos, this is not one of his best. ★ 13:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Ok, this is going nowhere, I take it back. Poco a poco (talk) 20:35, 25 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)
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)
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)
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 22:54:23 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#North Macedonia
Info This is the best angle for capturing both the apse of the cave church and the fresco depicting the Ascension of Jesus on the rocks. All by me. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Really cool motif. The focus looks to be on the bricks, rather than the frescoes, though the frescoes are still shown pretty clearly. I'll think about it; leaning toward support because I like the composition, too, but I can imagine a greater picture of this motif. Certainly a valuable image, whether it's an FP or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- and @Kiril Simeonovski, the metadata disappeared somehow. JayCubby (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The focus is on the only walled side facing east and hence the apse. Note that the ceiling, where the fresco was painted, and the other sides are practically rocks. @JayCubby: I've added metadata. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- and @Kiril Simeonovski, the metadata disappeared somehow. JayCubby (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Interesting building style. It's carved into limestone, right? JayCubby (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The detail of the fresco is not really good, the modern building next to it is not adding up much to the compo, and the bottom crop is abrupt Poco a poco (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment @Ikan Kekek, JayCubby, and Poco a poco: I've uploaded a new version with better detail and a slightly greater capture so that the bottom crop is not so abrupt. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose The flat lighting still softens the depth of the frescoes, and sharpness remains uneven across parts of the artwork. While the composition captures the apse well, the main subject could be emphasized more. Overall, the new upload does not offer a significant improvement in these aspects. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:49, 24 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)
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2026 at 21:39:08 (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/Birds/Passeriformes/Fringillidae#Genus : Haemorhous
Info Haemorhous mexicanus (male) in California. Сreated by Becky Matsubara – uploaded/nominated by me Юрий Д.К. 21:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 21:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Quite sad when a good image isn't used on any Wikis. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Done In use now, thanks. Юрий Д.К. 21:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Can we please not get into factoring in Wikipedia use at Commons FPC? We promote the best we have to offer, and Wikipedians can use that to select an image. IMO the dance of where/how/when something is used in articles is the least fun part of enwp's own FPC process, but at least I get why they care about that -- here it's just unnecessary. (Sorry, I know this wasn't an oppose -- just trying to encourage us not to go in that direction). — Rhododendrites talk | 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Oh, yes! The wow comes first and then we try to justify. Which means there is a strong subjective aesthetical / artistic component in some of the images that we never should ignore. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Pretty. By the way, for any of you who haven't had the pleasure of listening to a house finch singing, they are creative and beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Great composition and quality; as per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very nice details, lighting, and composition. The post-processing is also well done! --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:16, 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) 09:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very nice. House finch (don't get me started on purple finches or redpolls) have been surprisingly challenging for me to photograph, considering how common they are in my area. BTW I recently learned about his second cousin, the w:Vampire ground finch, which is exactly what it sounds like. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Achim/Syntaxys. In the past candidates from Flickr were often completely overprocessed, but we get more and more excellent candidates from there, too, and especially Becky Matsubara’s photos are impressive. – Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 15:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2026 at 20:35:25 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Single_stained_glass_windows
Info The stained glass window pictured is the number 19 in the Basilica of Notre-Dame in Geneva. Specifically, it depicts the Crucifixion, showing Jesus dying on the cross. It was created and installed in 1859 by the artist Claudius Lavergne. If anyone would like to attempt to replicate this photograph, I recommend taking it in the late afternoon, when the sun finally shines through the window; the almost hidden words "LASSEZ-DIRE" at the bottom cast a shadow over the nave of the Basilica. It remains one of the most intriguing "hidden" messages in Geneva's architecture. It is a phrase that works on three levels: it honors the regional history of Savoy, interprets Christ's silence under derision, and affirms the right of a minority faith to exist in a hostile city. Ultimately, Lavergne's stained glass window reminds the observer that, in the face of suffering or judgment, there is a certain power in simply letting the world speak, remaining focused on the Cross. We must also consider the political climate of Geneva in the mid-19th century. The Catholic community was often viewed with suspicion by the Genevan authorities. Every stone laid and every window installed was a declaration of presence that drew criticism from both the secular and Protestant press. For Lavergne and the clergy of the time, "Laissez-dire" may have been a community mantra. It was a message to the faithful: let critics mock our processions; let newspapers denigrate our dogmas. We will remain steadfast like this stained glass window. It is a motto of resilience, suggesting that the truth of the "Dieu mourant" (the dying God) needs no defense against the fleeting opinions of men. But beware, this is not just criticism: it is also a true sign of peace with the local Protestant community, free to believe as they wish, for the sake of the faith. This enigma makes Lavergne's stained glass window nr.19 so magnificent. Created, uploaded, nominated by Terragio67 -- Terragio67 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Terragio67 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 21:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support In high resolution, this capture in vivid color and exquisite detail is extraordinary - a striking work alongside the previously promoted (01) and (02). -- Radomianin (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Rado. Moving composition in this stained glass and a great photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice photo, clean lighting -- XRay 💬 11:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support! --heylenny (talk/edits) 21:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support As I wrote before, the great thing about these photos is that they show not only the stained-glass window panes, but also the window frame and the surroundings in high quality, giving us a beautiful and highly valuable impression of how the stained-glass window looks in its place. – Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 15:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2026 at 18:30:02 (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/Astronomy#Stars
Info created by European Space Agency – uploaded by OptimusPrimeBot – nominated by Don-vip -- vip (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- vip (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support
Great! --Laitche (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support!!! --Terragio67 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Great photo Юрий Д.К. 21:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Captured in living, dancing light. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support This is a remarkable image! Extremely high educational value: it can really change the way people think about the sun. And it's amazing that there was a way to photograph the sun that enables us to view these details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Stunning.--Ermell (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --It's moon (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support – Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 15:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2026 at 13:02:56 (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/Places/Natural/Italy#Veneto
Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Wonderful! --Yann (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Great scene, resolution and sharpness. I found a slight stitching error, easy to fix. See note. Im wondering, what all these white spots are in the blue sky. --Milseburg (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutral per now. --Milseburg (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow! Юрий Д.К. 21:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Spectacular! --Laitche (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Fantastic! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)I agree with above and will support when the broken tree is fixed. FPs should have no errors.--Ermell (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutral
Support Very good now.--Ermell (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak support The main motif, the mountain landscape, is clear and shows a beautiful panorama. The exposure of the snowy areas is also very well done. What bothers me a little are the structures in the sky; the white dots (as mentioned by Milseburg) are probably snowflakes, but there is also some slight color banding and noise visible in certain areas. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Fantastic scenery. -- XRay 💬 11:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Stitching error to be fixed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support assuming the errors are fixed, but yes otherwise this is spectacular -- probably my favorite of the current noms. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Per Rhododendrites --Poco a poco (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Rhododendrites, assuming the error gets fixed. If there are technical problems, we can help to fix it. – Aristeas (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Rhododendrites and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Question Two questions actually. Why does an experienced nominator not keep an eye on a nomination and therefore sort out technical issues? Why do so many experienced voters support before the edits are made? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)I must reconsider my support here and agree with Charlesjsharp: the image currently has technical issues that should be corrected before an FP designation. Once the stitching errors are fixed, I would be happy to support this nomination again. Pinging @Moroder please review the comments carefully and resolve the technical issues. Thank you very much in advance. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose
In progress I’m working on an improved version of this image. Moroder has contacted me and explained that he has no access to Photoshop right now. I’ll try my luck and ask for your patience … – Aristeas (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Done @Milseburg, Ermell, Alvesgaspar, and Radomianin: and others: Fixed the broken tree and a duplicated route marking near the left edge. Hope it helps, – Aristeas (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Supplement: Shadows show that during the stitching two more of the markers at the left got lost; reconstructed them, and fixed a duplicated shadow. – Aristeas (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Aristeas, for your time and care in resolving the issues. This is exactly the kind of constructive engagement that strengthens FPC. I've gladly reinstated my support :) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Better. ★ 02:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Aristeas, for your time and care in resolving the issues. This is exactly the kind of constructive engagement that strengthens FPC. I've gladly reinstated my support :) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:12, 25 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)
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 17:24:27 (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/Arthropods#Class : Ostracoda (Ostracods)
Info created by Janeklass – uploaded by User:Janeklass – nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Janeklass (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Info [copied from file description] A micrograph showing two ostracods (Ostracoda), also known as seed shrimp, side by side. These tiny, bean-shaped crustaceans have their bodies entirely enclosed within a protective bivalved shell. The use of reflected light clearly highlights the shell's distinctive surface texture, color patterns, and the fine sensory hairs (setae) along the margins. A unique feature of these animals is that their eye is located inside the shell, looking through a transparent section of the wall. The image was captured using an 8x objective and focus stacking technique to ensure sharp detail across the curved surfaces of the subjects. JayCubby (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Question Is this a cutout, or is the background naturally black? JayCubby (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- This is not a cutout; the background is naturally black. Janeklass (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Question What is the size of these? en:Ostracod says it could be from 0.2 to 32 mm. Yann (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I usually don't measure their exact size, but speaking from experience, since there are two in the frame, they are likely on the smaller side—under a millimeter. Janeklass (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Thanks, that photo and documentation is really interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Good photo and thanks for the explanation. An interesting species. JayCubby (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Highly interesting and also aesthetically pleasing. – Aristeas (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The naturally black background provides excellent contrast for this sharply captured ostracod, making the image both scientifically informative and aesthetically pleasing. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 15:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2026 at 15:44:20 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Trentino-Alto Adige
Info The Botzer in the Stubai Alps seen from the north (Becherhaus). All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Beautiful shot, excellent definition and detail. Please remove the stain to the left of the small cloud (still on the left). Terragio67 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Done Oh yes, thanks for the hint. Milseburg (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the corrections...
Support Terragio67 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the corrections...
- Beautiful shot, excellent definition and detail. Please remove the stain to the left of the small cloud (still on the left). Terragio67 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow, that's the first thing that comes to my mind. Why? For aesthetical reasons, I suppose. And the image quality is excellent. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, there are two very tenuous dark spots. I added a note for them. --Harlock81 (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, I see what you mean. The lower one was quite round and a dust spot. I fixed that. But the upper one is quite diffuse and is a little thin cloud, I think. Milseburg (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks.
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- Ok, I see what you mean. The lower one was quite round and a dust spot. I fixed that. But the upper one is quite diffuse and is a little thin cloud, I think. Milseburg (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I thought I was experiencing a bit of déjà vu, so I did a search for FPs of Übeltalferner. The existing one, File:Blick vom Signalgipfel des Wilden Freigers nach Westen.jpg, is considerably different from this photo, and this one is also deserving. This one has a more irregular form that emphasizes the flow of the glacier more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support IMHO this one is even better than the existing one because of the beautiful clouds and the shadows which add depth to the scene. They are very different and can be used for different purposes, so it is correct to feature both of them. – Aristeas (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Ikan and Aristeas. It is also technically well executed. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support ★ 15:29, 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 13:33:07 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info Vehicle registration plate on an Alfa Romeo Giulia of the Italian Polizia di Stato. Image by me. -- Aciarium (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Aciarium (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice quality and framing. --heylenny (talk/edits) 15:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Useful and good quality, but lacking wow. And the crop light at top is disturbing. Yann (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose IMO too simple for FPC. -- XRay 💬 08:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Trivial image -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose composition isn't the best. --MB-one (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per others. --Tagooty (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry – I see that you saw an FP in this – there is beauty in the combination of the red-and-black license plate with the Italian tricolore at the top left and the blue of the car paint. And the curves of the car are beautiful, too. However it is really difficult how to crop here. The cropped light at the top right spoils the composition for me; but I confess that I do not see a good solution. Maybe it would need more experimenting (Edward Weston spent days searching for the best composition in photos of everyday objects), maybe there is no solution. – Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 25 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)
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2026 at 09:32:59 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Красный -- Красный wanna talk? 09:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Красный wanna talk? 09:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The composition looks imbalanced, crop from the top too high IMO --Aciarium (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunately, I oppose it because it's too low to me! Where would you have cropped it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Aciarium – Julian Lupyan (talk) 20:48, 21 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)
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)
Arothron manilensis, featured
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2026 at 20:45:40 (UTC)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page
-
Front view
-
Side view
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Tetraodontidae_(Pufferfish)
Info Narrow-lined puffer (Arothron manilensis), Anilao, Philippines. This pufferfish is found in tropical waters of the central Indo-Pacific. It lives in estuaries, on the sheltered top reef or lagoons from the surface to 20 metres (66 ft) depth. This diurnal species can grow up to 31 centimetres (12 in) length, is solitary and feeds on benthic invertebrates. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Conditionalsupport provided the white balance is corrected and the lighting is made consistent between the two. JayCubby (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- JayCubby: I made some WB changes, what do you think? Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Looks great. Thanks, complaint
withdrawn. JayCubby (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I hope your "withdrawn" doesn't confuse the bot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- I subst'd the template. It has so far ignored it, so I think it's safe. JayCubby (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- It’s OK, subst’d templates are safe to use. The bot only searches for template inclusions which start with
{{.... – Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- It’s OK, subst’d templates are safe to use. The bot only searches for template inclusions which start with
- I subst'd the template. It has so far ignored it, so I think it's safe. JayCubby (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- I hope your "withdrawn" doesn't confuse the bot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Looks great. Thanks, complaint
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support So much detail! I particularly enjoy looking directly at the pufferfish's face. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very claer and well executed.--Ermell (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support A valid set with high educational value. Both photos are of very good quality and visually appealing; the DoF is appropriate, showing enough of the surroundings to give an adequate impression of the location, but also making the fish stand out nicely. – Aristeas (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Ermell and Aristeas, for the set; Thank you very much for WB improvement! -- Radomianin (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Big +, left WB is very good. Now keep more time with WB problems (left-maybe some Red could be downed). Right picture could be improved too.--Mile (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 23:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent pair of images. --Tagooty (talk) 06:16, 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)
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2026 at 17:45:57 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Nudes
Info created by Amedeo Modigliani, scanned by the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, uploaded and nominated by Yann
Info Seated Nude is 1917 painting by Italian painter Amedeo Modigliani, now in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Antwerp, Belgium.
Support No FP of painting by Modigliani yet. -- Yann (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support This nude painting is artistically very appealing. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent reproduction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good reproduction of an iconic work; colour, texture, and formal language are rendered with precision. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. – Aristeas (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. – Terragio67 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. --Laitche (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Lunulicardia hemicardium, featured
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2026 at 16:27:42 (UTC)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page
-
Right valve
-
Left valve
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Cardiidae
Info created by Llez – uploaded by Llez – nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good as always. --Laitche (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I concur with Laitche. JayCubby (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Mile (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support for the set. Very good technical quality with consistent lighting and focus; complementary views clearly document shell morphology, adding encyclopedic value. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin (I could only paraphrase his words, so please allow me to keep the habit to use per in such clear cases). – Aristeas (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Radomianin. – Terragio67 (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support In general, Llez's shell photos are so good, it feels impossible not to vote for them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --It's moon (talk) 02:20, 25 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)
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)
- @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)
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)
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2026 at 14:07:19 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info -- A second try, almost nine years after (see here). I supppose this one will also trigger both hate and love reactions... Long live minimalism! All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose especially per arguments on the old nom. Good idea but just no enought for FP for me, sorry. (small reflected face on the metal surface, imo not enought for FP star despite even good quality) Юрий Д.К. 15:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing has changed for me. Yann (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good composition to me. I think focusing on how much or how clear a self-portrait you see is the wrong approach. Move your eyes around the picture frame. It's a great rhythm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Good idea. --Ermell (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Clearly no wow here. High FPC standards only for the others? --A.Savin 11:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Not at all! Please read attentively what I wrote here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very nice idea, good execution. The image first appears as a little riddle (how did the guy come into the metal surface? and where is the rest of his body?), until we realize that this is the reflection of the photographer, looking up to a reflecting ceiling. The combination of simplicity (minimalist composition) with complexity (riddle of reflection) distinguishes the photo and makes it a FP. – Aristeas (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nice idea and amazing at the first glance, but the technical execution doesn't meet the FP standards I Think. --Milseburg (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice idea and well done. -- XRay 💬 19:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose As one of those people that look for some educational value even at commons FPC, this has none, to be frank. I also do not think this was executed against technical difficulties or produced a very unique or striking result. Sorry. —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Agree with other supporters. Looks like a solid photograph in pure photography terms. It’s sort of conceptual, somewhat thought provoking, even full blown artistic. Also different in the flow. It does have some educational value: it can be used to teach composition, styles of photography and creative self-portraits. --Argenberg (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per above: nice idea. I can't even understand what the creator saw as so extraordinary in it. heylenny (talk/edits) 01:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per above. --Aciarium (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose I think if I were to have taken this, I would be happy to put it on some user page/profile somewhere, and it looks nice at thumbnail. At full size, I think I might just be a hard sell for the photographer reflected behind a camera self-portrait. Like if there were some way to make the self-portrait itself more abstract and human-centered rather than camera-centered. I'm not phrasing that well. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment We usually renominate an image when there is any improvement, don't we? ★ 15:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2026 at 12:08:37 (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/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Other_land_vehicles
Info Veteran of kolkhoz and sovkhoz, T-40 tractor in Urmetan, Tajikistan (трактор Т-40, Урметан, Таджикистан). -- Mile (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Mile (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 15:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Classic blue and orange complementary colours, technically excellent, impressive scenery - works for me. BigDom (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose High quality picture, but not exceptional, inspiring or magic. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar, I think. I'd rather look at the scenery, and I find that the vehicles in the foreground partly screw up the view without being interesting enough in themselves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Strangely, it appears to have been edited with some kind of AI-generated filter. heylenny (talk/edits) 23:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment @talk What spot ? --Mile (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Regretful
Oppose I love the scene and compo, but please re-process the image. JayCubby (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Info Another try, removing some part at engine. Some are OOC. @JayCubby, Ikan Kekek --Mile (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC) p.S. @heylenny No.
Support Texture is OK now.
- JayCubby (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Agree, lighting or subject/compo or detail are not extraordinary. Poco a poco (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Aciarium (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Not the highest quality (the stones on the ground and the trees and buildings at the left look smudged and a little bit distorted), but certainly an inspiring image: the rich palette of rust colours, combined with the bright blue, of the tractor is magical, the countless dents and scratches plus the broken windows are picturesque. The light is good because it helps to emphasize all the three-dimensional features, dents etc. I just regret that the other car and the building (?) at the right are a bit distracting and do not help the composition. – Aristeas (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The tractor's rust, dents, and broken parts give it a rustic charm, captured with striking lighting and color - for me, a definite Wow! -- Radomianin (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The brown mountains match the rust. ★ 15:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2026 at 09:46:29 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Greece
Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)- Tsikourios tower is a typical Maniot tower-house, with the multi-story tower and the enclosure. Now it lies abandoned.
Support -- C messier (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Nice landscape Юрий Д.К. 19:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Well composed and good quality. Nothing more. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The combination of this foreground with that great background makes this more than just well composed and good quality to me, but a bit of judicious noise reduction in the sky would improve the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent overview of an exemplary representative of the Mani towers. The image shows both the complete building complex and its situation on the hill over the valley and before the higher mountains, thus hinting at the historical reasons for building a fortified tower in this place. Agree that the sky could withstand some noise removal – unlike other parts of a photo, the sky usually looses no information through noise reduction. – Aristeas (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support —UnpetitproleX (Talk) 04:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose There's nothing wrong with the photo, and it undoubtedly documents the subject very well, but there's nothing exceptional about it to warrant FP status. AVDLCZ (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose A hard one, the subject is FP-worthy but I would have gone for a landscape format and not such a tight crop at the top to show the mountains and achieve a better balance shot. Poco a poco (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutral agree with poco about the top crop, though it's not quite enough to push me into oppose — Rhododendrites talk | 23:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I just can't get used to drone photos because the technical image quality isn't good enough; I often find that the finer details are missing. In terms of image composition, I find 2–3 other images in this category much better because they have greater documentary value and fit better into the context of the surroundings. For me, this image has the least wow factor. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2026 at 21:30:15 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Work#Artisans (craftspeople)
Info created & uploaded by K4tr1nas44r – nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Striking portrait. Slightly noisy, but sometimes, what really matters is how a photo makes you feel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --August (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment This would need right-side crop. --Mile (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- @PetarM: @It's moon:
Done Kruusamägi (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- @PetarM: @It's moon:
Oppose Average composition imo. I agree with Mile in that the image would benefit from right-side cropping. While it's a nice portrait, I don't find it exceptional. It also appears slightly tilted to me, which might need to be corrected as well. It's moon (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
* --Mile (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose ОК, Alves say react imidiately. Sometime i put cmt first.
Question I don't understand, I didn't say anything!... Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar I assume Petar is referring to rule #1 of your Ten Golden Rules. -- BigDom (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support This one here is more FP than this one IMO. heylenny (talk/edits) 02:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree with you. I'd like the farmer to be just a little further back in that one, and the conservator's workshop has several visually interesting objects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support +1 ★ 02:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree with you. I'd like the farmer to be just a little further back in that one, and the conservator's workshop has several visually interesting objects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Indeed a very nice and useful photo. But honestly I receive photos of craftspeople as more authentic (and educative) if they are really at work. In this case the man looks at the photographer like thinking “OMG, when will this photo session be finally over, so that I can continue with my real work?”. The composition is OK, but, as noted by previous commenters, not outstanding; turning the lens a little bit more to the left may have substantially improved it. Therefore I really appreciate the photo as very useful documentation, but I cannot see it as one of the very best photos on Commons, sorry. – Aristeas (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Technically sound and informative, but visually restrained. The frontal viewpoint and centered composition create a static, closed image with limited narrative tension. The subject's clear awareness of the camera interrupts the sense of a genuine working moment. As documentation this works well; as an FP, it lacks the compositional or expressive distinction expected at that level. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment Much better croped, did you try BW, since look old workshop. I removed O, if BW would work i could put S, maybe Alternative. --Mile (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I was thinking: Something is missing or wrong here, but I didn't know what. Aristeas and Radomianin wrote it very well. Yann (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose similar first impression to Aristeas. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Aristeas and Radomianin. It is much more a portrait of this (unknown?) person than a portrait of a craftsman at work. Technically well done, but not conceptually. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2026 at 21:09:54 (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/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Estonia
Info created by Mike Peel – uploaded by Mike Peel – nominated by Mike Peel -- Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Mike Peel (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Yann (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --C messier (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 15:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose 3 of the 4 carved statues at the corners of the clock are to varying degrees noisy and unsharp. Maybe I'm being too nitpicky, but I think this is a QI but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Beautiful and charming dial with history, well framed. Taste varies. I prefer a tiny little bit noise to the mushy results of too much noise reduction, and the tiny traces of noise go well with the traces of aging on the dial. – Aristeas (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Agreed. JayCubby (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose Sorry, but while I still see no real problem with the noise etc., Radomianin has a good point concerning the light, which is a bit unimpressive. Furthermore I have to admit that he is also right about that at that focal length we can today achieve even higher technical quality, and therefore expect it for a featured picture. And the focal length also suggests that it should be possible to get an even flatter image with perfectly equal distribution of sharpness by using a somewhat longer focal length; even a very common 85 mm lens should be sufficient. So there is clear room for improvement here, and so I have to change my vote on reconsideration. – Aristeas (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support for more than 330 years old timepiece by Christian Ackermann. --Laitche (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --heylenny (talk/edits) 01:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose Well-composed and historically interesting, but the small figures are not fully sharp and show some noise, and the lighting is rather flat. With a 35 mm focal length on a static subject, higher technical quality would have been expected even handheld, so despite the charm, I lean towards full oppose. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose I think I'm mainly just not into the light here. Looking at other photos in the category, I see that it does get light, and I suspect this same shot at a different time of day would push me over to support. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Compared to the other material in the category, this detailed shot should be declared FP in terms of the preferred image for a category. The loss of edge sharpness is due to the optics used and the shooting angle. A fixed focal length would certainly have produced greater sharpness. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2026 at 15:30:53 (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/Places/Architecture/Palaces#Russia
Info House of the Government of the Russian Federation. My photo Юрий Д.К. 15:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 15:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Very good capture of a very in-your-face building. The sky is a bit blotchy in places, but that's quite subtle and noticeable only when pixel-peeping. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Just yet another good photo of this building, nothing featurable. Sorry --A.Savin 13:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- What your criteria for an image being featurable? It seems that you by default vote oppose for almost all FP nons that you see :) Юрий Д.К. 13:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Which is not necessarily a bad approach, that something has to be really unusually outstanding and that "oppose" is the default vote. I don't have that approach, but I respect it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- What your criteria for an image being featurable? It seems that you by default vote oppose for almost all FP nons that you see :) Юрий Д.К. 13:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I am with A.Savin on this one. The right question is: is there anyting exceptional in this image justifying the FP star? Not in my opinion, as a high image quality is not enough. But criteria in FPC has somehow changed over the years, with people tending to stamp high quality images routinely. That is not new of course, please take a look at what I wrote in 2014 on the subject here-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)- FYI. Sadly, FP is becoming extremely toxic right now. Юрий Д.К. 16:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- If you think that's toxic, that's because you don't remember the longstanding and personal invective from now-banned users. Disagreements about whether a photo has wow are core issues on FPC, not "toxic" just because you don't like the opinions expressed that are evaluations of the photo and not ad hominem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 05:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Per Юрий Д.К.. I really like this photo. heylenny (talk/edits) 23:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support pretty much what Ikan said. The light here is pleasant and makes this photo stand out against others of the same building. BigDom (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Aciarium (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The centered perspective perfectly matches the architectural style and the authoritarian air of the building. The beautiful warm evening light emphasizes the three-dimensional elements of the façade; at the same time, it softens the imposing impression a bit, adding some charm to it. So the photo offers an intriguing combination of authority and charm. – Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support per Aristeas. This is another good example of an image that may not have a wow factor, but is well executed from a technical and documentary perspective. In this sense, it should be declared as FP in the spirit of the preferred image of a category. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2026 at 14:53:19 (UTC) (unless closed by the 5th-day rule)
Voters must check: File name · Quality · Image description · License · Categories (what, where, who, when)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena/Weather#Sun
Info Sun setting in the Namib desert, Namibia. The sun is not a perfect circle on the horizon due to atmospheric refraction, a phenomenon where Earth's atmosphere bends sunlight. As the sun appears near the horizon, its light passes through a thicker, denser layer of the atmosphere compared to when it's high in the sky. This denser air refracts, or bends, the lower edge of the sun's image more than the upper edge, causing the light from the bottom to be lifted higher than the light from the top, which squashes the sun into an oval or flattened disk. The wavy or rippled appearance of the sun's bottom edge is caused by atmospheric turbulence. While atmospheric refraction flattens the sun into an oval, turbulence within the lowest layers of the atmosphere creates the wavy motion. This phenomenon is a type of mirage caused by a temperature inversion, where cooler, denser air is trapped near the ground underneath warmer, less dense air. This layering effect further distorts the light, exaggerating the jagged, wavy appearance of the sun's lower edge. These mirages are most common over oceans or flat deserts at sunrise or sunset.
Info created by Giles Laurent – uploaded by Giles Laurent – nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 15:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Love the red glow! Wolverine X-eye 18:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support. Dwccb10 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support as per nominantion. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I’ll make a print and keep it on display in my room :) --Laitche (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- If you invert the red and white in this picture you can get a japanese flag :) Giles Laurent (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Wow! JayCubby (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Fantastic cinematic photo! In my mind's ear, I hear the barking of jackals while looking at the sun setting over this vast desert landscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support The heat haze is striking :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but it doesn't work to me aesthetically. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. To me the aesthetic of the image consists of this big plasma ball falling into this vast and arid desertic landscape. The sun light going trough the thick atmosphere creates a beautiful reddish light throughout the picture and the angle of the sun compared to the ground creates beautiful and subtle rim light in the landscape that almost make it look like a painting to my eyes. To me this extremely zoomed 800mm shot showcases an extraordinary landscape that is not usually seen with the naked eye as we can't zoom into the distance with our eyes (especially in direction of the sun) and it almost looks like it could have been shot on another planet like mars. Finally I think the image is a very good illustration of the natural phenomenoms happening and described in the image description -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Excellent documentation of atmospheric refraction, appealing minimalist composition. – Aristeas (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment And certainly an excellent example of a truly outstanding FPC candidate, just as it has been recently demanded for FPs. – Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support – Julian Lupyan (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Support unique photo of that sunset. Nice work. heylenny (talk/edits) 13:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support synthwave — Rhododendrites talk | 23:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support It reminds me the flag of Niger! ★ 02:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2026 at 20:48:45 (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/Other#Germany
Info Citrus trees in the garden of Seehof Castle in Memmelsdorf. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Well-aligned photo with carefully chosen crop. Decent detail. It would be interesting to see a similar drone photo during a Lahaina Noon. JayCubby (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Юрий Д.К. 15:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Poco a poco (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support
Oppose After thinking about it again, I agree that the lack symmetry is an issue. I'd support though if fixed. Poco a poco (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Support I prefer cut off the top but good enough. --Laitche (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC) And symmetric version ;-) --Laitche (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I prefer the top myself, as it allows for the footpath's width to be known. \ JayCubby (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose No wow for me, even symmetry is not there --A.Savin 13:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per A.Savin. I don't think symmetry would make this really interesting to me, though. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose As above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Support Much wow for me. It’s exactly the little variation of the symmetry which makes this image charming. Look at the individual trees and their shadows – each one is different and has its own shape, adding pleasant variation to the common pattern. – Aristeas (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Symmetry per above. --Aciarium (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Support but it should be cropped, as per above. --heylenny (talk/edits) 13:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites talk | 23:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose Basically, I would find the image much more interesting (and support it) if it were cropped below the first row of trees at the top and also horizontally centered. This would shift the degree of abstraction in the image further away from the object and keep the viewer engaged in the image. From a purely technical point of view, I would like to see a little more detail. --Achim Lammerts • Syntaxys (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
Wed 21 Jan → Mon 26 Jan Thu 22 Jan → Tue 27 Jan Fri 23 Jan → Wed 28 Jan Sat 24 Jan → Thu 29 Jan Sun 25 Jan → Fri 30 Jan Mon 26 Jan → Sat 31 Jan
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
Sat 17 Jan → Mon 26 Jan Sun 18 Jan → Tue 27 Jan 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
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.

