Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2011

File:NYC subway-4D.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 03:03:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by CountZ - uploaded by CountZ - nominated by CountZ -- CountZ (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CountZ (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Proper map, but no wow for FP. W.S. 08:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow.. nice work. Ggia (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely Featured quality. Glad that it's been updated many times to reflect changes in the lines... Steven Walling 06:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not exactly a wow for me, or even technically great, but the support vote comes from devotion and the time required to build the map and keep it consistently updated.--Snaevar (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jovian Eye _talk 04:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Computer-generated

File:Salle de lecture Bibliothèque Mazarine Angle.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 22:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Remi Mathis and Jastrow - uploaded by Remi Mathis - nominated by Remi Mathis -- Remi Mathis (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Remi Mathis (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The composition is very good and the perspective great. This image, however, needs some noise reduction. Taken at ISO 1600, you can see some serious noise, specially in the dark areas. I would support a version with less noise. --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too noisy (ISO 1600)

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.

- Jovian Eye _talk 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pirate's ship in Dubrovnik.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 14:38:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy & boring composition --Citron (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Its not pirate ship, Dubrovnik republic was commercial, pro-trade orientated, this is replica of that time common trading ship. --Mile (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Not bad, might be better if it was lighter. I'm guessing people with more knowledge of the ship might like to see the information corrected if it hasn't yet been. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 23:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Citron--Miguel Bugallo 18:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The noise doesn't bother me, but the composition does. Nice subject though. --Avenue (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness, lack of contrast and bad compostion.--Snaevar (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-03-16-f-lomont-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 18:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside the North battery of the fort du Lomont.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but it looks a little shaky on top. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhite balance?--Miguel Bugallo 18:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Distortion? Vertical distortion?--Miguel Bugallo 19:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- White balance : daylight ; Distortion : none. --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added a note. Sorry--Miguel Bugallo 22:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vertical distortion. And I don't know, but perhaps tilted--Miguel Bugallo 23:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition IMO. --Avenue (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-03-20-fort-lomont-7.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 18:18:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° panorama seen from the fort du Lomont.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cariama cristata Vienna2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 19:17:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Tsui - nominated by Attis1979
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Attis (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 06:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not fond of the artificial (Zoo) background for a prairie/pampas bird. W.S. 14:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice H. Krisp (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background may not be entirely natural, but it provides a nice contrast. --Avenue (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jonathunder (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S. plus a minor flaw of the white flakes on the head of the pampas bird to the left.--Snaevar (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Falco sp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 21:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Maria Eizagirre - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Theklan (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A imagem caracteriza bem o rosto do animal, inclusive consegui ver o que há dentro do orificio da ave. De qualidade boa para educação também. (The picture is good but the face of well-characterized animal inclusive could even see the details inside the hole on the face of the bird). Micael 106 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shot, but the picture is very noisy (perhaps from severe over-sharpening?). Also, there's a lot of CA around the edge of the bird. --LeavXC (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've the original one here, so I could not sharp so much (in fact, it was only a little bit in order to mark the feathers). -Theklan (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've uploaded a non sharpened version of the image. -Theklan (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image is over-processed and therefore it will probably find no favor in the eyes of the purists. But both the graphic qualities (it's almost an artwork) and the encyclopedic value make it for me FP-worthy. -- MJJR (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a purist. W.S. 15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would mind saying exactly what is impure about this image so we can learn from it? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure: very noisy due to over-processing. W.S. 08:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uploaded a new version of the image, without sharpening. -Theklan (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The result of image over processing is not pleasing when viewing at high resolution. Poor image documentation. It needs identification to species level and location details. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I note that the species and locality details have been added. This is a close-up image and the documentation does not explain how the photographer managed to get so close to this bird. Is the bird in captivity? The new image description asks us to notice the details in the nose. Incidentally, what structures are seen just beyond the nares in the nose? It this a normal nose or is it pathological? Snowmanradio (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Uploaded a non sharpened version and classified it as Falco cherrug as asked above. -Theklan (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support attractive detail and look --W.Rebel (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the new version is much better. But the background is still a bit pixelated/grainy and there are chromatic aberrations --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Documentation is suspect. If this is Falco cherrug, it's well out of range, and improbable for a wild bird. If it's a captive bird, we should be told. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The bird is used for disuading other birds to eat in the dump, yes. -Theklan (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Orereta (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Joxemai (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--An13sa (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten.--Snaevar (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Xabier Armendaritz (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirche Mettlach 2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2011 at 14:41:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Felix König ✉ 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Felix König ✉ 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good focus, but the church looks crooked and the big shadow at the bottom left unbalances the composition notafish }<';> 13:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad perspective; cropped out signs, branches and even a house, giving a bad composition. The picture looks overexposed. And last, but not least, lack of details in the art of the church resulting in a bad sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --ELEKHH^T 03:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ash and Steam Plume, Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2011 at 11:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the ISS Expedition 21 crew - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cropped too close at the bottom. This photo from the same expedition is better on that front. I also see many artefacts. --Avenue (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant Oppose A rare and special event, but due to poor composition this really is not the best commons has. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. W.S. 06:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per THSW and W.S.--Snaevar (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dipodium punctatum portrait.jpg

File:Taenianotus triacanthus (Yellow leaf scorpionfish) in Caulerpa algae.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2011 at 09:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice and interesting, but the quality is not good enough IMO (lack of sharpness)--Jebulon (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citron (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lactoria cornuta (Longhorn cowfish) Timor.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2011 at 09:24:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nhobgood - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not one of Nhobgood's best. Rather harsh light, average image quality and tight compo. May do well at VI, if I'm not mistaken. W.S. 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S. The lack of quality might be because of the difference between the original and the retouched version.--Snaevar (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citron (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leeds Castle, Kent, England 3 - May 09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 00:05:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- 99of9 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting, color, composition. Can see no errors such as stitching etc... Steven Walling 04:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support W.S. 06:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 11:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support notafish }<';> 20:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice overview. --ELEKHH^T 03:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support You don't need my vote, but you deserve it! Fantastic image, great composition and super sharp. --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Murdockcrc -- MJJR (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Adriatic Sea in Croatia by Pudelek.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2011 at 21:26:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness and overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness and a bit, only a bit overexposed (As Snaevar). Perhaps too much sky--Miguel Bugallo 17:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Pudelek (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pôr do Sol.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2011 at 00:50:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lyssuel Calvet - uploaded by Micael 106 (talk) - nominated by Micael 106 (talk) -- Micael 106 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the discretion of the voters will -- Micael 106 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Looks good, but not great.--Breawycker (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Editor with less than 50 edits. Please check the guidelines. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but just another sunset. Unfortunately, one is always happening at some place in the world, so there is high competition for these types. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice scene, but picture is tilted, noisy and the composition is too centered imo. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image quality is very poor, due to small sensor of compact camera -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Calocochlia pan 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 14:34:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be perfect for FP if you want to continue to feature all shells. The images are a bit noisy, not sharp on top and suffer from some CA. And I dislike the background (on it self insufficient for an oppose, but the rest is). W.S. 15:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is best to promote all the good images of shells that allow voting, anyone. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wetenschatje, are you really, um, serious with all those accusations? It's one of the best images on Commons I have ever seen. Are you not jus being hypercrytical? --Von.grzanka (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality I think and eye catching, but I agree with WS. Plus missing (As usual! --Llez (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)) a side of the shell. - Benh (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why do you want me always to show six sides of an object, whereas all your pictures of objects show only one? Your objects are as well three-dimensional as mine, why are six views obligatory in my pictures, but not in yours??? The Louvre Pyramid has at least 5 sides, which can be photographed (south, west, nord, east, and aerial), but you figure only one!! Where are the other views?? The same is for other pictures: The cathedral of Narbonne - here I would be very glad to see also the front, which certainly differs from the lateral view -, the Cour Carrée of the Louvre Museum (especially here it is yery easy, you must just turn a bit and you have the other views), and so on. --Llez (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want anything. But when providing 5 face, you basically mean to be exhaustive, but you're not. I don't mean to, in the examples you mention. You might as well provide a single view then. - Benh (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never said, that I want to be exhaustive and I have already said, that the sixth view you insist always, gives no further information, it is nearly quite the same as the first. BTW, does it mean, one view or six? There are several featured pictures of shells with two or three views. Why didn't you oppose there??? Would you support, when I only show one view? I don't believe so. --Llez (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why getting through the trouble to take 5 views if it's not to be exhaustive ? No I won't support one view either because I'm just bored to see tons of shells here, which aren't even properly shot. I've supported several two or three views shots of objects (not shell) because they were properly taken (not 200 iso, not f/xx with xx very high _not the case here_, better lighting, not masking but instead plain background with a soft drop shadow). Notice that although I'm not a fan of shells, I don't always oppose them, like in your last nom because I think it was fine enough. - Benh (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Which ISO would you propose and why? I'm always interested in suggestions to optimize my pictures --Llez (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously, I'd propose ISO 100 for minimal noise. High ISO are for situations when there's not enough light and you need to maintain high shutter speed. In your case, you don't need to maintain high shutter speed since I guess you can leave your camera still to shot your collection of shells. - Benh (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think a black background suits much better. --Cephas (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried a black background, but then the outlines, especially in in lower left, are barely visible! --Llez (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. -Theklan (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good image and 10.000 x... pixels. But being a composition, the product could be better. The right image superior has color noise--Miguel Bugallo 18:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Some corrections done. --Llez (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Q.E.D.. W.S. 07:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good H. Krisp (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 11:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support C.Q.F.D.!! --Jebulon (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 13:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Evans Peak.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 17:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nom, although maybe this one would be better. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a heavy-hearted Oppose, sorry. I like the composition idea with the stones, but concluding there's too much foreground in the image imo. Maybe with a little stitching, the rule of thirds would had been achievable. The quality isn't bad, but why focussed you that foregound, and not the main motive, the mountain? Too bad :-( --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good composition, looks haphazard. W.S. 14:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Not all compositions need to look the same. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 23:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Support This version has less of a foreground. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 10:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 13:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interier lit (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2011 at 10:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by W.Rebel - uploaded by W.Rebel - nominated by W.Rebel -- W.Rebel (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- W.Rebel (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Saturated and underexposed. Sure, it leaves a really artistic picture but that is not my thing.--Snaevar (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support alofok * 11:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Snaevar--Miguel Bugallo 17:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Per Snaevar? Snaevar user?, what is the meaning of this? Per Name is at very much. --W.Rebel (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RonaldReaganWalterCorinaKnott1971.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2011 at 05:35:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ronald Reagan with Walter and Cordelia Knott at the celebration of Knotts' 60th Anniversary in 1971

Info created by Orange County Archives - uploaded by Nehrams2020 - nominated by Hoangquan hientrang -- Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but I can't see any extraordinary encyclopaedic value mitigating the poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, lacking sharpness and overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 13:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:South gate to Tomb of Akbar the Great, Agra.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 15:58:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Varun Shiv Kapur - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - edited & nominated by Jovianeye
Support -- Jovian Eye (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 23:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Composition is good, but colors lack contrast. Lacks sharpness notafish }<';> 13:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors as Notafish. W.S. 06:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking contrast~~, and bad crop on the left edge, due to the cut out branches giving a bad composition.~~--Snaevar (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can understand your issue of contrast, but the crop part is strange. The subject is the tomb and not the branches. The subject is centred which is normally preferred for architecture pictures. I think the composition is balanced. --Jovian Eye _talk 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The compostion is balanced. No argument there. The crop issue has been stroked out, as it is a minor issue.--Snaevar (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Contrast can be definitively improved, the image looks very flat. --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 13:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Les Fils qui nous lient.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2011 at 16:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Romanceor - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very nice composition and very poor quality. I don't get how it was promoted to QI. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probably because you didn't oppose when it was nominated ? ;)--Jebulon (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa... Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis. Vade in pace.--Jebulon (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - But you don't have such authority and the remorse is eating my poor soul (I challenge you to say all this is Latin, I could not!) Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Bof, alors un petit coup de rouge, rien de tel contre la culpabilité. ça devrait passer. Doctor Jebulon (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Ça n'a pas marché avec une bouteille. Peut-être je dois tenter avec du vin de messe? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe, but please don't forget that you don't like white wine... Doctor Jebulon (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 16:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schimpanse, Pan troglodytes 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2011 at 20:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Schimpanse, Pan troglodytes all by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of contrast and overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice moment captured, good quality. No sign of the artificial zoo context. --99of9 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I much prefer the more recent nomination of the same scene. The pose, with the chimp looking away, is not nearly as engaging. Steven Walling 05:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Lack of contrast, over the whole image.--Snaevar (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Snaevar, but you cannot vote twice. Jovian Eye _talk 14:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 00:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Springbok Namibia.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2011 at 14:33:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mosmas - uploaded by Rainer Zenz - nominated by Attis1979
Comment You have to use the nomination textarea in the rules to create a nomination page, Attis. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not 2 megapixels. Too tight crop at bottom--Miguel Bugallo 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Bufo-bufo-erdkroete-maennlich.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2011 at 18:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose „please let the poor thing breathe“: too tight (and boring) crop imo, sorry... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentHello Carschten, sorry for my long comment on your page. I misunderstood your completely :-(! Even my first thought was, that you mean that I mistreated the toad and that made me as biologist a little bit angry. Thank you very much for your nice statement-I´m a fool :-)!Now some words to the image formation: I want show a close picture of the toad. Anyway, I could look for the picture on my computer because I think the original is bigger (I cut the picture). Many greetings H. Krisp (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flash light! Bad angle (the camera should be placed lower, much closer to the ground. --Aktron (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--H. Krisp (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sofia Old TV Tower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 17:48:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{Request}} Good, but a bit tilted to the left?--Miguel Bugallo 22:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)~~. Sorry, I don't konw. I think that it's not tilted, but... perhaps distortion--Miguel Bugallo 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lack of sharpness, and as a minor flaw some distortion at the satellites.--Snaevar (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharper version uploaded.--MrPanyGoff 08:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--MrPanyGoff 10:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Alternative sharper version.
Support Looks fine that way.--Snaevar (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Similan Island 01 (MK).jpg 2nd candidature, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 14:24:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info panoramic view over the „Ao Kuerk“ bay, Similan-Island, Thailand. Second try of this one, i've straightend the horizon and correct the projection. all by -- mathias K 14:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 14:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment chromatic aberrations to me. See notes--Miguel Bugallo 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the CA it's not very important because 9,386 × 3,930 pixels, but it is improvable--Miguel Bugallo 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this could be some CA, but as you already wrote I think they are not so important and sadly I've shot this one handheld in jpeg, so I don't have much space for improvements. I was pretty happy that the result is such good as it is cause I don't felt really save when i was taking it. ;-) --mathias K 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support Lovely colours, good composition. I like it despite the CA, lack of sharpness, and uncomfortable bottom crop. --Avenue (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the best lighting for a day shot, making significant parts of the image too dark and lacking detail. I am not fond of the composition either, with ugly foregrounds at left and right. The horizon is tilted and curved. Image quality is not the best. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Set nomination: NSB Di 4 vs. snow drift, not featured[edit]

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well EV may not be the greatest and my 70-200 4.0L doesn't perform that well at 200mm and 1.6 crop, but I think the NSB Di 4 makes for a quite impressive sight as it plows through a snow drift at about 100 km/h, so I'm nominating this anyway :) --Kabelleger (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a row (horizontal or vertical) of three images would be more legible as a sequence, and avoid that zig-zag blue. --ELEKHH^T 03:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On the front of the train on all four pictures is a lack of sharpness and some overexposure.--Snaevar (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What the heck happened here?! Your crop Canon should make use of the sweet spot on your lens, and the lens itself is a member of Canon's "L" series! Do you have thought about making an adjustment of lens and camera at a Canon service provider, as this image quality is way below of that that this equipment could normally reach? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you sure, even though this is quite an old and the "cheapest" L lens available? Unfortunately, I have nothing to compare it to (except an old 70-210 3.5-4.5, which is definitely worse). Also, I never noticed any focus problems (contrast based AF delivers pretty much the same results as normal AF)... Do you have an idea how I can find out if there really is a problem? --Kabelleger (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've checked my colleague's pictures, and they're not better (he uses a different camera and lens though). Therefore I guess the problem (or at least part of it) was just camera shake due to the very strong wind we had that day (compare the locomotive on the third and fourth picture at 1:1. Sorry I didn't notice that before). But I'll keep an eye on the issue. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Florence Italy 08-2005.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2011 at 01:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kepster1973 - uploaded by kepster1973 - nominated by kepster1973 -- Kepster1973 (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kepster1973 (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support better in full scale than thumbnail.-- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 11:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition. To tight at left, right and bottom, an too much sky. Color noise and chromatic aberrations, (see notes).--Miguel Bugallo 21:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the colors and contrast. --Aktron (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Formules.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2011 at 08:08:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much background without "formules". Nice, yet nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this picture, good idea, very good implementation --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Part of the formule (to the right and bottom) is not in focus and the all of the surrounding text is blurry.--Snaevar (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the kind of picture I could use on my blog. It is about the NOTION of formulas not about a particular formula. GerardM (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good for blogs, not perfect enough (DOF) for FP. W.S. 14:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, a wider DOF would make the image worse, not better! -- H005 20:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful composition and DOF Gnan garra 06:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and different nomination. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porte musc perspective 5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 19:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be much better if this kind of fotos would be a bit less exposed. --Mile (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice quality, interesting object -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best lighting. W.S. 09:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had already noticed your allergy to light! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support H. Krisp (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think good care was given on the context removal, and I'm curious to see the original to check if I'm right. This is otherwise a standard picture of a museum object (but good quality, detail and valuable for encyclopedia). This time I oppose, but that won't change the fate of this FP candidate. - Benh (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Let the poor thing breathe! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's enough space around the object here imo. --Cayambe (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is fine IMO (no overexposure at all). The space around is sufficient to my taste. The best "Commons" can offer for this kind of images, IMO. FP to me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

But its even worst to have alergy to shadows, you know, Scooby Doo can never sleep well . So a at such good and valuable fotos is good not to have overblown highligths and more natural (browny) colors. --Mile (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Porte_musc_perspective_5.jpg

File:Dolphin salto qtl1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2011 at 21:08:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Bottlenose Dolphin performing a salto; created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Composition is far from ordeal, the crop is very tight near the nose. However, everything else about this is great, and good composition is hard with such a fast-moving subject. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, cropped too tightly. --Avenue (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor framing, distracting background. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI like this picture -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAs Avenue--Miguel Bugallo 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support because "42" like ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to Support, thought I'd be neutral for being torn or even opposed. Love the background and water, disliked the crop in thumbnail, but didn't care at all in full scale. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 06:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too tight crop, at any scale. --ELEKHH^T 20:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As mentioned before: too tight crop. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, too tight crop on the top.--Snaevar (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. And it is a pity.--Jebulon (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I see this has no chance. --Quartl (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angela Merkel IMG 4162 edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 07:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, edited, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 07:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Angie, could be easily a bit downsized, due to sharpness. --Mile (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unclear boundary between her brown hair and the background.--Snaevar (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the contrast with the background is fine, and the pose here is interesting and unique for a portrait of a head of state... Steven Walling 00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a more natural portrait :) I love it GerardM (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support She will like it --Schnobby (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird crop for a portrait. W.S. 14:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Miguel Bugallo 17:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors, composition and background. --Aktron (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support primarily because of of the "wow"-factor as stated by Steven Walling. Grand-Duc (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for any appropriate feedback, excluding whom it may concern. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual, but (or therefore ?) very good. Technically good. FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Busselton post office gnangarra 14.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 14:59:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Gnan garra 14:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnan garra 14:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am missing the wow here and color noise--Miguel Bugallo 17:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC). I don't like the dof or the composition--Miguel Bugallo 17:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Miguel Bugallo --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think you did a good job making ordinary PO boxes semi-interesting. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 11:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support having rented and experienced many of Australia Posts' (previously PMG) lines of PO Boxes in a number of states (NSW, Tas, and WA) - I like the colour skew, and the focal issue - certainly after having so many black/grey lines in most sets - the uniqueness of the colour on the Busselton boxes alone make it an interesting picture SatuSuro (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per One, please. --Ximonic (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still some blurry parts on PO box 462, who is the only focused box of them all. The hinges on the same PO box are too bright and in bad quality. Also a "semi-interesting" picture, like IdLoveOne mentioned isn´t enough for me. Eather it is interesting all the way, or it isn´t interesting at all.--Snaevar (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Zoeker LCD.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 06:41:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Murdockcrc -- Murdockcrc (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info De Zoeker (the Seeker) windmill in Zaanse Schans, North Holland, Netherlands. This mill was used to produce oil.
Support -- Murdockcrc (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness overall.--Snaevar (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough to my taste. Very nice composition (typical Holland !). Shame of the red car. FP to me.--Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness overall!!!!! --Llorenzi (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Please have a look at high resolution and find how sharp the picture really is.[reply]
- I am really surprised by the "lack of sharpness" comments. This image was taken with a Canon 5DMKII with a L-series lens stopped down to f/11 to get the greatest sharpness out of it. There is evidently no motion blur (1/50sec exposure with IS turned on), and I applied a slight extra degree of sharpness on post-processing. Focus point was set on the mill itself (as confirmed by the EXIF data). I really encourage people to look at the full-res image and judge from the original uploaded file and not from the thumbnails. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This means nothing. Your body/lens may suffer from off focusing, I as lately experienced. You may also have locked the focus on any element, and reframed before shooting (though this is very unlikely here)... There are tons of possibilities. - Benh (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Oversharpened. I don't like the framing/composition. - Benh (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mediocre quality. Apart from the mentioned issues also tons of CA. W.S. 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others ~~and chromatic aberrations (see notes)~~--Miguel Bugallo 16:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lacking sharpness? Tons (!?) of CA? Perhaps it's not a lens problem, but rather a screen problem with some reviewers? -- MJJR (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry MJJR, I think that it is not a screen problem with some reviewers: The user upload a new version at 09:37, 04-04-2011. I don't like this action without comunication here--Miguel Bugallo 22:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC) You can see the lateral lines of the windmill in the others versions--Miguel Bugallo 22:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot depicting the power of the canon 5d mark ii and the beauty of the de zoeker windmill. it is so sharp it can cut you. please reconsider documenting your file changes when uploading newer version. using {{Photo Information}} is useful for providing information on the equip you used to create this shot. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Lunenburg - NS - Lunenburg Academy edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 07:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sdgjake (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Image remarquable".--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated and partly blown whites. W.S. 14:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

white parts, that are good visible ≠ oversaturated --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
156,000 pixels have a value of 255 in the red channel; that is about 0.2% of this 8Mpx image and is acceptable in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per W.S.--Miguel Bugallo 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Perspective needs some correction. Jovian Eye _talk 18:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the perpective correction is really needful and makes a better picture. But I have done it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jovian Eye _talk 19:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some pictures may look really nice when oversaturated, but this one does not. And the white balance is not the best as well. --Aktron (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is not oversaturated. The colors in Lunenburg are very intensive, especially then the sun is shining. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is good, but I would prefer the version without perspective correction. To my eyes, the corrected version seems to bulge outwards on the right. --Avenue (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Lörrach - Galluskirche - Fenster in der Grabkapelle.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 06:15:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support хорошооо --Mile (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Snaevar--Miguel Bugallo 16:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good exposure. Any longer time would make the window overburnt. --Aktron (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition Gnan garra 05:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and atmospheric church window. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alchemist --Pudelek (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice atmosphere. alofok * 17:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good picture of an church window, atomspheric --Alupus (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:SanMiguelConcaMission1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 20:08:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the San Miguel Concá mission in Arroyo Seco, Querétaro, Mexico

Info created by AlejandroLinaresGarcia - uploaded by AlejandroLinaresGarcia - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Thelmadatter (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Ágora (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but the bell tower is really unsharp...--Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon.--Snaevar (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon.--Miguel Bugallo 17:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThe focus is courtyard o plaza, not the church.--AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. If the focus is meant to be on the courtyard, I don't think this composition works. --Avenue (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schimpanse, Pan troglodytes 3.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2011 at 21:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Schimpanse, Pan troglodytes all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice pose, all around balanced composition and good lighting. Strong educational value in the sense that it clearly shows chimpanzee and general ape mothering behavior well. Steven Walling 05:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MrPanyGoff 07:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor light and obvious (unnatural) zoo environment. W.S. 14:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Steven Walling. Seems to be difficult to find chimpanzee in natural environment now, alas...--Jebulon (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Attis (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Tulip agenensis ZE.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 18:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MathKnight and Zachi Evenor - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight 18:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight 18:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small size, quality, composition... nothing special here. - Benh (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cut out leaves result in a bad compostion.--Snaevar (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Miguel Bugallo 17:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anax imperator qtl2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2011 at 19:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A male Emperor Dragonfly; created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations--Miguel Bugallo 14:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing to add :) --Ximonic (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Good -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:NS - Pride of Baltimore II.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 21:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Taxiarchos228 aka Wladisław - uploaded by the same - nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed highlights along the yardarm, and the crop feels a bit too tight. --Avenue (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop is perfect, for me FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good --Pudelek (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best angle, and per Avenue--Miguel Bugallo 14:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Nusfjord road, 2010 09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2011 at 15:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info A road (Fylkesvei 807) in Flakstadøya island in the Lofoten in autumn. The mountain massif in the background contains summits such as Stjernhauet, Stjerntinden, Bjørntinden...
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo has a great atmosphere. --Von.grzanka (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously a good pic. --Aktron (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent timing. --ELEKHH^T 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- A very nice picture and mood. I would support if it weren't so much oversaturated. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Pudelek (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Organ chapel royal Versailles.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2011 at 21:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The organ of the "Chapelle Royale" of the Château de Versailles, as seen from the king's tribune. Further information on file description page.-- Jebulon (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive sharpness as I don't think you were allowed to use tripod there. But still not enough, and the framing doesn't make justice to how beautiful the whole room is (the organ itself seems rather common to me, and I wouldn't look at that first in the chapelle royale). - Benh (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Impressive sharpness BUT not enough. Obviously unfair, but funny. The comment about tripod or not tripod is off subject. Please notice that on this image, one can see the pipes besides the front pipes, even the wooden pipes. No other picture with this detail in "Commons".

-Does not show how beautiful the whole room is. It is not the subject of this photo, no need (i'm not able for now) to remake a Diliff picture (which does not show the whole room, by the way : where is the very interesting marble floor/ground ? The baroque altar ? ).

-Furthermore, "beauty of the room" is matter of taste. Saint-Simon wrote: « elle offre de partout la triste représentation d'un catafalque. » ("From everywhere looks sadly like a catafalque")

-I'm truly sorry for those who find this organ "common". I chose deliberately to show this organ, alone and cropped (not polluted by the altar's sculptures), because it is not common due to a lot of details (in front of the king, above the altar -that is very rare if not unique-, etc etc...) and I wanted to focus about that.

-When one enter the chapel from the first floor (the vestibule or salon de la chapelle) as I did in this case, indirection to the king's tribune, one is obliged to look at that in first.

-I think that the visual interaction between the corinthian columns and the vertical pipes is not so bad...--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not unfair, nor funny. I just mean that the sharpness is impressive because it's likely you took the picture handheld, at 70mm and with a 0.2sec exposure. But still it's not a top notch quality. I don't see what's off here. Also, when I say I wouldn't look at something first, I mean that this is not the part I prefer... I also think the columns are unfortunate here as they hide part of the subject in a rather unpleasant way. Next time I think I'll just oppose without taking the time to justify. - Benh (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting last sentence... There is another way for the next time : to support !! .--Jebulon (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting object, nice quality photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Beautiful composition, the crop doesn't bother me. But the geometric ditortion is distutrbing (it can be corrected though) and the organ could be sharper... Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I was not allowed to use a tripod there... --Jebulon (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:South Wharf & Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2011 at 12:47:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Grimshaw Architects Seafarers Footbridge & Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre in South Wharf. Created, uploaded and nominated by Donaldytong (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding technical quality and composition. --Aktron (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think is the best angle, background too distracting, and also the foreground is obstructed. The reflector is also in a disturbing position. This is a better angle. --ELEKHH^T 20:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit on the dark side, and some CA. - Benh (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and definatly there is some chromatic aberration.--Snaevar (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see CA. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 21:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derek Jeter batting stance allison.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2011 at 05:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Keith Allison - uploaded by Staxringold - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality is good (noise supportable for the light conditions, ISO 3200 and that focal length), DOF is good, EV is great. I like it and I find it interesting --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me the image can be FP because the lens focal length is 420 mm., and the image 2,216 × 3,232 pixels, but I'm not sure with the composition, perhaps too tight crop at top. What you think?--Miguel Bugallo 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about the crop, too. But the only problem would be the crop at the top, and for a portrait shot where the bat isn't the most important thing (imo), the composition is ok. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too tight crop above. Let the poor bat breathe.--Jebulon (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Image reverted to it´s original, leaving more room around the bat.--Snaevar (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed highlights, and actually I can see some pixelation.--Snaevar (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gravure-fort-b-perches.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2011 at 18:04:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A nazi message writted in rocks in the fort des Basses Perches, near Belfort, France. In the left, there is a portrait of A. Hitler.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you might want to consider adding this to your image: {{Nazi symbol}}. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I can't see the interest in making a large panorama of this subject. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar, what's the idea? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info It's an historical document. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, sure. For that the file description is more than sufficient. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose /Ö 19:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I hate the nazis, but this has a lot of detail, so for technical merit. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 18:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, actually minor clipping and blown. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 18:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baćinska Jezera pano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2011 at 12:55:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Good but very grainy at full res, I think from oversharpening. I think softening it a bit would do it good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, now is older version --Pudelek (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe a bit on the soft now, but good enough for my Support. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Quality is not good enough (image is too soft), composition and colours are a bit boring imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a bit sharper version --Pudelek (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. W.S. 07:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Miguel Bugallo 20:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems good to me.--Snaevar (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, noisy sky. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green-headed Tanager Ubatuba .jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2011 at 19:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Njaelkies Lea - uploaded by Njaelkies Lea - nominated by V-wolf (talk) -- V-wolf (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Looks a little bit blurry and noisy, but it's nice and I like the overall effect. Von.grzanka (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Phantastic colors --Schnobby (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality: poor detail, pixelated background, the bird is unsharp, DOF too small --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The bird is gorgeous but not the image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Carschten and Alvesgaspar--Miguel Bugallo 12:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Bugallo !!--Jebulon (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Attis (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. W.S. 07:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's sharp enough --FredericL (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the demand for sharpness here is a little unreasonable. I'm a graphic designer and I do everything from websites to large posters, the sharpness in this picture is more than enough for about 99% of the projects it'll ever be used for. I doubt anyone will ever care (or notice) that a few feathers are out of focus other than some of the reviewers here. --Calibas (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others above, and for widespread CA. --Avenue (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very pretty bird, but I feel that featured bird candidates are plentiful enough to almost insist on a natural environment. Image quality is pretty good, but not outstanding enough to override the human bench it's sitting on. --99of9 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand why some people oppose this image.. but the overal result is featurable IMO. Ggia (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, a tricky choice while being aware of all the matters previously mentioned. --Ximonic (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed highlights on the bird and unsharp both at the bird and wood.--Snaevar (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --W.Rebel (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Cephas (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atriolum robustum (Ascidian) on Siphonogorgia godeffroyi (Soft tree coral).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2011 at 08:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I increased the exposure --Citron (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hum. What's happening? --Citron (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Supporting, that's what. Though, the creature itself in this image is a bit small. It could probably be cropped down. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 23:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --W.Rebel (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A magical shot (colors, composition), despite the obvious technical flaws. I wonder why the background is so affected by jpeg artifacts. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see s.th. magical in this picure: jpeg artifacts does not fit to a FP. further: flora and fauna is often colourful and intrinsic beautiful, but for a FP we need more than a colourful picture set in the golden ratio. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Nembrotha kubaryana (Nudibranch).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2011 at 08:29:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support How interesting! --Schnobby (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support There exist snails without shells and shells without snails ;-) --Llez (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support O'h yes, he/she might be looking for a good shell from the featured ones here :-) A beautiful creature! --Ximonic (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support snails without shells, shells without snails, pictures without reviewers, and reviewers without pictures... That's FPC page. What a wonderful life !--Jebulon (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a chromatic aberration on the top on the snails head and in the surroundings on the left side of the image. I am waiting for a confirmation on that, though.--Snaevar (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Flor de mayo.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 18:04:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Araujojoan96 - uploaded by Araujojoan96 - nominated by Araujojoan96 -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Probably won't pass I'm afraid. This would look nice framed, but much of the flower is cut out and the lighting seems dim. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too much of flowers (and leaf) cut out, wrong colors, wrong WB, DoF problem, too tight crop, ugly background with disturbing spots. Far away from FP standards. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Londoneyeday.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2011 at 09:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tyw7 - uploaded by Tyw7 - nominated by Tyw7 -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Maybe it is possible, in favorable circumstances, to take a featurable picture with such a camera. But it is very unlikely. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality: unsharpness, lack of detail, washed out colors and geometric distortion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Londonskylinek800i.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2011 at 09:58:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tyw7 - uploaded by Tyw7 - nominated by Tyw7 -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is unsharp, with an overly central composition, a foreground concrete object intruding in lower left corner, and significant CCW tilt (see e.g. the skyscraper on the right edge). --Avenue (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Naturschutzgebiet Zeller See in spring 2011 (11).JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2011 at 06:01:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Chmee2 (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful scenery but disappointingly unsharp. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 12:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's such a shame! Is something wrong with your lens or your autofocus? You were at so nice places and made so nice images, but always this unsharpness... :-( --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking closely i would assume that some kind of Addaptive Blur-Filter was used to reduce the noise. But its limits where far to high. Parts with color contrasts are sharp, others aren't. --Niabot (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - thanks lot for all comments. It does not seems that lens is broken (and also AF seems work good, I really don't know why is it so unsharp). Ad filter, I used only polarization filter, but no post-image operation with image. I will try do next my best to find what happened wrong here and produce better image next time :) Anyway now, I have no idea what happened wrong this time with camera configuration. --Chmee2 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dolphin salto qtl2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2011 at 13:45:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Quartl - uploaded by Quartl - nominated by Snaevar -- Snaevar (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another dolphin picture from Quartl, but with a better compostion -- Snaevar (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background too distracting for a FP. --LeavXC (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unfortunately, I have to agree. Nice image, but the background can't be blurred because of the water splashed. theMONO 04:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LeavXC. --ELEKHH^T 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Strongly disagree that the background is distracting or problematic, I actually like it. My problem is that only the underside of the dolphin is shown, which makes me wonder if that might subtract from the educational value of this image. Though it is a good action shot. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The problem is, in my opinion, the ugly combination of blue (water) and brown (rocks) in the background. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugly? I disagree. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not ugly in general, of course. Only in the present context. Please imagine this same subject with a homogeneous background, doesn't matther if blue or brown. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fluorine Peyrebrun.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2011 at 19:31:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting and useful --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I 'm gonna have to say it seems unrealistically unsharp and somehow 2-dimensional. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Dull; I have to agree with One. Too 2D to pass. theMONO 03:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The solid rock at the top around the center of the image, and at the left side are unsharp, althrough the crystals seem fine.--Snaevar (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I agree with your opinion --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this tone mapped at all (this includes the use of the shadow/highlight tool and HDR)? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No there is no mapping or modifiaction tones. But has a Focus Sacking of 6 images and it is possible that I fluctuations of 6 LED projectors. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Détail de la chapelle du Saint-Esprit Rue (80)-11.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2011 at 05:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Utopiste - uploaded by Utopiste - nominated by Utopiste -- Utopiste (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Utopiste (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Account too young. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought the author was able to vote on their own nominations Gnan garra 01:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop of a leg below, blown up and overexposed parts, especially in the right corner above.--Jebulon (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor quality, random composition. An obvious FPX candidate if it weren't for the support vote above. I wonder if ComputerHotline ever opposed a picture and consider his automatic supports harmful to the project. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon + Alvesgaspar. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small.--Claus (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves. --ELEKHH^T 23:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Current resolution of 0,48Megapixels is too small for FP, where 2Megapixels or more is considered the norm. Also, overexposed in the top right.}}--Snaevar (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- you cant add an FPX where there is a support vote other than that of the nominator. Gnan garra 02:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-03-30-fort-hautes-perches-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2011 at 18:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside the Fort des Hautes Perches, near Belfort, France.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colour fault in the left? --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apparently a picture of two hallways, where one of them leads outdoors (on the right side) and the other leads elsewhere (on the left side). Nothing wrong with that, really.--Snaevar (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A trivial shot of two hallways, well... But have you seen the GREEN color fault to the left? --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a reflexion inside the lens. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pterois antennata 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2011 at 17:46:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh and obvious front flash lighting used in combination with low ISO makes for a non aesthetic (to me) dark environment around main subject. - Benh (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't like this close up. And I question if the fish's flesh is really that blue, yet the water seems clear. The "let the poor thing breath!" is Alvegaspar's line, but I think I would've liked to see more of the frills. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riisa raba.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2011 at 00:39:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Olev Mihkelmaa - uploaded by Olev Mihkelmaa - nominated by Flying Saucer -- Flying Saucer (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Flying Saucer (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting colors, but no chance. The resolution police will FPX this in no time. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Please save your cynical jibes. It is especially sad to see you spilling them over onto other nominations. This image is over 2MPx, so does not qualify for FPX on resolution grounds. --99of9 (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

99of9, I think you are slightly mistaken. This image is only .96 MP, and so does qualify for FPX. Too bad really, I love the lighting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I read it as 1800x1200. Since it doesn't qualify, and I don't see exceptional unrepeatable circumstances, I'll go ahead and fulfill IdLoveOne's prophecy :). --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heeheehee -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 12:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Falls well short of the size requirement of 2 MPx. If the uploader can provide a larger version, I think this would be a good candidate. 99of9 (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Anas platyrhynchos in Brest (France).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2011 at 22:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llorenzi - uploaded by Llorenzi - nominated by Llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Distracting background. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, image quality is poor (unsharpness, lack of detail) and background is distracting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ A decent picture, probably won't pass, but I don't think it's quite FPX-worthy. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, no offence meant to the photographer, but this is pretty much a textbook example of poor composition, with that bright white line running straight through the poor creature's head. Absolutely FPX-worthy in my view. --Avenue (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing special, compostion wasteful, true FPX. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also @ Avenue: I see composition problems too, but I think the photographer did try to take a good picture, which is why we see the exact back of the duck aligned with the bush. Maybe if it was just some random shot, terribly over-edited, purposelessly burnt out or overly darkened, way under the 2MP something like that, then I would say FPX is more called for. I don't feel like this is such a case. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding is that {{FPX}} is for images one is confident have no chance of succeeding. The photographer's effort or intent is irrelevant. The image doesn't even need to flagrantly breach the guidelines; it just needs to be clearly not one of our best. --Avenue (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgespar.--Snaevar (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please only cancel an FPX if you actually want it to become featured, that's what "support" means. If nobody wants it featured except the nominator, let's not have it hanging around here for 10 days. (There are about one million "decent pictures" on commons - that's not what FP is for.) The duck's not even sharp, and there are chromatic aberrations on it. --99of9 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Statement: A registered user can nominate ANY image they like and leave it here until it expires if they so choose unless it is rapidly promoted, gets one vote or less, they decide to withdraw it or FPX'd. FPX doesn't mean "I don't like it! Get it off the candidate list, quick!" it means the image must be an obvious and extraordinary deviation from minimal standards to deserve a disruption to a nominator's right to have their image included here. You placed your oppose, other have placed theirs. Let the nominator and community have their say. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The fact that it is way below minimal standards is obvious to five people as stated above. My only question to you is, are you seriously in favour of (supporting) this being promoted?? --99of9 (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said in other comments I do see composition problems here. My support is only part of the process of contesting the FPX. It's now stricken so it can be closed. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 12:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Another Believer (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image quality is poor (unsharpness, lack of detail) and background is distracting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment I struck my vote so the image could expire after its 5 days, not because I changed my mind that this type of FPXing is a good practice. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Many editors are not aware that one of the reasons for creating the FPX template (by User:MichaelMaggs) was to spare the nominators/creators from a long stack of oppose votes. Another reason was to free the FPC page of pictures with no chance of success, in a time when the total number of daily nominations was very high and each user was free to present as many as he wanted. The idea that the template is used to humiliate, intimidate or chase away the newbies is just false. At least, that is never my purpose. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paragorgia arborea.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2011 at 16:07:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NOAA/Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Bubblegum coral at 1257 meters water depth.
Support rare shot and good definition-- Citron (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad crop and to hard light --Niabot (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waw, I'm lucky to have the first comment from Niabot on another FPC than his. --Citron (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing personal as you might think. Also it is by far not my first vote or comment on FPC. --Niabot (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lapsus? Way of saying that we see you rarely on another FPC, so I am honored.--Citron (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this make my opinion worth less, if i'm not voting on every image? At first i wanted to write that the lighting is so hard, because it is so close (short distance). I changed it basically for one reason, that you don't think, i would reference your other vote. But if we are at it: Could you tell which arm you mean? Left/Right from your/her perspective? --Niabot (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never say it. Anyway, you are right in your comment. I doubted because "short light" does not mean "short distance". I also have problems with my English, I wanted designate her left arm from her perspective, if it is a shortcut, it is a bit failed. --Citron (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Also per Niabot, maybe it is a good qual picture, but nothing outstandig with sidebacks Niabot mentioned. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don´t mind the crop, but there is harsh lightning and the Paragorgia arbore looks really 2 dimensional. --Snaevar (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citron (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boris galchev.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2011 at 03:41:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Biser Todorov - uploaded by Biser Todorov - nominated by Biser Todorov -- Biser Todorov (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biser Todorov (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose /Ö 19:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a good action shot. However, the subjects are right in the middle of the frame and I really don't see the EV value of this as a FP. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness and underexposed, although the timing seems to be fine.--Snaevar (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Just not really 'feeling' this shot. I get that it's an action shot but it's missing something dynamic, like neither of the people has an interesting expression, or there's no zoom, even a little motion blur maybe. I guess I would like something more stereotypical that really let's you know you're looking at a moment of action. =\ -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 23:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just vote as i want, since it is allowed by Biser Todorov. And i must say that we have much better examples for the same topic. --Niabot (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Motýl-otakárek.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2011 at 18:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zdenek1945 - uploaded by Zdenek1945 - nominated by W.Rebel -- W.Rebel (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- W.Rebel (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the best angle, poor image quality (sharpness, detail, lighting). Quite far from FP standards. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. Have you ever seen a butterfly in detail? Butterfly is no a plastic or metal, but fine velvet. --W.Rebel (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, and also shot a couple of them... Please check our FP gallery on butterflies (under Lepidoptera): [1]. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar--Miguel Bugallo 14:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar, the problem is also the disturbing background. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Part of the wing's edges are unsharp. I guess that comes from using f/4 at that angle that the whole subject is not totally in sharp focus. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is a "lucky shot" and I would support it if not for the shadow in the front left. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 21:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image with interesting colors which makes it stand out. --Niabot (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:American avocet eggs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2011 at 06:10:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wintertanager - uploaded by Wintertanager - nominated by Wintertanager -- Wintertanager (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wintertanager (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Correct but trivial shot, nothing here justifying the FP status. Unfocused foreground is disturbing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar, for this type of picture also too unsharp. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- They're eggs seemingly in their natural environment, not something I'd expect a spectacular composition for. And I disagree that they're unsharp. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing blurry green thing left below.--Jebulon (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks this is quite helpful, blurry foreground in particular. I do wonder whether these would have more of a 'wow' effect if the eggs were the color of the vibrant bird or slug below; part of the point of this to me is the muted palette. (Wintertanager (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trithemis arteriosa qtl1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2011 at 08:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Quartl - uploaded by Quartl - nominated by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 21:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the best position of the wings (yes, I know it is very common), the head is unsharp. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The zone of the head noncovered by the wing is not too unsharp, I think; but perhaps you're right--Miguel Bugallo 14:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, as we do have many featured pictures of dragonflies with better postioned wings. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination to avoid exceeding the two-nom-rule for me and Wladyslaw. --Quartl (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info I just found this alternate image from a much better angle, which also happens to be sharper and has nicer colors. --Quartl (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- But this is a different picture and you already have two nominations running (just like Wladyslaw) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination to avoid exceeding the two-nom-rule for me and Wladyslaw. --Quartl (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2011 at 07:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Antarctic Krill Euphausia superba from plankton, the once largest biomass of the planet - created by Uwe kils - uploaded by Uwe kils - nominated by Amada44 -- Amada44 ^{talk to me} 07:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The original image has been on commons since July 2005. I think that it is a great image and has deserved to be a FP Image. -- Amada44 ^{talk to me} 07:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 15:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ the boarder is not in the same colour as the background of the Antarctic krill. It is a easy fix, but necessary none the less.--Snaevar (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What border? Is it perhaps bioluminescent? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - thanks for noticing. I fixed it. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 20:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Seems good now. Regarding IdLoveOne´s comment I´d like to mention that it was (before Amada44 fixed it) not bioluminescent, invisible, infra-red or any of that sort. LOL.--Snaevar (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see something a little different. Resolution just acceptable, quality good. --99of9 (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice color. Steven Walling 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Difficult shot --Citron (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support And the whales love them... --Schnobby (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yum, yum! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice ■ MMXX ^talk 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Niabot (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support micki t 18:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totodu74 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In natural hovering position - the red organs produce the bioluminescence - the hepatopancreas is filled with green phytoplankton, the food of krill, the strait gut in the back is filled with the empty shells of phytoplankton - in the front you see the compound eye Uwe kils (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Résurrection Corneille cartouche central 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2011 at 07:57:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michel Corneille l'Ancien (1602-1664) - photographied, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detail of the recently (2010/2011) restored fresco vault of 1640 by Michel Corneille the Elder, Church Saint-Nicolas-des-Champs in Paris. -- Jebulon (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice indeed. --Avenue (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 15:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Almost there. But I still wonder if the curved lines can be straightened. Or maybe they are part of the "trompe l'oeil" design? Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info--Yes you are right. It is so in real (if not, I have had correct it). The vault is curved, and the painting too (increasing the depth of field, from below.) Please notice that the frame is curved, but the design is not deformed. (hard in english, sorry) Oh by the way ! I agree with you, the question is : let this poor Jesus breathe ! But I'm not responsible for that...--Jebulon (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting painting with an interesting shape. The details look over processed to me (e.g. cracks have an oily smoothed-and-sharpened over-contrast feeling). --99of9 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, I see the original is in the file history (thanks). I think the work you've done is in the right direction, but you've gone too far in my opinion. --99of9 (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand what you mean, but I disagree. Matter of taste ? The 100 % resolution is sometimes cruel, but I didn't want to down sample... Thanks for careful review anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a pincushion distortion? Or is this real? --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is real. Please see explanations above. If it were such a pincushion distortion, I wouldn't have nominate this picture as FP candidate...--Jebulon (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- After the explanation above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit to cold light. Otherwise good and valuable. --Niabot (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:La Gran Sabana.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2011 at 18:42:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Inti - uploaded by Vnzla - nominated by Araujojoan96 -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the clouds are all blown. It isn't that sharp either, and the dark areas are noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same concerns as The High Fin Sperm Whale --Niabot (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like The High Fin Sperm Whale --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the clouds are blown with additional chromatic aberrations. Sting (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Peter Buck 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2011 at 01:12:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Peter Buck of R.E.M.. Created by Jmabel - uploaded by Jmabel - nominated by Jmabel -- Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Subject not as bright to where it can stand out, in my opinion. Also the blurry-like artifacts due to underexposure. Understood that a dark environment would be expected, but I think a sharper image can be achieved. Good image anyways. --ZooFari 01:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, given that he was performing, not posing, exposure was probably the maximum possible in the circumstances with that camera and lens. 1/60 sec at F/4.8, ISO 3,200. Also FWIW, if anyone can suggest anything that would allow things to be pushed even further for a concert shot like that, I'd be genuinely interested in learning. - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - An f2.8 or brighter lens together with a low-noise-at-high-iso body like the Nikon D3s!? bamse (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some artifacts and underexposed. Low ISO values should be used to minimize noise levels (the high levels are used for marcophotography and moving subjects). Observe the lightning in the venue and time your photos accordingly.--Snaevar (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Picture seems dark. I don't think this is the best picture to represent the subject. --Another Believer (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wouldn't mind if it's dark. That would be suitable for the 'subject'. But the strong noise and lack of sharpness is a no go for me. --Niabot (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly going against, perfectly glad to withdraw the nomination, but as for the remark above about "high levels are used for marcophotography (sic) and moving subjects": this was a moving subject. 1/60 sec is certainly the longest exposure I would venture to use to photograph a rock musician while he was performing, and even then you have to really pick your moment. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the focus is on the shoulder and not on the face, low details due to heavy noise because of the high ISO used and the image is posterized in some areas. Sting (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Angaria delphinus 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2011 at 14:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe the white background is better.--Claus (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The grey is fine to me - it matches but doesn't blend in with any details. The shells themselves look great to me. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see why everyone thinks studio shots have to have white backgrounds. This one is really good, and the grey does not hide any details. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find this one as boring as the others shells from a photographic point of view. Not the best studio shots out there, despite the fact author took previous advices into account. - Benh (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- H. Krisp (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring uninspired composition. Suitable for VI, but i would not count it as FP. --Niabot (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I find the background colour really jarring against the shell. I'm not sure what background would be best, but this makes me wince every time I view it. --99of9 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Also @ Llez) doesn't change my vote but maybe a brownish or yellowish? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I considered also these colours and I used them on other pictures as you can see [2], [3], and others (BTW, in this case voters said, that they don't like a brownish background!). A brownish or yellowish background only looks good, if there are also browninsh or yellowish colors in the shell. Here we have no brown nor yellow, but grey, black, bluish and violet. In this case grey is better IMO, see also [4]. The background always depends of the color of the the shell IMO and one can't say that a special color (often voters request a black background) is always suited as standard background for all objects. --Llez (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Chameleon 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2011 at 06:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ajaykuyiloor - uploaded by Ajaykuyiloor - nominated by sreejithk2000 -- Sreejith K (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sreejith K (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Cute shot but far from FP status. The extreme distortion and shallow dof (due to too short shooting distance) don't help. As a side note, the file name should be corrected. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Anoopan (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar--Miguel Bugallo 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~--Akhilsunnithan (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Less than 50 edits. National voting isn't welcome either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recall us voting 11 to 9 against that..... -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Manojk (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Less than 50 edits. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because I like the composition overall, though not sure this incredible short DOF was necessary. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nowhere near FP quality. The cut off tail (and perhaps foot?), very shallow DOF and poor composition are the biggest problems IMO. Has a certain snapshot appeal though. --Avenue (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut out tail and blurry body.--Snaevar (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition, Poor depth of field --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be a perfect example to illustrate DOF. --Niabot (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Londonskylinelondoneye.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2011 at 13:46:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tyw7 - uploaded by Tyw7 - nominated by Tyw7 -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Please withdraw one of the nominations below. Only two active nominations per user are allowed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lövsta February 2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2011 at 10:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ankara - uploaded by Ankara - nominated by Ankara (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ankara (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Busy composition, no clear focus. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Maurilbert: What is the focus: the snow, some boats, or the scenery? --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maurilbert. --ELEKHH^T 23:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have nothing against snow photos. However, this image is overexposed as can be seen on the snow and the building on the left side. Also, a different perspective, with a 45 degree angle towards the boats would add more depth to the photo.--Snaevar (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If I were to see this picture without any context, I would not have a clue as to what I am supposed to be seeing (what is the focus?). --Another Believer (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teide qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2011 at 08:09:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Teide as seen from the crater boundary. Created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good photograph of the said volcano --Ximonic (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 14:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chrumps (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition and no wow - Benh (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

more boring than this picture is of course your repeatedly same argument "no wow" --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support may-be a volcano explosion will be "more wow".. ;-) but this is image is "wow" too. Ggia (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As Benh. All very correct, detailed and good quality. But the image lacks magic, and I found the symmetrical composition and darker foreground a bit boring. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a sucker for volcano shots. Nice contrasts around the lava flows on the left flank. --Avenue (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry at the left side and lacking areal perspective.--Snaevar (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Niabot (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow.--Claus (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 09:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kadellar (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Pier y Mwmbwls a'i Oleudy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2011 at 18:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The Fourth Dimension - uploaded by User:The Fourth Dimension - nominated by The Fourth Dimension -- The Fourth Dimension (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Fourth Dimension (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (please add coordinates) // tsca (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor image quality, unbalanced composition (with ugly foreground), horizon tilted. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Questionable compostion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Undoubtably a valuable and useful image. But there is no really main subject and the composition is not convincing. -- MJJR (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness, both at the rock and the far end of the pier. Somewhat overexposed and tilted horizon aswell.--Snaevar (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support COmposition is suitable, and sharpness is also right, compared to other FP images with much lower resolution. --Niabot (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Don't know how to word it precisely but I think it's an interesting combination and it piques my interest in once glance. SpeakFree 19:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hafnium ebeam remelted.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2011 at 17:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alchemist-hp - uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by -- Brackenheim (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course, from the creator too :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, something I can see in the front page. --ZooFari 01:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 02:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (座谈) 07:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support not just good quality but very nice composition as well this time. --ELEKHH^T 02:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support micki t 18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 09:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:Llano de Ucanca qtl1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2011 at 04:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ucanca valley (volcanic cauldron) in Teide National Park. Created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 07:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Quality good enough but boring composition and colors. Not all technically fine photographs qualify for FP imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar.--Claus (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, and the human scale is a plus, but there are quite a few in the category which demonstrate that a better composition is possible (example). --ELEKHH^T 08:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a nice pano. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Using this for my desktop. :) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition, no wow - Benh (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of areal perspective, and as a minor reason blurry in the bottom left corner.--Snaevar (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like it. alofok * 20:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naturaliste lighthouse gnangarra 16.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2011 at 06:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Gnan garra 06:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnan garra 06:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor image quality, not the best lighting. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is annoying, color faults, unsharp for a standing object. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing against the crop, but some unacceptable CA at top, dark parts noisy, and the use of a polarizing filter looks too strong to me.--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per above, nothing wrong with the composition, but the lighting is not ideal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly grainy and saturated at the surface and the slight tilt upwards makes the tower look a bit smaller.--Snaevar (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed look, but overexposed image --Niabot (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Résurrection Corneille intégrale 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2011 at 23:18:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michel Corneille l'Ancien (1601-1664) - uploaded and nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Recently (2010/2011) restored vault fresco of the 17th century, Church Saint-Nicolas-des-Champs in Paris. Please see category page for further informations.-- Jebulon (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Light conditions are difficult, resulting in a dark and poorly contrasted image. It could be improved though, by adjusting the lighting, contrast and saturation (I have tried). Anyway I'm not sure the result will be good enough for FP. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Thanks for review and technical comment. I've tried something too, I think it is better. N'oublie pas de rester modeste pour le reste, nul (toi non plus) ne peut s'autoproclamer "Gardien du Temple" de la qualité des FP...Merci mon ami.--Jebulon (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Peut-être tu as raison et je dois simplement partir. Le problème c'est qu'il me casse l'âme d'assister à la destruction de FPC pour des raisons moins nobles (la démagogie et les "personal agendas", en particulier). Pourtant, je reste toujours modèste avec mes photos! Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mes images ne sont pas parfaites, loin de là. Je trouve qu'il y a pire, même ici... Pour autant, je ne crois pas participer à la "destruction de FPC", comme tu dis, pour quelque raison que ce soit, ni dans mes propositions, ni dans mes votes...(je ne comprends pas l'expression "personal agendas")--Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bien sur, je ne parlais pas de toi. Tes critiques sont bien plus justes et soigneuses que la plupart des autres! Ni je crois qu'il y quelqu'un avec le but explicite de détruire FPC. Mais quand on appui n'importe quoi, ou on le fait avec un autre but, c'est ça le resultat. "Personal agenda" means some hidden purpose, usually for own benefit (like being popular or hurting some third party). Uf, c'est bien difficile pour moi d'écrire en français! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, could be more symmetrical. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Johannis Lüneburg1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 12:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, but not much wow otherwise and boring centered composition. - Benh (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I still like it (remembering voting for this on Valued Images on WP), great mood, lighting, detail and I don't find it boring. I'm not saying it's extraordinary, but I do like it. One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 21:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Please do not get offended with the comment but a FP should be really extraordinary (when compared to other pictures). Also, we would expect a better reason for supporting, other than liking it (like in Facebook). Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can understand your opinion, but I kind of also think it would make a good POTD. I don't know, it just seems to me like most non-digitally edited or retouched photos are probably basically gonna be similar to this. Can you maybe provide me an example link to something you think is more feature-worthy?-- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, what about this one? Or this one? Or even this one? Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder why "boring" and "nothing extraordinary" should be more solid arguments then "I like it". Sounds very overbearing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is because, by default, a picture comes here as non-promoted... Only extraordinary images should, by definiton of FP, receive the seal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You did not answered my question well. But I have already seen that you put other opinions beneath yours. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice quality and correct picture. But nothing extraordinary justifying the FP seal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think the framing is really smart, well emphasising the proportions of the subject. What makes it neutral is the emptiness in the foreground. --ELEKHH^T 01:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Architecture is corresponding always with his surrounding. Thus I also wanted to show. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not sure if I understand your comment, but I wasn't saying that you shouldn't have included the square. What I meant was that if there would have been some people in the square closer to the camera the image would have been more dynamic/lively. --ELEKHH^T 23:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be hard to do in Germany. Identifiable people would have to be censored because of personal rights (Recht am eigenen Bild, eng. "Right on picture from yourself"). Thus it is the best solution to not have people in front of such an motive. There are exceptions inside this law, but this would not apply in this case. --Niabot (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am unfortunately very aware of that, I just had a long fight with a German publisher for having included images of identifiable people in a book. The problem is not insurmountable though: people do not need to face the camera, or can be blurred (choosing long time exposure, or graphic editing.) --ELEKHH^T 23:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Bluring people seldomly has an good effect on pictures under bright daylight conditions. Also it is nearly impossible to such a shot with long time exposure. As an German citizen that lives close to Lüneburg i would call this a typical scenario. Large crowds are seldom seen in such places at the given time. Its more a pro to illustrate this fact. --Niabot (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The buildings around the church, the surface and the cross on the top of the church indicate an overexposed image. Also, given the size, it should capture better the details around the clock on the church.--Snaevar (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please specify: where is the image overexposured and where are missing details in this nearly 30 MP image? --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support You should have scaled it down, so no one would notice that it is "unsharp". As usual people don't think about other images and how they would look at stretched out at same resolution. --Niabot (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Downsampling a picture with the purpose of looking better is a childish thing to do, especially considering that Commons is repository of free media and we never know what use the images will be given. Fortunately most of the regular reviewers here know better than that. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense? Thats exactly what i criticized. But some of our users don't have good faith and others don't have the eyes to see the that a unsharp picture with 30MP is as good as an sharp picture with 10MP, when downsampled to 10MP. But they vote as if it is an unsharp 10MP image. Now think again and stop stalking me or making wrong accusations. At least you could answer my other questions, if you don't have anything else to do. But i guess you are not able to do that, or no willing because of your wrong motives. --Niabot (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alves, Niabot meant it ironically, so you are both on the same page. Now you could hug and stop quarrelling... --ELEKHH^T 23:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I got it now. Sorry. Erasing the whole thing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not sure, sometimes an image is simply too large and whatever detail it would have seem to be diluted -> oversampling? Not talking about making an image smaller so flaws are less visible. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samuele Bernardini.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2011 at 16:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Biser Todorov - uploaded by Biser Todorov - nominated by Biser Todorov -- Biser Todorov (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biser Todorov (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pretty good but a lot of overexposure, and the very tip of his heel is cut off. The whole composition seems unbalanced; with him so close to the bottom and so much empty room above his head. A good try, though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No comment needed: eye for an eye. Give me a good reason why you opposed and I'm willing to say why I'm opposed. At least this courage is needed. --Niabot (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're opposing to get vengeance? Seems awfully POINTY to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, i just reminded him, that he could leave a comment if he only uses a {{oppose}} --~~~~ to vote on other users. --Niabot (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Generally I am opposed to any pornographic content! How do I explain to my daughter, what does this illustration!? And you can vote as you wish ...--Biser Todorov (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - NO COMMENT Btw. i hate sport, guns and flowers. --Niabot (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Biser Todorov, when Niabot votes, there's never nothing personal.--Citron (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: blurred background, heel at bottom. --Another Believer (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is a blurred background... right that's the idea of this type foto.--Biser Todorov (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too close for comfort at the bottom, resulting in a bad crop.--Snaevar (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice image and certainly so because of the blurred background, but the bottom crop is too tight. --ELEKHH^T 01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Claus (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the blurred background is a bit too busy as well, especially with the human figure who is visible on the left who distracts too much. Would be better with a more sparse background and better cropping with more lead-in space on the right. SpeakFree 20:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically ok but the composition also doesn't convince me. --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Škoda110RMladáBoleslav.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2011 at 22:25:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by János Tamás - uploaded by Slfi - nominated by Slfi -- Slfi (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slfi (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: If I'm counting correctly today, this is below the 2MPx minimum resolution. Since there are no exceptional or mitigating circumstances, this is unlikely to succeed. It's a pity, I think a high-res version of this (with a little less noise?) would be a good candidate. --99of9 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:The Sun by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly of NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory - 20100801.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 16:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Jaharwell - nominated by One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I was going to nominate this for the first day of spring but just remembered to today.. Possible alternative or supplement (more striking but I thought it might be tad oversharpened-looking) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MotherForker (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Raghith (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Somehow i dislike this image, since there is no exact definition how it was created. That way you can't even distinguish it from an CGI or if it is a composition with colorcorrections applied to make it look good, even if it is not scientific. --Niabot (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was taken with AIA 304. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose As thought, something wasn't right. At least the date is. --Niabot (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...The Sun is really bright. If certain filters aren't used you can't see anything except maybe just pure whiteness, if the severe light doesn't doesn't destroy the camera that is. -- 00:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
      - I did not criticize that filters might be used. But for such an image it would be in best interest to know which filters where used, how it was composited and when the image was made. Otherwise it's a nice image of the sun, but nothing more, scientifically speaking. --Niabot (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And now that you do you still oppose? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Im still opposing, since the date is not matched and there is no information on how the signals were mapped into the image. At least the color was added by hand and good will, since this image does no represent a "thermal scan". --Niabot (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Check the bottom of this nomination or the image and the link I just added 2 lines up. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with the date, but not with the fact that is not known which parts (ranges) are displayed to what extent. Which means they could and will have done anything to make it look good. But in this case it's nothing more then advertisement in its own interest. --Niabot (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You may feel however you like, but it sounds like this most current oppose is based on a bad faith assumption on NASA that overlooks the fact that they made plenty of other images that look similarly to this one, including pictures taken as recently as today. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ No link to source page/image. The date is not correct.[5] Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if Jaharwell put the wrong date. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked at the images for 2010-08-01 and the neighboring ones and they are not similar to this image. You may use the link that I provided in my review to verify this.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - -gasp- Really? I get to search through 4100 pictures taken through several different settings over a year for one particular one showing a particular instance of the Sun being hot and fiery? You're just too kind. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 00:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support Thank you for correcting the date and linking to the source. That was extraordinary detective work. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. -- 02:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ until description problems are sorted out. --99of9 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done August 19, 2010, 00:32:21 UT, now leave me be about the date :) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 00:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentGood match with Aug 19. I've done the requested file rename. --99of9 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks! -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Vincent van Gogh - Portrait of Joseph Roulin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 15:12:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vincent van Gogh - uploaded by Olpl - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support As long as someone can attest to the colors being accurate enough. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MotherForker (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pale colors, in comparision with the same painting on Google art project. --Snaevar (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Right color choice. Google art is oversaturated. --Niabot (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Výluka Zenklova, Vychovatelna, Tatra KT8D5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 16:14:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jagro — Jagro (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jagro (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a small cw tilt that should be corrected --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I uploaded the new version, which is a bit counterclockwise tilt. This version is straighten by the sign at the right side, the previosu was by the first doors of a tram. — Jagro (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral OK, though the histogram indicates some clipping and blown points. Probably stand more chance at QI than here - inb4 "no wow/boring". -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and not taken in the right time of day (overexposed).--Snaevar (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough where it matters and i don't think that it is overexposed. --Niabot (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Já si nestěžuji. Technicky perfektní, kompozičně to sice není převratné, ani odvážné, ale tak bysme mohli mít taky nějakou "normální stramvaj" mezi FP. Navíc když tahle imho splňuje všechna kritéria. Žádnou přeexponovanost nevidím a kvůli jednomu bílému pruhu udělat z toho černochy v tunelu nebo třeba čarovat s kontrastem si myslím není potřeba. --Aktron (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support pekna fotecka. i like this image. alofok * 21:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windmuhle auf ile de Noirmoutier.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 12:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MotherForker (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral don't like the clouds in the background but not enough for oppose. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 21:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't like the grey clouds and the almost square framing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree the format of the frame is somewhat ambiguous, I think it might be worth testing a perfect square option. --ELEKHH^T 01:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe a rectangular frame ...?--Llorenzi (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be a little bit sharper, but the weather condition and the light worth it. --Niabot (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Spartanul 013.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 21:14:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Painted statue reprezenting Leonida; name of the statue: Leonida - the spartan; created, uploaded and nominated by Angel

Support -- Angel

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is of very low quality with noise everywhere. Sting (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Monumento a Miguel de Cervantes - 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 19:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good, but the colors need work or white balancing I think. I suspect the stone and the building are whiter than that IRL. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 15:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so white indeed. I can get a whiter shade, the difference is noticeable but not very big. BTW, what's IRL? Thanks. Kadellar (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In real life. I'll Support if you're right then about the colors. Because usually when I see stone like that it's a greyish off-white that's brighter than that, which is why I asked. I do like the composition in this. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'd love to support it, because the top balcony of that building used to be mine for a night some years ago. :-) But the monument doesn't stand out enough from that building, and it's not symmetrical enough, sorry! -- H005 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per H005, and the crop is tight, and perspective could be corrected. --99of9 (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the composition just does not work for me either. The relationship between the monument and the background building is very ambiguous (appears to be random), neither perfectly overlapping nor properly detached. A shot from the side would have helped detached the two, a shot from further away would have made the building be a proper background to the monument. --ELEKHH^T 23:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monument Vienoti Latvijai 2011-04-17.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 20:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Monument "Vienoti Latvijai" (United for Latvia) in the center of Rēzekne, Latvia. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Dark Eagle (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dark Eagle (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a monument too unsharp for me. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of general unsharpness, noisy sky, wrong composition with too many empty parts left and right, wall in background overexposed, disturbing half crane, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Pano2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2011 at 08:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by thomwiesel - uploaded by thomwiesel - nominated by thomwiesel -- Thomwiesel (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thomwiesel (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in that version. 45% of the picture lie in the shadow. 2nd problem: what should we see on the picture, what makes it so featureable? Is that a famous valley or village? --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC) PS: Look on that left corner to the bottom ;)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of bad framing choices: the lower 1/3 part of the picture is in the shadow and without interest, with additional visible shadow of the photographer. File should be renamed as well with a more descriptive title. Sting (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment I happen to like this crop (although I do like the annotated crop also), I like seeing the hillside. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuwafuwa-chan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2011 at 20:08:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Niabot - uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Dr. Koto -- Dr. Koto (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image represents a girl drawn in anime/manga style, wearing an old type sukumizu (DE|JA). Sukumizu is the short term for School Mizugi (スクール水着), a standard type of swimsuite. Even so the 'old type' isn't used in schools anymore, it is still a general theme for fan service, photo shoots, manga, anime and games.
Support Dr. Koto (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Account with less than 50 edits, please check the rules. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - His global account is more than 2 years old and he has more than 1000 edits alone on WP:DE. [6] --Niabot (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read the rules, for God sake! Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please read your own rules again. I cite it for you: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote.". No word about if this relates to commons only or global accounts. The only reason for this rule to exists is to avoid sock puppets. Which is clearly not the case. God damn, Jesus. --Niabot (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rules were read now. I can't find such a rule. Voting of Dr. Koto reproduced. alofok * 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paddy (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice illustration of style and subject (swimsuit). --Don-kun (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not clearly educational – compare with other images from the category which show the subject better (like this), and note lack of use on other projects. Steven Walling 05:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The other images (done by myself) are referring to the actual swimsuit. This one to the topic, how it is displayed in media: de:School Mizugi --Niabot (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good, but her left arm is very short.--Citron (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasure to see such colors. I noted a dot-circle on rigth hand, is that part of it ? I didnt find her arm too short, i checked. --Mile (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the swimsuit could be better drawn and the dot-circle on the left hand does not seem have any use, whatsoever.--Snaevar (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Below the current FP bar for this kind of illustration. Both arms are too short, according to human standards. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case you did not notice it is not a photo of a human being but a drawing of an animé character. But in in any case is a judgement failure. Consider to stop taking drugs or maybe take more/others. --Paddy (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider to improve your gross behavior, which is not welcome here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been bullying niabot like a lower grade. And removing his RFC from commons FPC is the behaviour of a fucking prick [7]. Do not at any circumstances tell me how to behave Dickhead! --Paddy (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard words, but to some point i have to agree. --Niabot (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info for dummies:

I uploaded a new version of this image.
It is not his arm, its her arm. But how can it be that some say the arms are at right length, some say that right arm is to short (which?) and others say that both are to short compared to human anatomy.
Its a fictional character, not a human being. Length of arms and proportions may vary: [8], Manatsu Ikari, Nitroplus. Compare that to human anatomy...
The spot moved as i moved the lensflares around. Maybe to soft to notice.
I doubt, that it would not be educational. On the one hand you have the real life swimsuite and then you have it's depiction inside the media. So bad that EN is missing the corresponding article in which it could be used.

So far so good. I didn't expected anything else from "commons professionals"... --Niabot (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what other, more mature attitude are we to expect from you ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did i mention anything about mature attitude? Im just criticizing the strong bias on FPC and that it is not worth anymore to make votings or contribute to Commons. Be happy with this image. It is my last one.

PS: Please archive this voting. Don't want to this or any other image of myself featured at commons anymore. --Niabot (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info -- Please use the "Withdraw" template if you really want to close this nomination. I don't think that this kind of agressive behavior against the reviewers contributes much for the mood of this forum. By the way, I see nobody using the expression "his arm" anywhere. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because of this edit, where it is now the left arm. Very suspicious if you would ask me... "I don't see what is featurable here." is also such an great comment. That you have your fixed opinion and that you must already dislike me, should be clear. No wonder that others complain about Careless reviews --Niabot (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC) PS: I miss your comment on my reaction to your "careless" comment about human anatomy. But i guess you will handle it the same way like that. Right? --Niabot (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see what is featurable here. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? alofok * 11:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support It is a nicely drawn manga picture showing this suit, hence it gives a fresh perspective. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine work. alofok * 19:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, comment: Hard to see what is positively feature-able about this. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support technical perfect illustration, usable for articles. FPC should not be a board for moralizing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wladyslaw. Morality and art is an issue that has to be discussed in a general topic. Ggia (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice, but hardly educational. -- Bojan Talk 19:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not featurable for me, sorry. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? alofok * 11:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too centered composition, too tight crop. Also this artwork is rather original research -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this page again. It has an section for images created by users called WP:OI.

Regarding composition: It uses the Rule of thirds as illustrated in the right image.

Where is crop tight? There is approximatley 1/3 space to top, left and right. The feets are fully shown and have room to the bottom. Less space of course. --Niabot (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I have right on my own opinion? Or I am obliged to support this candidate only ? Please, respect other opinion too. With best regards -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about your opinion. Niabot only proved that your argument is invalid. But nobody will tell you what to like or not. Maybe you have at least one valid argument? --Paddy (talk)

Support Very nice. The only objection I have is that her right hand is bigger than left (most prominent on her little finger). --Lošmi (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded a new version to fix this issue. --Niabot (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool :) --Lošmi (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Trycatch (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I quite agree with Steven Wallingand not convinced if the FP is the most adapted, but not fully opposed. Totodu74 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNo educational value --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the author of this image, because a Sukumizu or School Mizugi (the (the one) articles don't exist in English language [shame on you ^^]) is an relevant topic for Japanese media. From "Swimsuit Magazines" (blamed to display minors) to computer games (Erogēs}) to Anime (the typical beach episode) and Manga this is a widespread and common theme in Japanese media. It usually depicts shy, Tsundere alike, or very introverted characters in this design of swimsuit. The actual swimsuit was invented around 1955 and has developed it's outer appearance over time. In Japanese media itself, the old style/type of swimsuit is still used, since it had some characteristic traits that all following successors could not reach. It's disadvantages where its strength, since this could be used to emphasize its cuteness (Kawaii), which is generally seen as a theme of beauty in Japan (in short: beauty = cuteness, not something else). -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because Masur (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow, boring. Multichill (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good illustration. G.A.S 04:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The arms are too short - just because some other drawers get it wrong too doesn't mean it looks good. I also find the composition a little dull (central girl in front of central post - reminiscent of the FPC just below this one: central monument in front of central building). --99of9 (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vancouver Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 19:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gliblr - uploaded by Gliblr - nominated by Gliblr -- Gliblr (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gliblr (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good, but it needs a restitch (stitching errors) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness at the right and left and the stitch error Carscthen previously mentioned.--Snaevar (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amphianthus sp. (Colonial anemone).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2011 at 09:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is much better then your last nomination. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 11:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 04:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- I love it and will eventually support. But I'm curious about the exposure solution: F/7.1, 1/1000, ISO 50, no flash. I wonder what kind of light source was used because, even in an aquarium, the lighting doesn't seem sufficient. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the details of this species i would assume that it was shot very close to the water surface. You have soft light transitions in the background with mainly one direction. Due to refractions at the water surface you will have two points that don't show strong caustics. Either far away from the surface (refraction surfaces add up to something simlar to diffuse lighting) or very close to the surface, where a single wave is the actual surface. In the second case you will have nearly the same amount of light as in bright daylight. Given the location and time of this image, you would have very less (total) reflection. This could mean, that you would not need a flash light at all. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Zirconium crystal bar and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2011 at 18:46:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 02:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (座谈) 07:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both pieces are overexposed with a clear lack of details.--Snaevar (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not realy, I can't see any areas with FF:FF:FF. Please try to take a photo from 1001 mirrors :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 09:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, would be quite difficult to capture something this craggy without any flaws at all. Courcelles (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:Berlin Reichstag BW 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2011 at 09:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of details on the artwork, due to lack of sharpness, but also a bit overexposed. Definitely an QI, though.--Snaevar (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colors --Aktron (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don´t understand the technical criticism. Nice lighting, good enough level of detail, good composition, valuable subject. Saturation also alright, since I prefer the natural look. Perhaps it would have been even better had the persons been on the left, but in my eyes this is a minor flaw. --Nikopol (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at the time this image was shot, i must agree with Nikopol that it is right choice for the colors. Was not long ago since i was there and i think that it is right this way. --Niabot (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality (sharpness) is naturally not as good as with stitched panoramas, but good enough for me. My main issue is with the composition which looks a bit random/snapshottish to me. bamse (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to open it with a graphic program and let it display the Rule of thirds. You should see that it fits very well. --Niabot (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, but not any image that fits the rule of thirds is pretty to look at IMHO. The flagpole and flag covering major parts of the building feels a bit disturbing to me, not to mention the people in the foreground. Possibly a composition with the flag not in front of the entrance/cuppola could work for me. bamse (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is unbalanced with too much weight on the right side, with the flag overlapping the top of the building, and the people in a less than ideal posture. Furthermore, the Commons collection already has a number of better images of this building like this. --ELEKHH^T 02:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no better than third in quality of the Reichstag, after the one Elekhh points out and File:Reichstag pano.jpg. Courcelles (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Futanari.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2011 at 19:43:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An illustration for the japanese term and genre futanari, depicting two figures in two common variants (view article for more information).

Info An illustration for the japanese term and genre futanari, depicting two figures in two common variants (view article for more information).
Support -- Niabot (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paddy (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect illustration of this topic. alofok * 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good for illustrating the related article? Sure, I guess. A supremely high quality illustration that we think represents the very best of Commons educational content? Not a chance. Steven Walling 02:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not a chance", even so it is used in multiple articles and even in Japanese wikipedia (see article). Of course it can't have educational value if it comes to Steven Walling. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said, useful for illustrating related articles. That doesn't make it among the best images on all of Commons. Steven Walling 07:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per your own request. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Niabot, you have not the right to eliminate other users' votes. This is the third and last warning, next time the incident will be reported to AN/U. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't even care, since its strongly clear that this vote has nothing to do with the image itself and should be banned from FPC. But use your own rules, if you are the Jesus of FPC. Let us hope that i don't find some wood and some nails. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has to do with your ~~childish~~ inconsistent behaviour. You throw a temper tantrum because a piece of artwork of yours is about not to get recognized as one of the finest pictures Commons has to offer, claiming you don't want any of your productions to be featured here, ever, because the reviewers are unintelligent, then submit another one less than 24 hours afterwards. About the picture : per Steven Walling, exactly. If it is a good illustration of a certain type of japanese art, it should be nominated as a valuable picture, not as a featured picture. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You got some things wrong. You should look at the events that happened before this nomination. (It's a long story, so if you want to hear more about it, than ask me on my discussion page). In short: It was a pun related to previous events. But i will tell you one short story about this nomination. Actually it was nominated by me half a year ago (or even longer). Alvesgaspar was so "friendly" to remove it with this edit, even before the first vote. Claiming that FPC has to be "family friendly". But there is no such rule. Instead we have policies that explicitly state that Commons is not censored. If this explanation leaves open questions, than refer to Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas or ask me on the right place for further discussion. --Niabot (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes I did remove the nomination. And immediately posted a thread in the talk page ([9]) explaining why and asking for the consensus of the community. Much later, a proper discussion was held on this matter and a conclusion reached that porno images should be treated as any other nom. That is why I did not protest against the present nomination. It would have been more honest to refer to the whole story. By the way, please stop with the personal attacks and jokes against my person. I do not allow them and enough is enough. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It was already decided by COM:PS. So there was no reason to discuss at all, what the discussion proved again. Don't mind if i call you a diva. --Niabot (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I do mind. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support technical perfect illustration, usable for articles. FPC should not be a board for moralizing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My objection is not about morals. The Internet is chock full of porn which is just a few keystrokes away. This image is just fine for an article about weird Japanese porn. But it's not among the absolute best illustrations on all of Commons. It's not even the best compared to similar images such as this. Steven Walling 07:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the artist of both images i have to disagree, but this your opinion. --Niabot (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Steven Walling: Both images can not be compared with regard to their content. Technical I see it the same level. Your judgment "weird Japanese porn" shows impressively that your opinion is very well moral. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good and high quality. If there is a issue of moralizing, this is another issue that should discussed in a general topic about art etc. Ggia (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I liked to educate myself about futanari, I'd love to be educated with such illustration. It is both high quality and educational for me and it doesn't matter that its educational value is limited to one topic only. Masur (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I haven't seen my vote... it's repeated below Masur (talk)[reply]
Oppose per Steven Walling -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Mile (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Follows the Commons policy on nudity nicely and a decent illustration.--Snaevar (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing featurable or even interesting here beyond the explicit pornographic content. Even the educational purpose of the image and its relation with the Japanese word is contested in here. I also protest against the obvious vote canvassing, which is contrary to the spirit of Wikimedia and this forum. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want to use a comment from Herostratus, known to be on a mission, as an argument - right? You dare to speak about vote canvasing? --Niabot (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Biser Todorov (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no merit in featuring it. If you disagree, you may find here some stuff that is of equal value GerardM (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you did not make an error and wanted to refer to this --Niabot (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, then again, consider the use of this GerardM (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did today and the days before. At the end i was always happy with this moving picture inside the frame. --Niabot (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wladyslaw. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IMO this particular subject need not be pornographic, there is such a thing as tasteful nudity. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I could have done it that way. But actually there is that very strong connection to hentai. Displaying it like you said would be actually further away than acceptable for this topic in modern media. You could try an simple image search for the term "futanari", group all image together and put a line of good consent in the middle. In this case you would have to admit, that it is nearly harmless in comparison. --Niabot (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I liked to educate myself about futanari, I'd love to be educated with such illustration. It is both high quality and educational for me and it doesn't matter that its educational value is limited to one topic only (Why my vote wasn't kept when the voting page was moved?) Masur (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Must have been an edit conflict with me. I didn't actually moved the page, since the FPC-Bot works on "article age" basis. "Save moving" would not prevent him from closing the nomination permanently. Sorry for that. --Niabot (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, high quality work that is fully featurable. At every person that has a critic about the hair colours: those colours are a code for the mood and abilities of the depicted figure. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elfhelm (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The girl on the left hasn't testicles. This is not normal.--Citron (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the topic of it. Please try to unterstand. alofok * 20:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article futanari before voting. Both variants are common and therefore displayed inside this image. Some examples from the artbook Futachan: with testicles, without testicles. Even two or more penises are common. --Paddy (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. When you make breast implants, you make only one breast?--Citron (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the image description. It clearly says that it depicts two variants --Niabot (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I don't know read German clearly.--Citron (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The information is avilable (in english) inside the description page. But take a look at the first info line under the image on this page. It is also there. Its stated inside the imagecaption of the article Futanari. Its also present inside the text of the english article. In short: You missed four chances to get this obvious information. To cite Dieter Nuhr: [10] In english: "If you don't have a clue: just shut up." --Niabot (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm french, what would I do on the English article? You just add it in the description page. But in fact, nothing changes : you ejaculate without testicles? The only encyclopedic value is not even respected... --Citron (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citron I am sorry I must tell you there is no Easter bunny. And second the images are not a reflection of the real world! Sorry --Paddy (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niabot requested that someone would post this fro him. So I do:
I already told User:Citron that futanari "exists" with and without testicles. Now he claims that it would impossible to release sperm without testicles and that he can only read french, while writing comments in english. [11] Could some make it clear to him, that futanari are able to release sperm even if they don't have testicles? Actually they can release a lot of it. It's a fictional topic and Citron's wording is strongly provocative.

Common artworks from Makuro, Bosshi (Ask Ray Circle), Maru Nana, Yn Red, Behind Moon (Circle), Maru Retsu, Mimana Orimoto, Fanatic Fetish, Abu, Takumi Torigoe (Remora Works Circle), Kaguya Gekka (Urabata Circle), Shimakaze, Ubanis, Mofuringu, Hyji, Itoji, Shii Kiya, Harthnir, Masato Mutsumi, Ddal, Jinjin, ...

Since you Citron seem incapable of delivering a valid argument I suggest you withdraw your vote. --Paddy (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citron seems not only incapable in defending his own accusations made to this image. But also has the chutzpah to revert [12] without delivering new facts. --Paddy (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Citron: veuillez noter que le liquide séminal possède plusieures origines, les testicules sont l'origine uniquement que pour entre 2 à 5 pourcent du volume total d'une éjection. La plus grande partie provient de la prostate (25 à 30%) et des vésicules séminales (65 à 75%), ce qui d'une part signifie qu'un homme peut être parfaitement capable d'ejaculer sans testicules et d'autre part s'est déjà vu dans l'histoire: les castrats "pouvaient avoir des relations sexuelles adultes (à l'exception de la production de spermatozoïdes)" (citation de l'article). Quelques informations supplémentaires en ce qui concerne le liquide séminal sont disponible (malheureusement en anglais ;-) ) sur l'édition anglophone: Semen#Composition_of_human_semen. Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you write in French? I understand english very well, I only said that I prefer read the articles French than English, because french is my mother tongue. As to your little lesson, you're learning me nothing. Besides, you're wrong on some points : without testicles, no testosterone. Without testosterone, the seminal vesicle and the prostate undergo involution. So, virtually nothing comes out. Regards--Citron (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change the fact that this topic is not bound to actual human anatomy. It is a fictional topic / genre in which females or futanari can even get pregnant without having any testicles involved. In Dulce Report from Behind Moon, they even get pregnant on their own, while all futanari in this work don't have testicles. I thought that this fact should also be included inside the french article. To check it, i translated it with google and it did a relatively good job. What i read inside the article, the given facts, was horrible. I don't know who wrote it, but it already starts with an incorrect introduction, mixes terms at will and includes many wrong facts. It also has no sources. Maybe it should be deleted and rewritten. You (referring to french authors) would have to rewrite it anyways. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Steven Walling. Totodu74 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support high EV, very good quality illustraion at in this point surely one of the best on Commons. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pornographic content--Umnik (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our fundamental rules, which also apply to FPC: COM:PORN, COM:CENSOR -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 20:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no precedent that such a picture would be FP.--Umnik (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some time any kind of picture had no precedent. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 14:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pornographic content --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read our fundamental rules, which also apply to FPC: COM:PORN, COM:CENSOR --Paddy (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Steven Walling and per Umnik. Disgusting. --Saibo (Δ) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multichill (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
why if I may ask? --Paddy (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paddy: Just give it up. It's a well known "face". Every question will just be a waste of time. He will never express his true reasons to oppose. He did not on "Featured Pictures" on WP:EN. Why should he do it commons? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're aggressive comment is not useful for the project and the discussion here. And it's not your first aggressive contribution. You present artwork of your own and want to get it judged. So you have to accept that some people dislike it. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the aggressive chasing of users who opposed your nominations (like me) very annoying and intimidating. Please stop it right now. Multichill (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Run of the mill anime porn. Not among the best work on Commons, and not appropriate for featuring anyway. Before you direct me to COM:CENSOR (as if I had never seen it before), please note that the scope policy concerns deleting files, not featuring them. What files we choose to feature is an editorial decision, not a policy decision. Kaldari (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to tell me. I already know that. But giving "pornographic content" as the only reason does not show the same amount of courage as you did. They could have written "Sorry, I dont like pornography to be featured on commons. I appreciate your efforts..." or something alike. But giving obviously false statements (wrong hair color, testicles issue) is under my line. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 01:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Technically very nice, but I also feel uncomfortable when looking at this. Also the lady with left hair has a her right arm shorter than the left one. The other lady looks to has her right leg amputated - Benh (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is not notable in its own right, of high artistic merit, of high historic merit or of high illustrative merit. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to FPC -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 11:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While this has every right to be on Wiki Commons, I'm not seeing a featured picture here. This is meant to titillate and perhaps stir controversy. --Calibas (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job with svg. Not easy and good illustration Rastrojo _(D•ES) 23:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others above. Yann (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 16 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thecacera sp. (Polyceridae nudibranch).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2011 at 18:50:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pikachu nudibranch! -- Citron (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Black and yellow. ...And red all over. :) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would like to see a not downscaled version of this image. It could provide more details. This are barely 2,1 MP. --Niabot (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the creator, IMO it will not change anything, this animal measures barely 1 inch, and I remind you that this is an underwater photography.--Citron (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totodu74 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks nice. --ZooFari 02:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Correct but not special enough. Could be sharper. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Apple Seller in China.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2011 at 11:27:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Thomas888b - uploaded by Thomas888b - nominated by Thomas888b -- Thomas888b (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thomas888b (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it isn't perfect, but I believe it is a good example of the way of life of some Chinese people. -- Thomas888b (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Respectfully I have to disagree, this picture is impo trivial. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, interesting and useful. But image quality (crop, lighting, composition) is unfortunately below FP standards. -- MJJR (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but too many shadows....--Biser Todorov (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed a bit, bad white balance, should be from different angle and different lens used. --Aktron (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photo was taken quickly on the back of a moving rickshaw. -- Thomas888b (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has significant technical quality issues. theMONO 04:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Garden Temple, Petra 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2011 at 22:15:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a fan of the composition, and the tourists kill the mood to me. - Benh (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tourists will always kill the mood, but they are at this places at current time, destroying what is left. This should also be documented. The colors itself look a slight bit unnatural, as far i can judge. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC) PS: I'm a little drunk and can't see perfectly straight. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed image, and the background colors seem faded, especially in comparison with this photo: [13].--Snaevar (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pale colors --Aktron (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria von Braun 6330121 edited.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2011 at 01:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Maria von Braun created by an uncredited photographer, restored, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 01:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice (aesthetically) portrait. Ggia (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Left edge of photo bothers me, could it be in gray like rigth edge, or perhaps clone left part to rigth side, so will be same gradient from gray to white. --Mile (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "problem" in the left edge is that it is white like the background color of commons. Some photographers are printing their photos with natural full frame black border to avoid that. I.e. in flickr there is a pool with images like that [14]. A black border-frame like that is sold here [15]. Ggia (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:2011-04-03-fort-motte-giron-09.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 15:23:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside the fort de la Motte Giron, Dijon, France.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --No colour profile embedded; re-projection problem (?): the building is leaning towards left (it's not tilted); I think also that the HDR processing left the mid-tones washed out, lacking contrast. Sting (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --ComputerHotline (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grottes-crav-4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 15:25:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside the Cravanche caves, near Cravanche, France.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Image has no descrption. Sting (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed to the right. Maybe the wall is supposed to look that creamy, but I´m not sure.--Snaevar (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good cave shot, but "The inside" is not an suitable description IMO. Were is this? What is the name of the cave? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Were is this?" Look the geolocalisation. "What is the name of the cave?" The name is Grotte de Cravanche. --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flash toward the right makes it look plastic (caves are just like that). I would try doing a shoot with a handful of umbrellas for softer lighting. theMONO 04:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --ComputerHotline (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inchcolm Abbey, Inchcolm, Firth of Forth, Scotland-9April2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 07:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Magnus Hagdorn - uploaded by User:Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Invalides 2007 03 11.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 11:22:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Benh -- 66.232.100.247 11:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 66.232.100.247 11:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop at top and bottom, underexposed, too many shadows. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the best lighting and image quality (some parts are quite blurred). I don't like the perspective either because the top of the basilica seems to be falling to the back. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The right golden figure and the golden pillar below are not sharp (Stitching problem?). Metadata are completely lacking. Why? --Llez (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, the dark areas are very... dark. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paros Panorama.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2011 at 17:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Juvarra - uploaded by Juvarra - nominated by SpeakFree -- SpeakFree (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SpeakFree (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Slightly posterized but otherwise good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak one but this won't count) I like the place, but not best quality at full size, and maybe would have been better at another time of the day for lighting - Benh (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Composition is not convincing, image quality on the poor side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posterized sky, generally unsharp and lacking aerial perspective.--Snaevar (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shuttleexternaltank.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2011 at 10:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Diagram of Space Shuttle External Tank showing internal structure

Info created by malyszk - uploaded by malyszkz - nominated by malyszkz -- Malyszkz (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Malyszkz (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly valuable and useful illustration. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have seen better, but i know how much work it is to do a good illustration, compared to a good photography. --Niabot (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still needs much more work, at least on the copyediting front. A few examples: "Macimum", "1.655,600", "Liquid Oxygen vent valve and Fairing" (mixed case). Fixes would get it to QI standard (although the ugly stats box might need to be removed), but IMO it's still not an FP. The drawing seems competent but not attention-grabbing. "No wow", in other words. --Avenue (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avenue, many errors and the stats box is really ugly. The length dimensions could be integrated in the graph. Suggest withdrawing this, and getting it reviewed at QI and/or VI first. --ELEKHH^T 02:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I do like Avenue's idea about adding the dimensions to the labelled parts. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was Elekhh's idea, not mine. A good thought, I agree. --Avenue (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Avenue. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few issues, but none serious enough for me to oppose the image. First of all an spelling error, "Lenght" (153.8 feet) should be Length. Secondly, for Wikipedia usability the text should be readable at 400px and that is achieved with a 20px font (or slightly larger, perhaps). Thirdly, the Arial font used in this image isn´t really supported by the renderer on wikimedia (including commons and wikipedia), Liberation Sans or others would be supported. A full list of supported fonts are located at m:SVG_fonts.--Snaevar (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per the spelling error in the image mentioned above.--Snaevar (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changes made to the file. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IdLoveOne, but can the creator convert the units of measurement in meters? The world is not the USA. --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there, the lbs. just need conversion to kgs. :) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are still lots of spelling mistakes and other errors. E.g. "Anti slash Baffles" should be "Anti-slosh Baffles"; "Anti vortex Gaffles" should be "Anti-vortex Baffles"; "Alt" -> "Aft"; "Umbitical Plate" -> "Umbilical Plate"; "Feed" -> "Feed,". I think that the long thin bit along the upper edge of the liquid hydrogen tank is shown in NASA's original diagram as a cylinder (perhaps a pipe?), but in this SVG version it looks more featureless and definitely not cylindrical. I'm also concerned that the semitransparent cylinder at the back now showing the diameter measurement could be misinterpreted as part of the tank, at least at first glance. And for a PNG to SVG conversion, I think simply saying "Own work" in the Source section of the file description verges on plagiarism. The original should be acknowledged more directly than just an unexplained link in the Other Version section. The editor's conversion of the diagram to SVG should also be credited, of course. --Avenue (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adriatic Sea - view from Lokrum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 12:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice overview -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition, the boat at the right is partially cut out.--Snaevar (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I cropped this boat --Pudelek (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support After the crop, this works for me. Very nice image. Courcelles (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mitsubishi Pajero in off-roading.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 06:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Biso - uploaded by Biso - nominated by Biso -- Biser Todorov (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biser Todorov (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Title isn't correct. Kadellar (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support JJ Harrison (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info File has allready been renamed.--Snaevar (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the only thing I've to critize are the chromatic aberrations, but fortunately they aren't on the car. Otherwise very quality and composition, light is nice for the atmosphere, for me the iamge has a wow factor. FP imo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry Biso, but the car seems caged. It would look much better with a wider crop. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, the crop is too hard for that racing picture. btw: should we make the license plate anonymous? --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZavarzinaAlena6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 18:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bolshoi Sport - uploaded by Mediacrat - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vignetting in the corners need to be fixed. Jovian Eye _talk 04:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed ■ MMXX ^talk 05:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not. --Citron (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good portrait, love her pose and facial expression - it's slightly intense somehow. My only nit picky issue is the hair on my left. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good after correction. Jovian Eye _talk 19:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good pose, very attractive girl, nice expression, professional quality. There is really something special in this portrait (and the others of the series) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alvesgaspar --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Professional quality portrait with educational value. Steven Walling 04:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Image:Ducati 748 Studio.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 04:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created,uploaded, nominated by -- Ritchyblack (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ritchyblack (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely picture --Llorenzi (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure.--Mile (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 09:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tight crop, especially at the right. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the background is only 3m wide, for that reason I have use a long focal length. Sorry is not the wider background. --Ritchyblack (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't care about the background, it's irrelevant for this picture. The tight crop may be removed by tools like the GIMP plugin "resynthesize", that creates more irrelevant space out of nothing. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC) PS: I might be drunk at this time. This is my mothers fault, she has given the party to celebrate her 57th anniversary. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sei so nett und kleb rechts per Gimp nen cm Schwarz versuchsweise dran, der Uploader kann's ja löschen, wenn's ihm nicht gefällt. Das Foto ist ja ansonsten wirklich ein Gewinn. mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too hard crop. Now better, hence Weak support --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info Ich hab nun eine Version mit etwas mehr Rand an der rechten Seite drübergeladen, ich weiß nicht ob man das bei einer laufenden Abstimmung tun sollte. --Ritchyblack (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info Da fast alle Abstimmenden diesen Thread auf ihrer Beobachtungsliste haben dürften, sollte das OK sein. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nice picture well lit and representing well the subject. There's just what I think might be an issue at the lower part of the front wheel: the shape of the tire looks weird to me (see annotation). Sting (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  12:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Podul cu lanturi din Budapesta.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2011 at 08:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sorinucu2007 - uploaded by Sorinucu2007 - nominated by Sorinucu2007 -- Sorinucu2007 (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sorinucu2007 (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and blurry. ---donald- (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and very noisy.--Slfi (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoDo you know how hard it is to make a picture with so many lights in front???--Sorinucu2007 (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know and I can not take pictures at night, but there are people who can do it very well.--Slfi (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I dont' have a device so advenced. This is my photo, if you like is ok, if you don't like, is ok. --Sorinucu2007 (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be FPX'ed, sorry  Richard  [®]  11:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use a tripod? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, i didn't use a tripod. I was in a surprise trip to Vienna, and I stopped in Budapest :) --Sorinucu2007 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. That explains the blurriness. At a exposure time of 1/10 seconds it's nearly impossible to haven't any blurriness. At night shots you have to use a tripod. Then ISO 100, a lesser opened aperture and that would be more towards to a featured picture. Also better for a night image would it be if you would take a photograph some minutes earlier during the blue hour and because of the glaring lights a HDR could be make it also better. Just some tips. Sorry for my bad English and Regards from Germany, --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! --Sorinucu2007 (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overexposed, movement blur and chromatic aberration.--Snaevar (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred. --Murdockcrc (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per the reasons above. No need for this picture to collect a long stack of oppose votes -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Tay Nguyen Institute of Biology 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2011 at 06:34:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by USERNAME -- 113.170.4.134 06:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 113.170.4.134 06:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted building.--Snaevar (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Need to correct the perspective. This image not to be QI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: noisy sky, wrong composition, bad crop, severe perspective distortion. Far from FP usual minimum standards, sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Trường Dân tộc nội trú Lâm Đồng 07.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2011 at 06:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by USERNAME -- 113.170.4.134 06:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 113.170.4.134 06:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted building, overexposed and lacking sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snaevar And a perspective correction would have been desirable.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: tilt of the building, overexposition, unsharpness, bad composition (crop left), perspective distortion. Far from FP usual minimum standards, sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:Greetsieler Hafen, Abend 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 16:57:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. The port of Greetsiel in Krummhörn (East Frisia, Lower Saxony, Germany) during twilight at an early autumn evening.
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top, man erkennt an diesem Bild eindeutig deine fotografische Entwicklung, weiter so. --217.226.200.77 17:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sign in please! -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good mood --Llez (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MartinD (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Taken maybe 15 or 20 minutes too late IMO - too dark for me for a sunset pic. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, good mood aside. - Benh (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it would be nice to hear what I could make better the next time. So a statement and reason is not in demand and is just fair to the photographer. Or is it really too difficult?? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a version with more light? --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a version of this candidate which has a brighter foreground or a day shot? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A day shot would be preferable. Alternatively, can you make an HDR-image of that file? --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Benh. —kallerna™ 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inzlingen - Wasserschloss2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 20:07:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Today I am a diva (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Today I am a diva (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment das Bild kippt nach links --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alle Linien sind exakt senkrecht. --Today I am a diva (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nein, dass stimmt nicht. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also ich werde wegen Abweichungen im Breich von zehntel Grad nichts machen. Dann stimme eben mit Kontra. Ich schaue mir Bilder für gewöhnlich mit den Augen und nicht mit der Schieblehre an. --Today I am a diva (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Biser Todorov (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Looks like it might be a bit blown out on the left side of the wall on my right. Otherwise this is quite great and I love the reflection. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose as I did with all 1:1 mirror reflections, the composition I find not so appealing for being centred (both horizontally and vertically). Also the light is on the less prominent façade. --ELEKHH^T 02:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose par Elekhh. Nothing really wrong, but nothing really outstanding either (in short : no wow) - Benh (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Details like the tiles on the rooftop could be sharper and generally overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- you confuse white surface with overexposed parts --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that the reflection is distraction and the mirror image is not pleasing. Snowmanradio (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ritchyblack (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Sorinucu2007 (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons account with less than 50 edits. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schöpfwerk Greetsiel 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2011 at 17:02:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. The pumping station in Greetsiel, Krummhörn (East Frisia, Lower Saxony, Germany). I like the composition with the three people on the dike and water reflection (that is not cutted off!).
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support reminds me a little on the Olsenbande - just in opposite order. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 17:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad perspective because of the trees to the left. --Snaevar (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Partly obscured by trees on the left and right. Snowmanradio (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vanadium crystal bar and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2011 at 21:32:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alchemist-hp - uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by -- Brackenheim (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ritchyblack (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be tweaked, but good enough for FP IMO none the less.--Snaevar (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The grill season has started --Schnobby (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:Container Ship.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 01:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original nomination with stitching errors --Muhammad (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It confuses the bot if you start a new nomination in the old nomination page, please start it at a new location. --99of9 (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the best you start the candidature new under the name "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Container Ship.jpg". --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I know these kind of shots can be hard to take because you kind of have to be lucky enough to have a surface or dock where you can take a good shot from and sometime's that not the circumstance, but still it doesn't make for good composition. A better angle would've made the lighting more impressive, too. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rengasvesiliuku Serena 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 06:38:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 06:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the expression of the soon-to-be-wet child. —kallerna™ 06:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Educational Value? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Water parks? Amusement parks? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 12:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't see a water park. Just blue in blue... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot -- Raghith (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but I don't see the educational value, either. It looks like a person in water- teaching little. Courcelles (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is all this talk about "educational value" ?, this is not en:wiki FPC --Tony Wills (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On EnWiki FPC, educational value is almost everything. Here, it is not everything, but still important - here we don't feature images based on quality alone. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they need to have some educational value to be within scope of the project (otherwise deleted), but it has never been a criteria on FPC. We don't make value judgements on its possible use across a miriad of projects. It has always been about the best of what we have in terms of high quality, striking images. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sneeze.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2011 at 18:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A red-headed man sneezes - the vector is shown as well as the difficulty in keeping one's eyes open while sneezing

Info created by the CDC - uploaded by TimVickers - nominated by One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hard to get, great encyclopedic value, nice quality. --Von.grzanka (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Disgusting, wow! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per Archeodontosaurus, below. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 20:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gesundheit. Jonathunder (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does he actually sneez or inhale the "water"? The trails giving the impression that it travels in opposite direction. They should be bigger at the far end, because the drops will loose speed the longer they travel (air friction). Could someone explain this effect to me? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks normal to me: Gravity affects things that are heavier more dynamically, so larger droplets usually wouldn't travel as far before being pulled down as smaller ones would.[16][17] -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant the trails of the single drops. That bigger drops would fall faster (bigger mass per volume or surface area) should be normal. So far i can follow. But the trail/bluring of a single drop should depend on exposure time. In this case i wonder why it is thicker at start (t1) and smaller and the end (t2) with t1 < t2.
    The only possibilities that won't violate basic physical laws i can think of are: a) The exposure was stronger at the start (t1) an got weaker to the end (t2). b) t2 is actually smaller then t1, reversing the complete progress. c) The drops are splitting apart due to air friction. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 08:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...Uh, it's a guy sneezing. Because of biology, muscular movements, mouth movements, spasms and such I wouldn't assume the force of the sneeze was uniform the entire moment of it. Plus yes it could be due to friction with the air, we have no way of knowing what the atmospheric conditions of the setting were. That doesn't matter anyway because it doesn't negate the fact that this does illustrate a sneeze. Also, see the first pic I linked above. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your current explanation has nothing to do with my question. I asked on the trails of single drops (the large ones), not the dust/smoke distribution. A moving sphere/ball/bullet would leave a trail like in this examples: [18] In case of this image the trails are inverted. Thats what im asking for. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 15:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I get you now. Your point is that we're taught to expect droplets to look like this when they fall [19], but a web image search found these for me[20][21][22]. So maybe yeah the droplets are either sheared by their speed from the sneeze (apparently a sneeze moves at 100mph [23]) or are our preconceptions possibly wrong? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Not as if they fall. The speed is most likely much higher as rain and i would not assume a drop like shape, that isn't even typical for water at higher speeds. But i would expect motion blur even at short exposure times. Maybe it is the flash light, as Alvesgaspar stated, which fires with full intensity and fades out to the end of the exposure. This would match the result and could cause the opposite motion blur effect. There where also at least 2 flash lights involved (visible at the beard). This could explain the "cut out" / shadow near the mouth. The only thing that i can't explain till now is the flow. After increasing the contrast drastically, which also revealed the true center of the stream (points far more upward), i looked at the right part. Big drops that tend to fall down are rising again after some distance. It might be turbulences. That is the point when you really want to see an video / the motion and not just an image. ;-) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 18:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It crossed my mind that this could be a composite image. The reasons: (i) I would expect the emission to be more directed to the ground; (ii) the origin of the emission, near the mouth, doesn't look natural; (iii) nothing from the nose? But I'm not convinced of my own doubts and the picture is amazing anyway. Of course, it it were manipulated, it should be mentioned in the image file and FP nomination. I think that the looking of the droplets has to do with the moment the flash fired: at the beginning of the exposure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at these appears to be authentic (or are all fake?) --ELEKHH^T 08:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely makes an impact. I shared some of the doubts expressed above, but having now skimmed a bit of the literature about the topic, I'm willing to trust the CDC on this one. --Avenue (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Jovian Eye _talk 19:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~  Richard  [®]  11:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, because the trigger/release was a tiny bit to late. I've seen pictures where particles came out of the nose as well- that's what it needs to desribe sneezing more exactly. Here it could be coughing, too.  Richard  [®]  13:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting take on an educational subject. Steven Walling 04:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quantity of fluid expelled is not natural. The subject had previously filled his mouth with water. The idea is good but the photo is faked. It does not reflect the natural physiology of a sneeze.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesnt convince me.--Mile (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Archaeodontosaurus: A good idea, but this posed image does not hit the bull's-eye. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Archaeodontosaurus. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the doctor.--Jebulon (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kannangattu Bhagavathi.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 05:32:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rakesh S - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution too small (only 0,69 Megapixels), some lens flare in front of the man and blurry at the right side of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of size issues

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.

W.S. 11:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taeniopoda reticulata edit.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2011 at 13:09:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A superb creature. I think that the shallow dof and slightly unfocused eye are fully mitigated by the enc value and image quality. Created & uploaded by Biopics - nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Alvesgaspar said: unfocused eye, shallow DOF. Also stunted leaves and comparatively a bit tight cropped at the left and right. There have to be more than just high EV and a nice subject --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF-Problems and filtered to death to reduce noise. Fine "hairs" are missing. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 14:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree, albeit reluctantly. Was focus stacking used here? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not  Richard  [®]  12:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ --Sorinucu2007 (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, >50 edits in Commons acount needed to vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF & Focal-Plane, sorry  Richard  [®]  12:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support oppose issues above are a bit on the minor to me. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find Alves --Muhammad (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 09:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image -- Raghith (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Richard. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much processed to be featured. W.S. 11:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...in my opinion... or ...to my taste... Try, it is easy !--Jebulon (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, little chances Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-04-18 Zwickau Schloß Osterstein.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 14:57:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by je-str -- Je-str (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good photo! Apart form the overexposure and a small tilt, the image is featured imo. I made some correction at File:2011-04-18 Zwickau Schloß Osterstein-CN.jpg. Maybe you will nominate it as alternative. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you can support the alternative as well if you like. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Carschten.--Snaevar (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to both. I don't know what the other choices were, but I don't care for this angle or the construction. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 12:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sir Gawain (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info retouched version by kaʁstn Disk/Cat
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now its better -- Raghith (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Above and added. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sir Gawain (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maaloula pano 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2011 at 09:26:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interesting and nice scence, very good quality. But why such a bad and tight crop at bottom?? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I failed to remain horizontal while scanning (and/or I did not anticipate the projection), and I had to crop. I understand that it might be a drawback too significant for FP. --Eusebius (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunate crop in the top-left where the sightseeing platform stands and at bottom at the cropped building.--Snaevar (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question See note in image, please. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanner scale-male.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2011 at 18:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by/uploaded by/nominated by -- M•Komorniczak ^-talk- 18:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThe only graphic of male Tanner scale at Wikipedia.
Support -- M•Komorniczak ^-talk- 18:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see an exciting image. Neither in detail or design. It is more or less a plain table. I'm not saying that it is bad. It actually is a good and valuable illustration. But it is much more suitable for COM:VI then FP. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing exceptional, neither in the subject or in treatment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In what unit are the numbers on the left side of the image? inches, centimetres or something else? --Snaevar (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valle de La Orotava qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2011 at 19:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Orotava Valley on Tenerife including Puerto de la Cruz and surrounding towns. Please note that the image is very detailed and huge (50 MByte). Lower resolution versions can be accessed from the description page. Created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ich habe einen kleinen Stitchingfehler gefunden und markiert. Bei den vielen Pixeln bin ich jetzt gerade aber ehrlich gesagt zu faul (und zu müde) um das ganze Bild abzusuchen bzw. zu kontrollieren. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for noticing. I will fix the small stitching error later today. --Quartl (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Quartl (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive at full resolution! Small stitching error at the right edge, just above the horizon; very easy to remove. -- MJJR (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I restitched the image and slightly adjusted brightness and contrast (the flash viewer seems to have the old image cached though). --Quartl (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting leaves something to be desired, but it's informative and the resolution is great. theMONO 04:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. Could you tell me what could be improved with the lighting? I tried quite hard to get the contrasts as good as they are. --Quartl (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The contrasts are good for the image as it it. A sunrise or sunset might have produced a more vibrant image. Nothing wrong with it, besides my personal preference :). theMONO 03:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A 36-frame panorama would not have worked under such rapidly changing conditions. -- King of Hearts (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm very impressed by the stitching job (36 pictures, really ?) and the wonderful sharpness and details at high resolution. This picture is very informative because it shows a large serie of samples of human activities (industry, agriculture, tourism, roads...) and landscapes (mountain with snow, fields, coast, sea...). The composition, from the upper left corner to the lower right is eye-catching. Very nice, indeed. --Jebulon (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French caption with links to fr:wp added--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the praise and for adding the french caption, my knowledge of your language is too limited for this ;-). Yes, it's 36 single pictures and the panorama software had to work quite hard for the result. --Quartl (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive detail. It does leave me wishing it extended further, especially at upper left and lower left. --Avenue (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. Yann (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The thumbnail doesn't look particularly remarkable, but general good quality + the sheer amount of resolution = FP. -- King of Hearts (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Large, but no WOW. Just ugly houses and some semi-rural landscape. W.S. 11:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same - Benh (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support eigentlich ja Neutral, aber wo die beiden User vor mir das WOW nicht sehen, verstehe ich nicht. Ich bezweifele sehr, dass man dieses landschaftliche schöne Motiv, welches von einem angenehm überblickenden Standort und relativ hoher enzyklopädischer Relevanz aufgenommen wurde, besser ablichten und diese atemberaubende Natur schöner darstellen und kompositionell einen größeren WOW-Effekt zu erzielen kann. Sorry, auf Englisch bekomme ich das nicht formuliert ;-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kein problem. Ich verstehe Deutsch aber sehe deine atemberaubende Natur gar nicht! W.S. 21:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Eyo festival participants 2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 14:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bruno Chatelin - uploaded by Aymatth2 - nominated by Aymatth2 -- Aymatth2 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aymatth2 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small, only 0.27 megapixels.

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.

Jovian Eye _talk 15:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viacrucis 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2011 at 22:43:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reenactment of Jesus carrying the cross in Leon Guanajuato, Mexico -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral On a technical note the sky is overexposed and the cross is cutout (though I prefer the closeup), but what kind of annoys me is how much this lacks authenticity: Foam on the galeae, the "Roman's" costumes look like they were bought from a craft store, modern buildings and roads, the smock "Jesus" is wearing looks like polyester! Though I see the guy clearly is acting. Though those are just my own criticisms. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lighting conditions were definitely not the best, 10:00 am aproxx and the procession was travelling from east to west, hence a backlit situation. Hence the overexposed sky. To bring down the sky would have meant to underexpose the shadow areas, facial details and all. On the authenticity, well, you hit it right. It is the effort, the solution-with-materials-at-hand that makes this type of event "colloquial", so to speak. These events are staged by the community, with participants sponsoring everything, costumes, etc. This is not a Hollywood production, but a production by the faithful. The role of Jesus is heavily sought after, it is a privilege to be the chosen one. This event is put on by the community for the community. It is an expression of the community´s faith. For some of us outside observers, the lack of authenticity, even from the theatrical perspective, is really secondary. For them, their costumes are as real as they get, for the roles they play, and not the authenticity of the costumes or setting, is what is important. Thousands of people line the streets where they live, work, to watch this prosession go by, people see beyond the theatrics and focus on the message. This image is not about great photographic merit, but rather a snapshot of community life and traditions. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurry overall and chromatic aberration along the edge of the cloak on the punisher to the right.--Snaevar (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Japanese peony pivoine JdP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2011 at 16:48:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by (helped) Lady Nature, and me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spring is back in Europe ! Let's celebrate it with this japanese peony flower.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, the spring is back :-D Just sunshine the last days and at the following days. And I can't get to any photo motives :-( But to the picture: It's imo a little bit oversharpened and there's a sharpening halo. The composition is also centered and therefore somewhat boring. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that centered is instantly boring, but the plain sunlight on this kind of is. This same flower might've been more interesting if the natural lighting were a bit darker, like as the Sun was setting and with a nice contrast. I still think it's pretty good otherwise. Kind of looks QI-ish somehow. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Plain sunlight ? Paris, 18 april, 16h40 local time, even under sunny weather...--Jebulon (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, but I wouldn't have known if you hadn't told me. Just looking at the picture it could be any time of day. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - geolocation and metadata are available on the file description page, which is generally extremely useful for complete reviews... ;) --Jebulon (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jebulon, almost every flower in the world in almost any garden in the world looks kind of like this at high noon. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meh, Weak support technically ok except for the clipping. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What makes that flower featurable? --Yikrazuul (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this question a "review" ? Maybe exceptionnal beauty (IMO)... Some could be sensitive to that. Matter of taste I suppose.--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered compostion and the stamens of the flower looks over-sharpened, ruining the mother nature feel of the picture for me.--Snaevar (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry Jebulon but something is really missing in this photo for being featurable. Beyond that, there are three things I deslike: the tight crop, the too harsh lighting and the distracting background. You should have used a longer focal distance to get a blurred background with a nice bookeh. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- -No need to be sorry. I don't agree with all you say in this review but it is interesting to me. Thank you anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mediocre quality.  Richard  [®]  12:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition. theMONO 04:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

File:Salzburg - Salzburger Dom5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2011 at 08:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame of the crop below, but otherwise much better than "good" in my opinion. I like it (object, light, "softness" and general sharpness) very much. Did the young Wolfgang play here ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I guess this organ is to young for that :) But at this File:St. Johannis Lüneburg - Orgel.jpg one Johann Sebastian Bach heard Georg Böhm play --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Crop. The low range part of the platform is missing, sorry. Otherwise a very nice picture.  Richard  [®]  12:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The mixture of color temperature between the window and lamp are perturbative. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and lighting. Yann (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Richard. Framing is less than ideal. Some objects hanging in randomly on the right side as well. --ELEKHH^T 14:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

File:1730 Homann Map of Scandinavia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the Baltics - Geographicus - Scandinavia-homann-1730.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2011 at 08:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Johann Baptist Homann - uploaded by BotMultichill - nominated by Wolfgangus Mozart -- Wolfgangus Mozart (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgangus Mozart (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 12:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly educational. Steven Walling 04:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --Llez (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The red outline does not follow the black coastline perfectly south of Oslo, Norway and the green outline does not follow the black coastline perfectly in the White Sea of Russia. The image title is also is too long, as Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden.--Snaevar (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent scan of an interesting cartographic document. The remark about the outlines is inappropriate and absolutely no reason for opposing, as these artistic hand painted lines are quite typical for historical maps. But I agree with Snaevar on the image title, which is far too long and really awkward. -- MJJR (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, you guys found one of the best maps! I always use long descriptive file names to avoid naming collisions. Multichill (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romaine (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really happy to have this feature. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support love anything historic! --Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Crocodylus acutus fighting 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 02:57:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --NeverDoING (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CA - Overexposed --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is backlit, the subjects are dark in nature, in semi shade, and the sun filtering through the manglar. The dynamic range is huge. The overexposed parts are specular reflections, and basically sun reflecting upon the water, no detail or shades of gray there. So more than thinking of overexposure, we must think of great dynamic range. The dark subjects and their behavior is what is important. If you look for fighting crocodiles in the net, you will have a hard time finding one like this. This was a great opportunity shot under difficult light conditions. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, blurry and not worthy of an exception of the rules.--Snaevar (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vertebre dorsale Montfort.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 19:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, in Commons, we fight with words. Violence is our heritage. I have long hesitated to show this picture because it does not argue in our favor.. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The object itself is meritorious for its historical value, but the photographic execution is in this case unfortunate. Studio shots shoud be of impecable photographic technique, for all variables can be controlled. In this case front and side lighting, in a 1:3 ratio should have been used to enhance texture and volume, instead of unflattering front flat lighting. The digital seamless looks too fake. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The exaggeration of your criticism, demonstrates the absurdity. There are no flash but 6 LED lights disposed for there to have a minimum of shadows. We are not in a photograph art, but scientific picture. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*

Comment I fail to see the exaggeration or the absurdity of my criticism. It is pretty objective, and I took the time to suggest how you may have improve it, but apparently you took issue with that. A bad photograph of any subject, scientific or otherwise is still a bad photograph. You confirm what I said: lighting disposed in such a way as to eliminate shadows. Shadows give texture and volume to subjects, enhancing the visual effect. The way to photographically, and scientifically represent this subject better is to have differential lighting in order to better represent texture and volume. If you claim that this is a scientific photograph, well, that is your prerogative, but scientific photography is not exempt from good photo studio techniques nor does it negate good solid photography. Another thing that this “scientific” photograph is missing is that of a scale, so the viewer can get an idea of its size. Right now it is just a bad photograph of an interesting subject.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas you are right. I'll do it again.--Archaeodontosaurus 05:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Detailed and well focused. Иван (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness, as the holes in the bone can´t be seen properly and the picture looks a bit flat too.--Snaevar (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Snaevar. --Karelj (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Archaeodontosaurus 05:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonius Pius IMG 9757.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 18:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info White marble bust of Antoninus Pius. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crop it, too much black above. Could be zoomed also, torso bigger. --Mile (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much masking, some of the edges of the statue are missing. I don´t mind the space above the statue, though.--Snaevar (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of the virgin of the burgh Rhodes 14th century night.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2011 at 21:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info. By night, the ruins of the choir of the church of the Virgin of the Burgh, 14th century, in the medieval city of Rhodes, island of Rhodes, Greece. All by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral We have tons of these types of shots, but technically it's nice. theMONO 04:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a useful review, sorry. I don't understand what is meant by "type of shots". Illuminated buildings night shots ? We have tons of "by day" pictures too :)... We have tons of Eiffel tower images, Big Ben, Invalides, Washington Capitole, bugs, critters, flowers, shells or chemical elements and so on, we continue to feature some, and I'm happy with that. This one is unique in "Commons", even if we have some pictures of the same ruins by day. Thank you for the "technically nice".--Jebulon (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image -- Raghith (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (with leaning to oppose). I think you've made the best out of the situation. But IMO were you there too late. It's so much black on the image and the spires of this building that aren't illuminated are really underexposed. Some minutes/hours earlier, during the blue hour and/or a HDR image would make it really better. Sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment No need to be sorry, your review is very interesting and useful. My attempt here is not to be misunderstood : I especially attempted to shoot a night picture. Not a "blue hour" one, but really a "night" one. And night is dark and black, and "black" does not mean "underexposed" (by the way, pure white does not mean neither "overexposed"). And the "black" is not absolute here: one may see stars, it is not a mask. Well, I think these ruins (they are only remains of the gothic choir, nothing else) are interesting to be seen by night, and the lighting, from below in the ground, is very nice and not disturbing. This is rare, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While appreciating it to be a night shot, it is too dark to be featurable. W.S. 11:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it looks too dark to be featurable, or it seems too dark, or some can feel it is too dark. But it is not too dark to be featurable. Such categorical judgments sounds not well-balanced enough to be useful... Welcome back ;)--Jebulon (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks as if it seems that's the way you feel, but actually it is the reality. That feels rather balanced to me. Thanks for the personal touch. And oh... ... did I go somewhere ?? ;-). W.S. 13:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality (which isn't surprising given camera setup f/20 ? iso 200 ? Is it really ISO 200 ?) - Benh (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bad review ( which isn't surprising given bla bla bla -no personal attack-). It is really ISO 200. Why not ? I'm not fool enough to change the metadata on the file description page. Furthermore I don't know how to do. Welcome back to the other duettist.--Jebulon (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bad faith and doesn't seem to take criticism well. I'm surprised it's ISO 200 because of the the noise, and apparent NR artifacts. who uses f/20 for a night shot but you ? - Benh (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That first part is funny... -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Quality could be higher. Can I support both the day and night shot together? If so then that's what I do. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Redear sunfish FWS 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 22:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Knepp Timothy - uploaded by MGA73bot2 - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support :D -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good... tasting --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image! Blattkaktus (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice illustration. --ELEKHH^T 11:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice colours and beautiful crisp edges. Nephron T|C 04:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez 05:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Rylov Blue Expanse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2011 at 06:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arkady Rylov - uploaded by Alex Bakharev - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the colors are right. I love this. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support; don't know the original, but it looks like a faithful digitalization. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the colors, but I would expect a bigger size for such a subject. Yann (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BastienM 20:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rückertsbronn Wasserturm01 2011-04-17.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2011 at 16:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by KlausFoehl -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yeah! --Aktron (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I love minimalism and the compostion is near to perfection. But not the image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is nice, but the grass and trees are really noisy. Also, the power lines toward the left are distracting. theMONO 04:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Snaevar and Mono. ---donald- (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not extraordinary ... --BastienM 20:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]