Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2010

File:Kairo Ibn Tulun Moschee BW 7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 12:51:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FieldMarine (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can you please fix the tilt? --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Please check again. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Well, not quite perfect (note the left side of the cylindrical portion of the tower) but good enough for me. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because I'm sure the (very little) tilt will be soon corrected, and the dustspot removed... It is a very nice picture, and very useful too.--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- why not try another angle and composition. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For other views look here: User:Berthold_Werner/Aegypten#Ibn_Tulun_Moschee --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I realize the somewhat harsh light is probably quite fitting for the desert-like appearance of the subject, but it is little to hard for my taste. Would have taken it earlier on the day if shadows permitted (which I do not know)? Othe observation, which has no influence on my review. I think there is still a dust sport left, see annotation, and I noticed that in full res the sky appeared quite noisy. Not that I think it can be seen in a printout, but on screen it is noticeable and you may consider doing a selective noise reduction on the sky. --Slaunger (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Dustspots removed, sky denoised. The light may appeare harsh to you, but it was already a bit dull by the smog of Cairo :-( --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you Berthold. I have removed the annotation. --Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition --Böhringer (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice but low cut. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice compositionAnkara (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LeavXC (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition and quality. high ev. could you please fix the levels? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mx flower01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 17:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor lighting (built-in flash usually gives very reflective, flat lighting, unless used correctly as fill flash). LeavXC (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per LeavXC. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting, composition, FPX ? --Elekhh (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If someone good at channels can lighten up the BG, I might consider {{support}}-ing. It's a bit distracting. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSorry. We have in "Commons" a very nice gallery of featured flowers and plants, and as a non specialist, I may say that this one is really far from usual FP standards I'm afraid. Only a small part is in focus, the light is very bad, I don't understand the composition. I do not how to use the FPX template (a tool I dislike), but...--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2010 (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: Not much is in focus, the flash light is very bad, and the composition is not good. --Slaunger (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2010 (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:I. DeFrancisci & Son macaroni machines, 219 Morgan Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (July 1917).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 17:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by I. DeFrancisci & Son - uploaded by FieldMarine - nominated by FieldMarine -- FieldMarine (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I.DeFrancisci & Son industrial macaroni machine makers from July 1917. All the machinery in the plant was run off a pulley/belt system located on the ceiling, which you can see in the picture. The belt system was powered by a single generator and you attach a belt from the system on the ceiling to the machine you want to run (see machine on far left for an example). This was state of the art for 1917.
Support -- FieldMarine (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This has great historical value for Wikipedia. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info. Commons ise not only for Wikipedia. All the sites with mediawiki can use commons directly. Like Ansiklopedika.org. Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per Murdockcrc. But contrast could be improved. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support valuable --Mile (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although of high historic and educational value this image could need some rework. a levels adjustment, proper colour toning, increasing sharpness, decreasing jpg artifacts. a digital restoration can add new qualities, but would be very time consuming and would require a better source image. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every vintage b/w or sepia photo of the early 20th century may have a high historic value. But I think we cannot promote or feature here all of them, if they have not a very high technical value, or if strong mitigating reasons for not. I'm sorry, but per Peter Weis, it is not the case here, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I’ve looked through the commons & I’ve seen very few photographs of machine shops shown in this way from this time period. There are a few here, but maybe I’m not looking in the right place. FieldMarine (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bad contrast, I don't like the sepia tone. Yann (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs restoration. --Elekhh (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject — a state-of-the-art (of its time) macaroni machine shop — is very interesting and I like the scene, composition, expression of the faces and there are some quite nice details like the shoes. I would be willing to support after a serious restoration job to fix some of the technical problems mentioned by other reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:VitoshaPlateau-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 17:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

„Torfeno Branishte“ (Turf Reserve), the natural reserve on Vitosha Mountain, Bulgaria.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting conditions are great! --Murdockcrc (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Teknik açıdan başarısız. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice clouds, but the foreground is unexciting, and the peaks are too much in shadow. --Avenue (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too much shadow. I'm not enamoured with the clouds, so seeing 2/3 of the picture dominated by them doesn't inspire me. Nice lighting and texture on the ground. --99of9 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose plateau better shows pointing more down. More vertical more flat. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It gives what a promises - A picture of a field. I think the real problem is maybe they'd like some green from spring, but it's currently autumn.. =\ Support. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting place, colors and light, but I find the yellow-black poles distracting. --Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torreón de Minguela desde el cauce del Valcorba.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 16:48:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Rastrojo _(D•ES)
Support -- Rastrojo _(D•ES) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- First of all the right crop is disturbing. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the bush and the crop at the right made the wow-factor to me --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition. --99of9 (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see the intention with the stark composition, but it does not work for me. --Elekhh (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, and no subject to be featured for me. Yann (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per crop comments above. Jujutacular ^talk 05:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tree Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems a bit underexposed to me. --Aktron (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo November 2010-2a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 16:35:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The main square of Porto Covo in a winter day, Portugal (detail). Much better than my other pictures of the same subject. Everyting by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alvesgaspar, I am shocked! You should know better than to crop it to tightly. As someone once said, "Let the poor thing..." --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please set a good example and comment on the image, not the photographer. Also, if you don't allude to previous discussions, your review will be easier for new readers to understand. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that Alvesgaspar is usually the one who points out tight crops. A bit of an inside joke. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood the context of your remark, but the new people may not. You are one of the major nominators and reviewers on FPC and provide an example of how to communicate here. With influence comes responsibility. But, anyone can understand that you thought the subject was cropped too closely. That clarity is one of the attributes that make your reviews helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. The comment was funny, though not applicable in this situation (plenty of air in the backyard ;-) ). Anyway, fun is the major motivation of many people here, including me. Please don't take it away! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not too tight. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main challenge with this nice square seems to be the composition, given the horizontal nature of the subject and the difficultly shaped trees, located close to the buildings. This 2007 detail works because an angle has been found where the trees do not obscure the main elements of the façade. In contrast in this nomination the tree obscures a window and a roof element, which is more disturbing as it happens close to the center of the image. I would suggest a left crop, so that the tree in front of the window becomes more marginal. This angle was more favourable, although it has to deal with the dark pine which attracts too much attention. I find the dark pine, when included, is better shown cut than as a whole as here and here. I also like the overall view. --Elekhh (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Thanks for your carefull review, Elekhh! This subject is an endless fascination for me and winter light is much better than summer's. As a side note, that is not a pine tree but an Araucaria heterophylla. It was introduced in Portugal in the 19th century, some say, using a single individual from which all existing trees descend. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought it was a Norfolk Island Pine, sorry for using the Australian vernacular name ;) --Elekhh (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Touché! I did not realize you were from Australia... Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - To be precise not "from" but "in". En guard... --Elekhh (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ These pictures of this village make me love it without knowing it. I'm trully sorry, but I'm disapointed by the crop of the house at right.--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- That was cropped on purpose for aesthetical reasons, as it would be a too large white area if it were kept. Please check here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the info. It is a good reason, but cannot be known at first when looking on this only picture.--Jebulon (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- For me the crop is just fine but the image looks so artificial. Maybe too much work on the original imageMulazimoglu (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- No work at all on the original. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Than theres a technical problem. Bina çok parlak görünüyor. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the houses are painted white. Anything else? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice view, good composition (acceptable crop, although rather tight indeed), excellent technical quality, pleasant colors, encyclopedic value. -- MJJR (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Decently, I cannot oppose because of my original reason. Sharpness and colors are very good. This square is really charming, and after many reflections, I've decided to change my vote... But please, remove the little dustspot left in the sky, near the little cloud (annotation)--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Jebulon, I will remove the two spots (plus the spurious branch at left). I'm very careful with my nominations but those little bastards succeded to pass through the net. I'm about to hereby Jebulon the Great Barnstar of Dust Spot Detectors! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too ordinal look for me. Clear QI, but far not FP by composition. Nothing outstanding, sorry --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, right part building missing. --Karelj (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After having read the lenghty and interesting discussion. I think the crop is unfortunate. I realize not much can be done with it. I like the May FP better. The light, detail level and colors are very good as well as the atmosphere. --Slaunger (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit dismayed with the outcome as these were wonderful lighting conditions and the picture is close to the best I can do. I still have another version though... Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 15:54:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those concerned about copyrights, etc., etc., etc., this picture was taken at the International Hot Air Ballon Festival in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico. It is a public event, in a public place, and there are no freedom of panorama issues. This is the web site for the festival: [[1]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Support good quality, but those two balloons in the foreground are almost in the way. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe badly-cropped green ballon in foreground is really disturbing. Sorry. About copyrights etc., etc., etc., I should be happy if the law ware the same in all countries around the world, but it is not the case. The public situation of a public event in a public place described here could nevertheless generate some freedom of panorama issues in some countries.--Jebulon (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, e.g. the Panoramafreiheit in Germany wouldn't apply to this image AFAIK - the piece of art is not permanently located in a public place and doesn't even conserve its shape... Grand-Duc (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Well, let the dabate take place where it pops up. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's a good composition. Happy dude who is not aware that the dark lord approaches :) --Lošmi (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great composition, nice colors. I like the contrast between Darth Vader and the smiling face. Yann (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support First came Spongebob, and now the Dark Lord. This is so great. That Darth Vader hot air balloon is unlike anything else I have ever seen. The guys who actually contructed that are crazy. The lightning of it just perfect. It is placed perfectly in the photo, and the coincidental appearance of the happy camper, unaware of the dark side hovering above it, just peeking past the green ballon is really funny. I know we are normally dead serious here at FPC, but it is very refreshing to see these air balloons. I do not think I can justify supporting a third one though (I know you withdrew another one), as I could hardly argue that our FP gallery needs another one to show an adequate diversity of subjects. --Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I showed this to a Star Wars collegue at work today and he thought it was Awesome! . --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not crazy, Slaunger. But probably Belgians, If I trust the flag !!--Jebulon (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice contrast. --Avenue (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LeavXC (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good all! Mastery. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting composition Gnan garra 02:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would tend to say: No composition at all. --Niabot (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is good composition, so so composition and bad composition that is a function of arrangement of elements, outside of the aesthetical elements of the subjects or the image itself. So if you don´t like the composition, just say so, and as a courtesy, you could explain what you do not like about the arrangement, suggest possible solutions, instead of just condemming an image with a sterile statement. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main motive of this image is "Darth Vader". Clearly visible by its weight (dark, large area). But then on the other hand you have that tiny little ballon looking around the corner, with strong colors. This distracts the eye from the main motive, that now itself in this composition looks bad. Or better said: Out of place. (Basically it is like mixing green and red colors. The result is mostly not pleasant. Same in this case) --Niabot (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As above, problems with composition and overexposed in down left corner. --Karelj (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I´d rather have you say you do not like it outright. Composition follows the rule of thirds. Composition is good, subject matter may not be to your liking, but they are hot air balloons after all. As far as the supposed overexposure, there is no such thing. Light in the horizon is always lighter at the bottom, especially in the early morning hours, as you can see from the light direction. And in anycase, considering dynamic range, dark subject, etc., etc. exposure is adequate.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peak of Jabal Ram.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2010 at 20:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Svíčková - nominated by me -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info withdrew last nomination.
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Colors too weak. Contrast not good for me. Kompozisyon ve açı da iyi görünmüyor. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors look good enough for me. The composition is very original and creative. Technically, contrast could indeed be improved, but I think this image fits the requirements of a FP. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some months ago, I read this Sorry, Jebulon, but I believe (and always defended) that no national flags or religious symbols should be featured because there is too much beyond the mere graphical value of the image. (as far as I know none was promoted). This rule his still valuable IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a rule so much as a personal philosophy, at least I don't recall seeing it. And it's not just a flag, it's a flag painted on a mountain! =0 I thought it was interesting. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You thought right IMO: It is interesting ! But some opposed to my flag that featuring a flag (Luxembourg) was not "neutral". I think that for some, maybe, featuring this (Jordan) flag could be considered as non neutral neither, and against the "Commons" policy, even if (because of ?) painted on rocks...--Jebulon (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FieldMarine (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut flag Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The sky is a bit noisy. I would support it otherwise.Kirua (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, DOF, composition and atmosphere from an interesting place. Unfortunately I do not think the technical quality is up quite to 2010 FP standards. --Slaunger (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bolinus cornutus 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 16:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bolinus cornutus, Muricidae, Horned Murex; Length 13,5 cm; Originating from Nouadhibou, Mauritania; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Slaunger (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Camel and the pyramids.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2010 at 11:55:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 11:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Egyptians making their living through tourists. —kallerna™ 11:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In spite of a very "turisty" look of the image --Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The angle makes it seem like a 'middle of the desert location' when in fact, it is 100m from a golf course and an urban neighbourhood of Cairo. --Shuki (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition! -- MJJR (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Good but might be better. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition is not well balance IMO.. ie. too much sky to the top-left.. not the best crop of the right pyramid.. not ideal composition of the tourists/Egyptian.. Ggia (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeTechnically good, maybe very good, but I don't see anything featurable here.--Jebulon (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like to see more of the right pyramid, and also the rest of the shadow of the camel in the foreground. Both tend to lead my eye out of the picture. Sorry. - LeavXC (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like the composition. Some very different sized objects are in good balance. I think seeing more of the right pyramid would overwhelm the other subjects. --99of9 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weighting the composition to the right via the angle of the pyramid and the sky to the top-left is a great way to draw the eye to the people, yet still include the pyramids themselves as part of the subject matter. In other words, you may not find it personally attractive, but the composition does have good balance and is highly educational. Steven Walling 21:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition apart from the pyramid to the right. Unlike others, I would like to see a little less of the largest pyramid. I think the slant line of that pyramid should have intersected the upper right corner. Not possible with the nominated photo though as it would have cut the tourists in half. Light is very good. I am not too fond of the touristic theme either, albeit I acknowledge it is a natural element around the pyramids and they add a good sense of scale. --Slaunger (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I agree with Slaunger. Composition problem --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ephippiger HD.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 07:17:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, but may change my vote if the specular reflexions are removed by some smart cloning. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Was the critter was alive? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not easy to see that he is naturalized. To 11 image with moving the camera must be stationary subjects (particularly antennas) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support scary but good. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly oppose Edges are a bit strong and overall it's pretty unrealistic. I want to oppose out of principle because this is overworked yet what FPC is more likely to pass than a natural photograph of an insect - Kind of a shame. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image is very special. It has a purpose: to see, as the most accurate, the anatomy of the insect. If I had the idea of placing mounted insects on flowers you would not see. For him there is no ambiguity, my laboratory work remain on artificial background. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elekhh (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question The focus stacking works very well. I noticed an area (see annotation), which appears softer or not as crisp as remaining parts of the insect. Why is that? --Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well observed. But that kind of detail that often see after several hours. The positioning of the micrometer screw is at hand and sometimes the gap is not the ideal range. It takes a picture and then advance the tray, and you tighten a screw stabilization. It is often uneven tightening which created a gap. You can not redo a single picture must redo the entire series. It is a work of patience but we must practice a lot closer to a good result. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for clarifying. It is certainly a very minor technical detail and not something to make a big fuzz over. I was just curios regarding origin of my observation. --Slaunger (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20100913 Ancient Theater Marwneia Rhodope Greece panoramic 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2010 at 17:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ggia - uploaded by Ggia - nominated by Ggia -- Ggia (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality seems good to me, but the composition does not look featured. The crop at bottom is tight, and the standpoint at this lighting conditions are imo not ideal (hard shadows). Sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality is good. afternoon light is a bit harsh but okay in this case. the composition works for me - the content is centered and rules of thirds works out well. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Same ideas and near ideas with kaʁstn Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Onno Zweers (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deep shadows Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You took a great photo of a currently very ugly setting. IMO I don't find it a nice enough picture to be labeled our best. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is very hard to make a good photo of something which is under construction as this theater is. I find a lot of the garbage, construction materials and fence to the right is distracting. On the other hand it sort of belongs to the scenary as it is work in progress. It is informative and valuable to see the theater in the middle of the restructuring, but I am not really convinced it is FP-level. --Slaunger (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. but this is how the ancient theater looks like... and this is a recent.. photo.. If you visit that theater you will have this view. Ggia (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realize the photo is recent

. I should have written repairs or reconstruction to be more precise. It is clear that some parts are brand new and others are the original ancient parts. Do you mean that all repairs have ceased on the theater and nothing is being done for the time being? --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jambiya.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 00:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:bgag - uploaded by User:bgag - nominated by User:bgag -- Bgag (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Oppose~~The object itself is really featurable, because of quality and high EV. ~~But the background is really ugly, dirty (dust), and noisy~~. But sure I'll support with a good and solid black masking.--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have imported a new picture with a better background. --Bgag (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now, it is much better IMO. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given changes to background. Jujutacular ^talk 05:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good, but the knife seems a little dead just lying on its side. I think it would be more interesting rotated 90° or 120° anticlockwise. --Avenue (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I think a little better description of this particular Jambiya would be helpful. --FieldMarine (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A blood stain on the blade would be a nice touch... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dirty cutout at the bottom right. Could 1000x better if it had a nice background. No sense for composition. --Niabot (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Support~~ The picture is perfect for encyclopedic purposes. It's not a composition contest. It's a picture that most perfectly represents the object.sorry no anonymous votes --Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with this anonymous comment.--Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional oppose~~ The photo is fine, but we need for information on the file page about this particular Jambiya. Adds value. Most important would be a description of the hilt material, which is an important (and price determining) aspect of the dagger. Also, what is the blade made of? If these data are added I will be happy to support. --Slaunger (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The blade is of steel but I don't have more information about the hilt except it is made of hard wood. I have added this information in the description. --Bgag (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thank you for adding what you know. It was not evident for me that the hilt was made of hard wood, so although it is not very precise, you have still added value to the file page. --Slaunger (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Punta de las Gaviotas R02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2010 at 22:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting could be better. LeavXC (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me light is ok + very nice panorama --Pudelek (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pudelek -- Onno Zweers (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark corners in bottom Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not particularly amazing scenery but well-executed and taken. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Highly detailed. Quite ordinary composition, light seems a bit harsh/washed out. Assuming the time 12:33 on the file page is correct, this is perhaps not so surprising. A morning or nocturnal shot would probably have given a better atmosphere. --Slaunger (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset at Ocean Beach in San Francisco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 16:44:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sunset at Ocean Beach in San Francisco
Support for very nice and impressive colors and composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We have recently learned that impressive colors and composition is not enough for a picture to be featured. I see a beautiful place in this picture bot nothing else. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course the image has a value. It shows sunset over ocean with w:sun glitter with reflection. Besides the image was taken at a negative (-1 foot) low tide, a relatively rare event. So one could see how far the ocean has gone back.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"One could see" the extent of the tide only in the file description though, there's nothing in the image which would allude to that. --Elekhh (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, only with a very low tide one could see the reflection in a wet sand.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That may be true, but it isn't obvious, especially to people that live inland such as me. A land-dweller like me would also figure that the reflections are seen because of the lighting, not the tide (it doesn't take a low tide to get sand wet). A better representation of low tide is found in the top two pictures of this article. The second picture alone shows that the sea is at low tide. This is because the boat serves as a visual indicator of tide for the viewers. As such, I agree with Elekhh: there's nothing which would allude to it. LeavXC (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is a wrong statement. If you live inland, and do not know how to decide, if a tide is low without a boat present, wikipedia is one of the places to learn it. I could say, if a tide is low without boats, and hopefully now you will be able to do it too. Learning things about oceans could me a matter of life and death sometimes. For example, what is the obvious sign of approaching tsunami? Of course it is a huge incoming wave, but when one sees this wave it is usually too late to run from it. What is not so obvious sign? It is a receding ocean, the ocean that goes back so much, that the bottom is exposed. When there was tsunami in Thailand hundreds of people saw that warning sign and did not recognized it. They got killed. Only one small girl, who instead of complaining she lives inland, and the sign is not obvious, did recognize the warning because she learned about this before. This girl was able to save not only her family and herself, but also a few hundreds people from the same hotel she was vacationing in.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is an aesthetically beautiful photograph, but it has no main focus (not referring to camera focus) on anything with educational value ("beautiful does not always mean valuable"). Sure it could be used for sun glitter, but it would be rather ineffective because only a very tiny bit of sun glitter is found near the right edge of the photo (unlike this photo, where sun glitter is clearly seen). Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info So in your opinion this image should not have been uploaded to Wikipedia at all? For comparison this image is not only FP, but also so called the most valued image in the scope Sunsets over sea. Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Not necessarily; I have no problem with sunset pictures being uploaded to Wikipedia, but as candidates for Featured Picture nomination, I will generally oppose them on the grounds stated in the FP nomination guidelines that "almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others". The FP that you compared is a great photograph, possibly deserving of its FP status, but I take a neutral approach on whether or not that it is the best in its category (I haven't looked through and compared the many sunset pictures on the Commons). I also took no part in that picture's nomination, and I have no solid reason to nominate it for delisting. However, here, Featured Pictures should be the cream-of-the-crop of the Commons, both in technical quality and educational value. While this is a great picture compositionally, I feel that it lacks the EV to be a FP. LeavXC (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nice picture but really not outstanding enough for FP --AngMoKio (座谈) 09:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours and textures. I think the mood is better than the FP linked.--99of9 (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice landscape photo, even if generic. --Elekhh (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support She's done it again. Kooritza (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is very pleasing to look at, but I do not find it sufficiently valuable to become FP. --Slaunger (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is a special image of sunset, and not because of the sunset itself but because of the way it was taken. Sunset images could be divided into two categories: sunsets with the sun seen and sunsets with only the sky with colorful clouds seen. My image belongs to the first category. If you are to look at the sunset images with the sun seen, you will see that most of them have the sun in the middle of the image. My image has the sun in the right, and it makes this image to stand out, and to be more valuable among other sunset images. Also because of the special composition one could see how the brightness of the sky is changing the farther of the sun the clouds are.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christmas Decoration Slunj Park 2009.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 13:14:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MarioCRO - uploaded by MarioCRO - nominated by MarioCRO -- MarioCRO (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MarioCRO (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2010 (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 picture is too unsharp due to motion blur -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2010 (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:081214-N-4856N-071.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 08:19:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Colby Neal - uploaded by Alaniaris - nominated by Benchill -- Benchill (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Benchill (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop is too tight --AngMoKio (座谈) 09:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Yeah the crop is very tight. Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I rather like the close-up view. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like close ups with tight crops more than some other regular reviewers, but this is a tad too tight for me, especially at the bottom. Can that be fixed? Jonathunder (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop. --Aktron (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've made a request at Graphic Lab to extrapolate the left and bottom a little. Benchill (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More sky could easily be added, but the propellers would still have been clipped... --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That can also be fixed though as was done with this FP: before and after. --Slaunger (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop at lower and left edges. I do not mind the propellers are cut. Great DOF and colors. Some noise but acceptable. Will support an edit, where more space is given at the two sides. --Slaunger (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Women of Puducherry.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 01:39:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by bgag -- Bgag (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Needs treatment....Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The technical quality is not outstanding but composition is great. --Aktron (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please correct the ccw-tilt --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Bgag (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as Aktron --Böhringer (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colours, but composition not so good (too central, wasted space behind the women). The black handbag is a distracting element, and it would be better with the women a bit higher relative to the horizon. --Avenue (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Avenue. Also not so great technical quality. --Slaunger (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Figure in Manga style.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 22:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no point in featuring non-notable poor quality cartoons. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In manga you are usualy limmited to 3 colors (black, light gray, white) and patterns. Thats exactly what this image should illustrate, as it is totally common and currently no other freely available image shows this limitation. --Niabot (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration." It may be more considerate to say, "The quality falls short my standard for a featured picture", for example. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use either of those phrases, and I wasn't meaning to be rude. Tone doesn't carry very well over the internet. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 07:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A little explanation goes a long way. Just because we don´t understand something does not mean it is not valuable. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support since no better manga/image is featured.. if find this one good enough.. high quality etc. Ggia (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but would prefer a SVG version, if possible. G.A.S 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An SVG version is available (svg), but it has 12 MB and Commons isn't able to display it. The small preview works (with errors) but otherwise it isn't shown at all. So i decided to nominate the PNG export while the SVG is available for the ones that want to use this image for other cases. Would not want to nominate and incorrectly renderered SVG again, thinking on the last image with missing eyes in thumbnails. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like the mentioned errors are the reason I though there were no SVG. Thanks for clarifying. G.A.S 16:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I didn't know anything about "mangas", except a previous controversial nomination of a "hentaï" (?). But from this picture, I followed and followed the links, and discovered a very interesting part (to me) of the modern japanese civilization. That's why I think "Commons" is great. As a french "classical" photographer, especially loving "classical" subjects, and maybe shooting in his own foot, I'm happy to say that there is not only the Louvre Museum in the world of art !! At the end, concerning this picture, I think it is a very good "basic" illustration of this kind of art, and can be therefore featurable, in my humble opinion. --Jebulon (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Maybe this is a very characteristic example of the so-called manga art, I don't know. But I don't like it aesthetically and think that a much better use of the few available colors could have been made in the central figure, which is flat and boring. We do know, from the long western tradition (Europe and America) of BW cartoons and comics that much better solutions are possible. As for the more general scope of manga and anime, I think that the present FPs of the same creator are of much higher quality (here and here) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Econt (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- If this wil be featured all other cartoon images have to be featured. Mulazimoglu (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this is Commons, but think Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is equally applicable. G.A.S 16:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (座谈) 18:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I do not know much about manga, but there is something about the eyes which appears different, slightly different as compared to other cartoons I have seen. In the nominated photo, there is a distance between the eye brows and the upper part of the eye. Is it not more typical that the eyebrow is an "integrated" part of the eye, see, e.g., File:Anime eye.svg? I guess the character looks a bit more naive or young this way. Is it intentional? Or maybe I am just mixing up the eyelid and the eyebrow? --Slaunger (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on style there are three basic ways to draw the lower eyelashes. The simplest is to ignore them completely, but it fores you to draw the upper eyelashes in a wide circle type. Prominent examples for this style are Azumanga Daioh ([2]) or Koe de Oshigoto ([3]) or Oreimo ([4]), which both uses them to show more or less naivety. You will also find many works which just draw them if the the lower eyelashes and pupil collide, which is common for styles with very large eyes/pupils ([5], [6]). And right, you also have styles that draw them thick and every time. ([7], [8]). To make it short: The artist is absolutely free to decide if or not. --Niabot (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the informative and enlightening response. I did have the feeling I was walking on thin ice regarding this. I kinda agree with the concerns raised by other regarding the composition. That it is rather uninteresting, also compared to your other manga creations. Any comments on the composition relative to illustrating what B/W manga is about? Could the same points be illustrated with a more striking composition? --Slaunger (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I choose that composition mainly for one reason: To show the proportion between body (shoulders) vs head-size and the mouth vs nose vs eyes ratio, which can't be easily seen if you don't choose a more or less frontal view. Even the indication of the nose basically only works if looked at frontally. For the proportions i used the golden ratio (which perfectly fits to the face), as shown in the image beside. --Niabot (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral tending towards support. Thank you for taking your time to make these detailed explanations. There is much more to the composition than I had first noticed. I find it very interesting. I really do not understand how other reviewers can argue that such kinds of images are not really in scope for Commons. It is informative and educational, not only with illustrating the basic techniques and proportions, as well as how one renders to B/W. Moreover, such images are seldomly licensed in a way, which is compatible with Commons. I do understand the concerns about the composition, that it seems rather plain. I guess it is because everything in the image is so standardized. You sort of need to bend or break a rule to make an image really interesting. It is this aspect of the image which leads to my neutral vote. --Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose see Alvesgaspars remark --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sort of per Alvesgaspar - the composition is central and flat, and the face is minimalist. A portrait photograph with similar composition would struggle to get votes. --99of9 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good! But, the caracter says nothing with his face and his body, Why? The manga style allows a expressive drawing! The absence of colors is regrettable for a FP.--Citron (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the whole subject/style is out of scope for Commons, but merely comparing it to already Featured works such as this and this demonstrates that this doesn't meet the standard. Steven Walling 21:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. It's a lot of work to do this as svg. --Lošmi (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 16:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is really what Featured Picture voting is about? To summarize the above opposes: I don't understand it but I don't like it. Me, neither. No Japanese art should be on our server. Oh, and black and white pictures should be in color! Wow. Just wow. 75.41.110.200 18:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Japanese art. It's a cartoon drawn by some German. We actually have quite a bit of Japanese art featured already (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Steven Walling 01:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I'm from germany. But has that anything to do with drawing in a prototype Japanese style of manga? Can the river dance only be executed by Irish men? Does that mean Shibari must be performed by a person of Japanese decent? Pointillists must be from France? Surrealists must be from Spain? --Niabot (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about that ?, Manga hosted by Louis XIV ? Thoughts about ? --Jebulon (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what you are trying to tell me, since i have problems with the translation of the linked page (can't speak or read french). Can you explain it in more detail? --Niabot (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niabot: I'm not suggesting it's less than great for us to have contributions from a German imitating a Japanese visual style. I'm just pointing out that it's completely hyperbolic to attack the oppose voters as if we were rejecting all Japanese art on Commons. Steven Walling 22:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support simple, representative, others not real Manga. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pro2 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per THFSW, Citron and Steven Walling. Yann (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The others that other people linked are good (and almost pornographic heehee) but this one is very well-done as well and very crisp, I don't particularly miss the color and I like the whole proportions thing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fishingfellowship.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2010 at 18:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, noised. And i don`t like post processing with gradient dark frame. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best of my point of shoot camera. I ll take better ones for you when i get an DSLR :)) Anyway competing is good Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About 500,000 pixels with a value of 255 in the red channel. That is more than 10% and may too many for a featured picture because of loss of color accuracy and detail. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I second George on his evaluation of this image. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like it so much! -- Yiyi (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some quality problems, but good atmosphere. Very pleasing to look at, but I do not think it has high enough value to become FP. --Slaunger (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RhB BDt at La Punt-Chamues-ch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 21:31:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A typical Rhaetian Railway station in the Engadin, La Punt-Chamues-ch. The train is an hourly local service that stops on request, with the locomotive at the rear end and the control car leading.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, nice and encyclopaedic composition. --Elekhh (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Citron (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Die kleine rote! Excellent work. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent composition and quality, a 'classic'! Looks simple doesn't it? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Bumblebee on lavender.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 13:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:French_Jonas - uploaded by User:French_Jonas - nominated by User:French_Jonas -- 134.214.109.163 13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ -- 134.214.109.163 13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Please log in to vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A featured picture candidate without categories can't be meant serious! -- Ies (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2010 (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 not good enough (motion blur, general unsharpness) when compared with the present insect FP Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2010 (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:Babyrousa babyrussa Crane.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 18:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Didier Descouens - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Well done and beautiful! But what are those large and curved fangs for? They seem useless this way! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In a way, they are useless. Only the males have them, to impress the females. They serve no practical purpose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not useless at all! Is there anything more useful for males than impressing females? ;o) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize only now that nommination. Thank you The High Fin Sperm Whale.

These are the most sexual ornaments idiots out there, because it is not uncommon for these canines pierce the skull and are the cause of death of the animal. They exist in that form only in males.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! - LeavXC (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rama (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impresive animal, good photo --Mile (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral tending towards support. High quality and interesting subject. I think there is a small problem with areas being a tad overexposed, leading to loss of some details, see note. --Slaunger (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Well done ... as usual! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like a picture made by Archaeodontosaurus !!--Jebulon (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating educational subject, great lighting and composition. Steven Walling 02:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please add where this is located to the picture description. Any additional details would be appreciated. Thanks. FieldMarine (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a studio shot. If you want to know were Archaeodontosaurus' studio is, then you'll have to ask him. Or did you mean were it comes from originally? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this piece has some history & knowing that would make the image more interesting, at leaset to me personally. Where was this found & how old is it, etc. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with FieldMarine. --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not imagined that this skull might interest you much. It is a skull of a young adult purchased for studies of comparative anatomy with fossil forms. This is a private company specializing in the restoration of fossils in central France. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:General view of Sighnaghi, Georiga.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 14:01:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The general view of the town Sighnaghi, the island of Mediterranean in Caucasus. Sighnaghi's economy is dominated by production of wine and traditional carpets. The town and its environs are also known for their landscapes and historical monuments. Sighnaghi has recently undergone a fundamental reconstruction program and has become an important centre of Georgia's tourist industry.
Abstain as author.--G eorge, 14:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The composition is nice and correct, but not the image quality. The buildings are not sharp enough and the noise in the background is too obvious. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The buildings are too distracting to fully absorb the whole view. -- Scottthezombie (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Buildings look good, composition great but trees seems a bit "blended" together. --Aktron (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Livingstatue.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 09:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kirua -- Kirua (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kirua (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't like the crop and the busy background. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, the crop is too tight. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last vote is not counted.It was made after the nomination was closed for voting--Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NewCastle-KeepTower360.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 19:03:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° panoramic shot of Newcastle upon Tyne taken from the tower of the Newcastle Keep.

Info created by Chrkl - uploaded by Chrkl - nominated by Patriot8790 --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition could be better...the pole standing on top of the tower appears cut-off. Same with the head at the bottom. Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality. lacking sharpness, detail, chromatic aberration. i assume that the choice of composition was limited due to position of the vantage point. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request please provide camera data. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is the main problem: I cannot find an underlying idea or objective in the photo. It reminds me of a Bruckner symphony: Lenghty, with occasional highlights, but no climax or main point. Some like that, others do not. I tend to be of the last kind. (Sorry Bruckner fans). --Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Agree on the Bruckner part. May I add Malher too?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment MaHler, Alvesgaspar, MaHler. Add Richard Strauss too.--Jebulon (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, Jebulon, MaHler. Also spracht Za...bulon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Also sprach, Alves, sprach . --Slaunger (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - --Jebulon (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - (2-0) Beware, a vingança serve-se fria! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
        for others, in french: La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid. (a litteral turkish translation should be surely funny...) But didn't you say that review should be in english ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad stitching. The clouds are great but a panorama like this I'd never nominate to FP :-/ sry --Aktron (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schooner Mayflower-07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 21:35:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nuttyrave - uploaded by Nuttyrave - nominated by Nuttyrave -- Nuttyrave (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- spectacular late 19th century racing yacht, glass a bit damaged on the lower right hand side, so not perfect. Nuttyrave (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the historical value outdoes the poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and spectacular subject, indeed. There is a mark on the picture, is it a copyright one ? Anyway, the quality is not good enough for a FP, this picture must (and can) be restored before to be nominated IMO. I think it could be improved by specialists here.--Jebulon (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose restoration needed. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe it can be improved more, but I'm happy as is. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A marvelous boat and composition. But I'm with Jebulon, the image can and should be restored. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionGlad the picture I have nominated does indeed hold potential! Where and how can this picture be tagged for restoration? Who does this on wikimedia? Nuttyrave (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Commons:Graphics village pump might be a good starting point. We used to have a couple of very skillful and highly active restorationists/restorers: Durova and Adam Cuerden and a few others I think, but they are currently inactive. You may want to try and give it a go yourself, as we need the competences. --Slaunger (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. --Slaunger (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cape Pillar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 06:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wow, great landscape. But it seems to me it needs a tiny rotation CCW. -- Onno Zweers (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, pin-sharp too! --Murdockcrc (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the distortion/tilt is corrected --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not sure about this, as the horizon is perfectly horizontal. It appears to me that the slight natural drop of the land on the right side might generate a visual impression which might be perceived as tilt. --Elekhh (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral large and crisp but what is cape? front or back? If front is cut if back is too far. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't take the filename as an exclusive description of the image. What matters is the image content: a depiction of a section of the eastern coast of Tasmania, within Tasman National Park. The geocode and the description provide you a clear explanation of the illustrated landscape (between Cape Hauy and Cape Pillar). The image shows not only the typical relief (including the bay between the two capes) but also the typical vegetation. It does not lack encyclopaedic value IMO. Please reconsider your comment. --Elekhh (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kooritza (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I love your landscapes, and everything else you do! –hover Fly | chat? 17:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support LeavXC (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not fancy the low visibilty of the background features, and I do not fancy the outdated/backdoor non-commercial GFDL 1.2 only license, which makes it a no-go for reuse on some Wikimedia project, like the German Wikipedia. --Slaunger (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Competent but not striking. I don't think it shows off the coast that well; my eye is drawn most to the rocks and dead branches in the foreground. Might be better if the cliff on the right was brighter. --Avenue (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger. --99of9 (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nothing special about this landscape. FieldMarine (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The clarity is excellent. TFCforever (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Große Iserwiese in the fog.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 23:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --V-wolf (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llorenzi (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced by the mood, and the crop of the stream right is unfortunate to me.--Jebulon (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- With regret because I do like the mood. But the composition is too symmetrical for my taste and the crop is indeed unfortunate. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support cut right. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technicals aren't bad (some flaws are even nicely masked by the fog and natural light) and I just love it, though I somewhat agree about the cutoff river, not that I'm sure it matters if it isn't the subject. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per opposing people. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like the soft mood, but the harsh crop compromises it. --Elekhh (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. Could benefit from geocoding. --Slaunger (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guerin general Jean-Baptiste Kleber.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 22:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bjoertvedt - uploaded by Bjoertvedt - nominated by Bjoertvedt -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, it is unsharp, blurry, noisy in background, and the crop of the hand is really unfortunate.--Jebulon (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, just another political figure. -- Scottthezombie (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very bad digital reproduction, you can't see any detail of the canvass, plus this looks like it really needs color restoration. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think some points need clarification here. First of all the photo including the lower left corner with the hand is not cropped, it ends there! The photo is of a painting and it is a photo of the whole painting- I.e., there was nothing to crop and one must blame the painter for the cropping. Regarding blurriness this is also a characteristic of the painting and the paint as such, even though it is hard to judge to which degree that is the case without having the original painting at hand. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it is anything special. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mullus surmuletus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 18:22:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Hans Hillewaert - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This fish is delicious (and very expensive). But the lighting is not good enough, with extensive overexposed areas. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad about the blown areas. I going to withdraw. However, before I do, can you please tell me what is unsatisfactory about the lighting? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't withdraw, that is just my opinion, I'm not sure what went wrong with the lighting, those with parts look like specular reflections from the light source. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral High technical level and good colors. Light acceptable IMO. Valuable, but rather conventional composition. --Slaunger (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Overexposed at some places. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naked woman-Louvre-E27429.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 16:16:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ivory statuette of a naked woman, Third Intermediate Period of Egypt. On display at the Louvre. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Felix König ✉ 14:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support All Louvre should be here. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support more info in the description would be helpful. --FieldMarine (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as above --Niabot (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Telli bandiagara.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 10:24:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kirua - uploaded by Kirua - nominated by Kirua -- Kirua (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kirua (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice and dark. don't know now. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 02:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Valuable but not quality. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mulazimoglu--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly interesting subject. Catches my interest right away. Quality acceptable IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting subject, nice composition, but significant chromatic aberration along many edges. --99of9 (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Mulazimoglu and Archaeodontosaurus: it is certainly valuable, but I don't see the quality aspect. TFCforever (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Terre cuite pleureuse Louvre E27247 .jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 11:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After more than 3500 years, this beautyful mourning young lady is still inconsolable... Rare example of so expressive painted terracotta, Egyptian 18th dynasty -- Jebulon (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry, DOF imo a bit shallow. Don't you use a tripod? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

through a glass... und tripod sind in Museen streng verboten !!! --Jebulon (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good for the museum, bad for the photo :-/ --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe...I don't know how/why it is "good" for the museums, especialy for the Louvre. But yes, it is very bad for photographers. By the way, it is not because that I am the photographer of this one, but I really love this mourning (and not-so-blurred, IMO)young women (maybe Isis mourning Osiris, see description page) from the ages of the Amenhoteps, Hatschepsut, Akhenaton and Tut-Ankh-Amon pharoes...She looks alive, and it is therefore very rare, instead of hieratic other egyptian figures. For me, it is a mitigating reason for a non absolutely perfect technical quality --Jebulon (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry --Böhringer (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking, and sharp where it counts. --Avenue (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Did I say that I'm no fan of crop-outs? In this case the missing detail kills it for me. Also all this crop-outs look very artificial to me. Like some users try to hide that otherwise bad composition. At the end it's nothing i would like to have in a frame at the wall. --Niabot (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you mean by the missing detail kills it for me. I don't try to hide anything, except an ugly background behind a glass in a museum. That's why I let sometimes the original picture in the description page, then one can make the comparison. It is the best way I've found, in my opinion, to share with others some nice and rare objects I may discover and photography, useful in an encyclopedic work like "Commons". Some reviewers may basically dislike some kind of pictures, like crop outs, deformed panoramas (in my case), manga drawings, or uninteresting flat landscapes. But systematically oppose crop outs (hidden under all-purpose technical comments) looks a bit fundamentalist to me. There is nothing I can do against that. Only saying : keep your mind open ! I wouldn't have a manga style picture (for example) in a frame at the wall, but I think it is interesting to know things about that. And I'll continue to upload (and submit, maybe) new cropped-out pictures.--Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's nothing personal. But if this cutout makes the object floating and it is just not visually appealing to me. Compared to others of your pictures it has its flaws and can't convince me. --Niabot (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Despite the minor flaws. This is probably close to the best we can get under the circumstances. I like the composition and the expression, which is probably (?) an exception in the ancient Egyptian art. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and edifying composition and lighting on a valuable subject. Steven Walling 02:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am convinced after reading the sales speech by the nominator. Very nice light. Good quality given the circumstances. I am also intrigued by the expression of this woman and how old it is. It invites me in as a layman not knowing much about ancient Egyptian artwork. --Slaunger (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm afraid this is not to be sold... Thanks, Slaunger, for this sensitive review. 18th Dynasty (ca 1550-1300 BCE) is a famous, maybe the famous one dynasty, with very famous kings: the series of the Ahmenotep's (with Akhenaten) and Tutmosis', the "king" Hatshepsut, Nefertete, Tutankhamon... Some says it was the most brilliant era of ancient Egypt. The following was the dynasty of the Ramses'. And I think really that this sad lady is very lovely.--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photograph of a beautiful piece of art. TFCforever (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Image:Silver fir branch.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 18:34:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Norbert Nagel -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (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 poor technical quality: tight framing, confusing background, most of the subject is unsharp. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2010 (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 ich denke mal, dass auch diese Kandidatur nicht erfolgreich enden wird. Das Motiv ist an sich ganz nett, aber die Qualität, dabei vor allem die Schärfentiefe, überzeugt nicht, was vermutlich die Automatik der Kamera zustande brachte. Am Besten (wenn es möglich ist) noch mal fotografieren und folgende Tipps beachten: 1. Höhere Brennweite nutzen (Makrostandards sind etwa so bei 85-140mm bei einem solchen Motiv, hängt natürlich von Fotograf und Gegebenheiten ab). Ich weiß nicht wie viel Spielraum du bei der Brennweite und dem Zoom hast, aber wie gesagt, möglichst hoch sollte die Brennweite sein. 2. Blende manuell einstellen. Bei f/2.8 hast du nur einen minimalen Bereich scharf. Probiere einfach mal mit Blenden zwischen f7.1 bis f14 herum (auch hier: Zahlen können variieren). 3. Gute Beleuchtung des Motivs abwarten. Wenn ich mir den Himmel deines Bildes anschaue sehe ich, dass er leicht überbelichtet ist. Außerdem gibt es viele schattige Bereiche auf dem Bild. Ich denke, dass man da man noch einen besseren Standpunkt zu einer besseren Zeit erwischen kann, um auch eben das Licht und die Farben exzellent hinzubekommen. Als letztes 4. mein persönlicher Ratschlag: bei Makroaufnahmen Stativ benutzten, da vor allem bei ISO 100-200 (die immer gewählt werden sollten) und einer wenig geöffneten Blende (also hoher Blendenwert) die Belichtungszeit häufig länger wird und man Verwacklungen ja vermeiden will. Soweit die Hinweise von mir. Ich denke, dass (wie gesagt) diese Version wohl nicht exzellent wird aber du es bestimmt noch schaffst, ein solches ausgezeichnetes Bild hinzugekommen. Ich selbst musste auch lange darauf hinarbeiten, aber irgendwann hatte es auch bei mir geklappt :-) Grüße --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dem kann man fast nichts mehr hinzufügen, außer vielleicht, dass es mit einer Allround Kamera wie der DMC-FZ100 schwierig sein wird exzellente Makroaufnahmen zu machen. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything special about it. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aurelia aurita at Ocean Beach in San Francisco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 00:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info On November 15, 2010 thousands of w:Moon jellyfishes covered Ocean Beach. They mostly were gone in 2 days, but some new ones were washed ashore.
Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice contrast. TFCforever (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image was also meant to catch the surfer and the far-distant kite as well, so well composed in my opinion. ZooFari 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Quality very low. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind stating the aspects that make the image very low quality? ZooFari 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the sky. Look at the hills far away. The picture totaly is also not clear. Like foggy or very humidity. Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's better than "quality very low". I disagree though, using "very" is a bit sarcastic in my interpretation. It's not the camera's fault and it makes sense that the beach is hazy. The image itself is good quality. ZooFari 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication of sarcasm, and that inference seems especially uncalled for when dealing with a non-fluent English speaker. --Avenue (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the user was not fluent in English, so I apologize, and I also meant to say it was just a little exaggerating. My opinion on the subject still stands, though I didn't meant to express it in a negative way. ZooFari 23:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kooritza (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the main subject are the jellyfish, this is a really poor composition. If you didn't point it out in the description, I would've missed their presence entirely. Not very edifying. Steven Walling 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honesty can't picture a better composition. The file description describes both the jellyfish and kite surfers. If the photographer were to focus the camera solely on the jellyfish, the composition would be more boring IMO. ZooFari 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Confusing composition IMO. The nomination tries to show both kite surfers and dead jellyfish in the same photo, albeit they have little to do with each other. Yes I do think there are much better ways to illustrate the dead jellyfish if that was the point. One just have to have a look at the first photo in the news article mila linked to in her nomination, where a boys kneels to inspect a jellyfish, the camera is kept close to the beach and you see there are just thousands of them. That provides a much clearer message to the viewer in my opinion. --Slaunger (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were no thousands of them, when I took my image, and under the circumstances I did the best I could. If I kept my camera close to the beach, only one jellyfish would have been seen, and I disagree about better composition in news article. One might see thousands of jellyfishes only, if one read the article first. Otherwise it is rather unclear what is going on with the image. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a good photo given the circumstances. I just think the circumstances were not quite FP circumstances. Being the right place at the right time is not always easy. --Slaunger (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. I don't understand this picture. The jellyfishes are not well shown in my opinion, the kite surfer is... walking, and the landscape is not really interesting to me. Agree with Slaunger.--Jebulon (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bonaparte écolier IMG 6712.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 08:29:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Napoléon Bonaparte, schoolboy in Brienne, aged 15. Plaster statue, double of a plaster made as a template for a bronze statue erected in front of Brienne townhall. By Louis Rochet.

Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Llez (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support magestic. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kirua (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I usually don't like cutouts and this is another case. It's missing details at the borders and the composition, overall expression is far away from other featured pictures. --Niabot (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Alttan yapılan crop fazla olmuş. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Mulazimoglu, Google translation is ineffective (Alltan ?)--Jebulon (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- As I said above, this kind of comment is useless, both to the creator and to the other reviewers. Please remember that our assessments are supposed to identify and elaborate on the strong and weak components of the pictures, for the benefict of us all. Mulazimoglu has already shown to be able to use the English language with sufficient skill. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was crop a Turkish word :) ? --Elekhh (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The crop downside of the picture is much than must be...Did not like the crop...Mulazimoglu (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Correct and nice qualitu picture but not special enough to deserve the FP status. A higher shooting position would result better, maybe. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo November 2010-2b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 20:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The main square of the village of Porto Covo, Portugal (detail). Second (and last) try with a less radical crop at top and right (the original nomination is here). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the crop at the edges, especially the right one. It makes one want to see more. Can you back up in this shot or is there a wall behind you? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- This is a relatively large square place and some form of crop is inevitable. See here a much broader view. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would support the second version, if the palm trees were no cut off. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a 360° versión with peoples --The Photographer (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd support that too. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I agree with The High Fin Sperm Whale, the second image (linked to by Alvesgaspar) would be a better choice. This is a beautiful place, but I think the photo needs to be a little better to be featured.-- TFCforever (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weert Martinuskerk gewelf.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2010 at 21:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jan van den Eijnden - uploaded by Jan van den Eijnden - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it even looks better when it's turned around 180 degrees. I love the way this vaults blow you away and all the details -- Basvb (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I concur with nominator, except for turning it 180 degrees. But was this taken in the night? Why the 25 second exposure at f/5.6? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't knwo why it had a 25 second exposure, maybe just because the church was a bit dark? Based on the other photo's taken in and around the church I think the picture was taken during the day. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gorgeous ! --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful --Llez (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunningly beautiful. TFCforever (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine work --Schnobby (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! - Quistnix (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I am missing seeing this image as FP because of composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- What do you mean with "composition"? This is a perfect symmetric composition of a perfect symmetric construction. What is the alternative?-- --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hanging lights aren't perfectly on the picture, sadly. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- No wow factor. Colors weak. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question --Weak colors? Have you ever been in a real gothic cathedral?-- --Frode Inge Helland (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lots of wow, delicate colours and amazing composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I understand your enthusiasm, but it appears that you voted two times. I cancel your last vote (don't worry, It happens to me too...)--Jebulon (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Egenhausen 20080323 SK 0002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 14:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Simonizer - uploaded by Simonizer - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support if the dust is removed. I think there's a ccw tilt, too --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely landscape, but the sky is a little bit noisy and with some parts blown out. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blown at top. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Come on, it is always hard to make a good exposition for a landscape covered by snow. Yes, it would be much nicer to have the scene with blue sky and sunshine but this one is also good. --Aktron (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not enough clear. Especially the sky and the left up sides. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Carschten, regarding the enoooormous dustspot. Not sure for the tilt, I think no tilt.--Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced regarding the composition and I find the lightning dull. --Slaunger (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really want to support it, but the dust spot is holding me back. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i hardly see any blown out parts (some areas on the right as photoshop reveals - but those are neglectable). sharpness and focus are good. the dustspot of doom should be removed. try playing around with levels and masks - increasing contrasts (0|0,6|255) and masking out the tree adds the special something to your image. composition could be improved by using rule of thirds (does not work via crop here and would require a reshot). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:14-22-35-f-giro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 10:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The plank and the vertical grey pipe are disturbing IMO. It needs a slight perspective correction too.--Jebulon (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per Jebulon. Also somehow the colors look artificial for me. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting quality -- Scottthezombie (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree about the plank and the lighting. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BadwaterBasin.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 02:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Scottthezombie - uploaded by Scottthezombie - nominated by Scottthezombie -- Scottthezombie (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scottthezombie (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very dark Gnan garra 02:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if you have the raw file, you can increase the exposure of the foreground. This is the only reason why I'm not giving you my vote. I think you should be able to fix it. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark and tilted (?) bamse (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark, looks tilted, snapshot composition --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 282 feet = 855m ? Deeper below sea level then the en:Dead Sea ? --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a dot there: 282 ft =85.5m. --Elekhh (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed, bad white balance. --Aktron (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that impressive. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info retouched version by Carschten --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better, but the composition is unimpressive, especially the partial person at left. Noisy in the distance. --Avenue (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please geocode, if possible. Jonathunder (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gear-kegelzahnrad.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 21:52:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Thyes - nominated by me -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No WoW factor, unimpressive.
Changed to Support per Niabot. TucsonDavid (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That kind of illustrations which is needed for articles. Good execution und valuable. --Niabot (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Niabot. --~~188.115.34.20 14:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)~~ signature correction --Cayambe (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1. Loose end of an axle is carelessly finished - the last "dark ring" on it gives an impression of not being continuosly attached to the rest. 2. Shading of "black rings" doesn't go along with the shading patern of axle itself, making them appear flatter. Masur (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) ps. [9], what explains maybe the fact that the image is not rendered properly by FF (in my case) in full size as SVG and the only software able to open it, is AI for me. Masur (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The numerous (372) validation errors of the svg file should be sorted out as pointed out by Masur. --Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Changed to neutral per Niabots explanation below. --Slaunger (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The execution is very good. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not overly impressed by the lighting colours, and the reports of validation errors disturb me. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Changing to neutral per niabot's explanation (thanks). --99of9 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The validation errors are typical. Also many of my images (if not stripped and badly reusable with inkscape [layers lost, some effect controlls missing, etc.]) produce this errors, which aren't errors. It's just that the validator only takes plain SVG into account. Additional informations, like tags from inkscape should be ignored, since they are defined as an extension of the doctype, which is correct to do so. But the validator does not resolve them and marks them as errors, which is a problem of the validator and not of the SVG-file itself. --Niabot (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Phyllidiopsis papilligera (Black-spotted nudibranch).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 22:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty dress! -- Citron (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the "cave" at top is really too dark, but the picture is so clear and well composed otherwise that I give it a try. Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Missing details in the dark part.--Jebulon (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What happened to the other version? - LeavXC (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, because it's considered as a new nomination. --Citron (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citron (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bullfight in leon 3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 23:55:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know it was meant to give a feeling of action, but it didn't turn out so well. The faces of both the bull and the fighter should be sharp, or at least recognizable, and the background is blurry as well. I think the speed should be quite a bit slower. Maybe blur it just enough so that you can see they're moving, perhaps 1/60 of a second. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I completely disagree with your opinion. Get your shutter speed argument straight. A slower shutter speed would have resulted in even more blurr. As far as your comment that the faces should be sharp is a matter of opinion, not fact ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant a faster speed. Maybe blurring the faces can give it some artistic interest, but not EV, and the background should sharp. However, guessing by the fact that you used f/2.8, I can see that the light was bad. Are these bullfights held late in the evening? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, disagree about EV and that the background should be sharp. If you state it as your opinion, I am ok with it, but not not as a statement of truth. And yes, it was a late afternoon bullfight, running into early evening. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree, extreme motion blur. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some images that are better off blurred, and this is one of them. An eye of a bull is more or less sharp, and everything else is about motion.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea, but not the fact that the background is blurred as well as the subjects. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree about the extreme motion blur. -- VS (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Motion blur. Artistic, but little interest to me--Miguel Bugallo 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:15-02-21-f-giro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 10:23:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside the double caponnier inside the fort de Giromagny.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks almost perfect to me.--Jebulon (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Odaktaki alet oldukça uzakta ve ayrıntılar seçilmiyor. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- In English: "Details tool in focus is quite far away and not selected"; in French: "Détails outil de mise au point est assez loin et pas sélectionné"; in German: "Details Werkzeug im Fokus ist ziemlich weit weg und nicht ausgewählt". Does this help? I'm afraid not :( -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but is fun :) Other online translator gave :"The tool at the focus is rather distant, details are not becoming chosen." (closer?). The beauty is when you re-translate it into Turkish the result is different from the original. Do it a couple of times and you end up with "The distant to the your place right is not becoming selected her tool at the focus becomes her all which assigns to" --Elekhh (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Filmmaking of 'Black Thursday' on crossway of ulica 10 Lutego and ulica Świętojańska in Gdynia - 37.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 21:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Starscream - uploaded by Starscream - nominated by Starscream -- Starscream (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Starscream (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop at the top is too tight for me --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed, the crop is too tight. Look that the three men holding the flag, all their heads are somewhat cut off. --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree about the close crop. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:I-40 near NM.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 06:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nicholas on flickr - uploaded by Holderca1 - nominated by Admrboltz -- Admrboltz (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Admrboltz (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of poor image quality: artifacts and over-saturation -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any artifacts in the photo, and I disagree that it is over saturated. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I'm afraid that is not a matter of opinion but of fact. Please check the yellows and greens (oversaturation) and the road in the foreground (jpeg artifacts) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I disagree. What you're calling artifacts I'm calling the natural blurriness because that portion of the road is in front of the focal area and so isn't covered in the depth of focus in the photo. As for oversaturation, that's how reflectorized MUTCD Green looks in the sunshine, so the green isn't "oversaturated". The DOTs in the US are switching from FHWA Highway Gothic to Clearview as the typeface family used on highway signs. The reasoning is that Clearview has been designed to account for the halation caused by the fully reflectorized sheeting required by the MUTCD on highway road signs. (Unless, of course. the sign is internally or externally lit. Highway signs must now appear the same at night under headlights as they do during the day so even the background green color has to be reflectorized.) That also means that when direct lighting, and in this case bright sunshine, hits a highway sign, it will be that bright, by design. The yellows look like the naturally dry grasses that they are. At most, that issue could be fixed with a simple image adjustment if deemed necessary. If you're discussing the yellow of the highway's centerline, that is also reflective paint. It's supposed to look like that. Sorry, but on two, if not all three, of your points, there are technical explanations. Imzadi 1979 → 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is oversaturated, in all hues, maybe even more in the sky than in the yellow line and the green on the sign. It is overprocessed and looks oily and smeared. Not a FP to me. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio (座谈) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated, sky blured to suppress artifacts due to oversaturation, but overlaps at the edges of the mountain, which is clearly visible. --Niabot (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors are fantastic. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Colors are nice but unnatural. Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No they aren't... Admrboltz (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The objects farther back in the image, such as the guide sign, look a little blurry. The quality is not the best for a potential image that could be taken at this location. Dough 48 72 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Imzadi ComputerGuy (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lightning over Whitman Air Force base and A-10 Thunderbolts - 091020-F-2616H-901.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 07:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Air Force photographer Senior Airman Kenny Holston - uploaded by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover - nominated by TucsonDavid -- TucsonDavid (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TucsonDavid (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)*[reply]
Oppose tigth crop, noise, strange settings.--Mile (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This one is a really though call. I love the scene, but the crop is bad, and the quality is poor. I was about to vote support, when I noticed the lights in the background. The camera must have been bumped during exposure. Really too bad. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight, unfortunately. Steven Walling 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose framing is problematic as indicated above. --Elekhh (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I would love to support, but the crop is too tight. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the crop. If the aircrafts had more space around them I'd probably support. --Ximonic (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official opening of the sailing season and yacht parade on Motława during III World Gdańsk Reunion - 41.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 01:58:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Starscream - uploaded by Starscream - nominated by Starscream -- Starscream (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Starscream (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photograph, but there is nothing really exceptional or great about it, in my opinion. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spider November 2010-6a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 16:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info New version of this nomination. Though the crop is a bit too tight on top, I belive the poor thing still have pelnty of air to breathe... Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not better than the old version. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting still very harsh. Steven Walling 04:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suppose the crop is better, but the lighting is still much too harsh, and the background is quite distracting and reflective, probably from the flash used. IMO, straight-on or built-in flash typically casts very harsh, flat lighting, unless it is used very well as fill flash, which isn't the case here. Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Steven Walling; sorry. --Citron (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I voted for the older version and will do for this one as well. This image has great value as an illustration. This should be weighted in tandem with mere photographic technicalities. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and sharp, valuable, and now the composition is sufficient. --99of9 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Us 99of9 --Miguel Bugallo 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Локо мотив 02:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The other FP of the same species has a much better quality, angle of view and composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 05:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info NASA-funded astrobiology research has changed the fundamental knowledge about what comprises all known life on Earth. Researchers conducting tests in the harsh environment of Mono Lake in California have discovered the first known microorganism on Earth able to thrive and reproduce using the toxic chemical arsenic. The microorganism substitutes arsenic for phosphorus in its cell components. This finding of an alternative biochemistry makeup will alter biology textbooks and expand the scope of the search for life beyond Earth. Created by NASA - uploaded by LuisArmandoRasteletti - nominated by LuisArmandoRasteletti -- LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- What does the picture depict, by the way?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice background image with crappy looking insert... I say "nope". And it's not even valuable one - both images separately would tell their story. Masur (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The placement of the inserted image is rather unfortunate. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solar Glory with helicopter shadow around Mauna Loa.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 02:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image of course was taken from the very same helicopter the shadow of which is seen inside w:solar glory at the image.
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Excellent image, with high EV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VS (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange! --Citron (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again. I don't see the featured thing in this picture. There's a lot of fog and some landscape, and just a very small shadow (just because of the file decription I noticed that that's a helicopter) with the effect trappings. I don't understand why you don't use a better framing to show the effect. The EV is thus minor and the composition suspect. Sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dr. Tony Phillips, who runs Spaceweather.com (NASA site) has a slightly different opinion. He believes that "Each sighting is a puzzle--all the more reason to seek them out.". I doubt you ever saw a solar glory from the air, or even an image of one. This image is good because it shows not only glory and the fog (without fog or clouds there could not be glory), but also "some landscape" that btw is Mauna Loa the is the largest volcano on Earth in terms of volume. The image was taken from a very shaky helicopter. Effect lasted only less than a minute because there was not so much fog. To take the image I needed to turn slightly backward. It was one hard to to take image. One Russian poet said: "It is not scary to loose ability to surprise, it is much scarier to loose ability to get surprised. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with the russian poet. I've never seen such an image, I think it is very strange and interesting, and has a very high educational value. The photographer was very lucky to be there with her camera, and deserves congratulations for having the idea of taking this picture, and the possibility and potential to do it. But as said another anonymous poet, concerning soccer in Europe : "only good goalkeepers are lucky..."--Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I agree with Carschten. This is most certainly a valuable image but not a featured picture. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar and Carschten. EV alone doesn't set a picture apart as Featured for me. LeavXC (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but EV plus extremely high quality does! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that is all a picture needs to be featured, then Featured pictures must not be the best pictures on the Commons after all, IMO. If this picture had better composition, then I'd support it. Per Carschten, better framing could be used to show the effect (the "solar glory" only takes up about 5% of the frame). The remaining parts of the picture that are not part of the sun glory, appears to be some clouds and a very obscure representation of Mauna Loa. Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also different colors lava flow on the image. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its interesting, valuable, but quality not for FP.--Mile (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment composition doesn't work for me either, but is an interesting image. Given that it has already been cropped (and thus has non-standard proportions) I wonder if a better crop (maybe portrait?) could be found which would improve it. --Elekhh (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very rare --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- how very ? --Elekhh (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Well from 32 images in the category at least 12 were taken by me. The effect is relatively rare, and one should know where and how to look for it. That shot from the helicopter, would not have been taken, if I specifically did not look for the effect. I took lots of flights during my travels around the world. I saw a good glory with a good shadow only 2 times. It is how rare it is. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agree with Karsten+Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio (座谈) 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- TFCforever (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten and Alvesgaspar, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support EV --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I dont see anything. What is featured here? Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After further thought, the composition is not FP for me. --Elekhh (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Karsten and Alvesgaspar--Miguel Bugallo 20:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could have asked (as I was asked, when I opposed some images) what is wrong with the image, why it cannot be FP, what is wrong with the composition, but I will not. I am not very interested in learning this out, and I guess I got enough information for the time being And I'd like to thank the ones, who supported the image, recognizing its great EV, rarity and lots of mitigating circumstances that prevented me from taken a better shot. It is a rare and good image because most images of a glory taken from the air will depict only clouds and the glory. This image leaves no doubt it was taken from an air. Of course w:Mauna Loa and different colors of lava flow add value to the image. I am sure you, who supported the images, will see your own glory one day because you bothered to learn more about phenomena, and you did not loose ability to get surprised. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Moritz Muottas.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 10:15:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of St. Moritz and its lake from Muottas da Schlarigna. created by murdockcrc - uploaded by murdockcrc - nominated by murdockcrc -- Murdockcrc (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. -- Murdockcrc (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --FieldMarine (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive landscape, excellent lighting, very nice and natural colours. --Cayambe (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downsampled. would support a full res version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- this is very good! Bjoertvedt (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! --Aktron (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good picture, but barely 2 MP which in in my opinion to small for this landscape. --Niabot (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning! -- TFCforever (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It's a beautiful shot but I would definitely prefer even a little bit larger version. There would be a lot of interesting details around to look closer at. --Ximonic (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure you've that image with a higher resolution and better details. I think that e.g. 3000x2000 pixels would be enough... More than that is always nice ;-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Sunrise thailand ko samui.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2010 at 13:53:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by KishuArashi - uploaded by Pro2 - nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just another try. -- Pro2 (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ccw tilt --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does CCW stand for? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info -- Counterclockwise. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose little ev, no rules of third (deficient composition). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The rules of third is not a hard and vast rule, but should always be applied with flexibility and in a judicious way. The composition is quite good here! -- MJJR (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clear and well composed. Bjoertvedt (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little EV per Peter Weis. It is yet another ~~sunset~~ (sunrise) picture ("almost all ~~sunsets~~ are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others"). LeavXC (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However this is still a sunrise picture -- Pro2 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right. How embarrassing!...I didn't read the title. Sorry. However, I still feel that it lacks EV. Great picture though! LeavXC (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Peter Weis and LeavXC. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colours and crepuscular rays are nice. The rays give some EV, but the composition is weak IMO. --Avenue (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All the sunsets pictures are nice. All the sunrise pictures too. This one too. But No special value to me. Could maybe win a prize in a photo contest (not sure, due to the black edge left below), but "Commons", even in FP, is not a contest... (IMO)--Jebulon (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Snaevar (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gottfried böhm, pilgrimage church, neviges 1963-1972 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 00:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by seier+seier - uploaded by Elya - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you could explain what you do not like about the composition?--Elekhh (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like that the foreground starts with the cut-off structure itself, and that only part of the structure is shown. To me that composition seems quite unfinished. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too close - this seems like an interesting structure & the subject would be better covered with a picture taken a little farther out. FieldMarine (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mbz1 and FieldMarine. LeavXC (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This composition does not convince me. --High Contrast (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Elekhh (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bufo bufo couple during migration(2005).jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 04:30:59

Info I found this while looking through the amphibian featured pictures category. It was nominated in 2005, but I feel that it no longer fits its FP status, as the rocks are severely blown (overexposed). Its nomination page can be found here. -- LeavXC (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- LeavXC (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Mbz1 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nom. Steven Walling 01:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. --Cayambe (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Delist... with sadness --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Jebulon (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree about the overexposure. -- TFCforever (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 13:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the background is indeed overexposed, the fact is that this image depicts its main subject in a great way. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ugly creatures, but the image is good, the light background helps focus on the subjects, and it works well in wikipedia. It probably wouldn't be promoted today, but it was clear consensus back than. Elekhh (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not ugly, rather very interesting amphibian with nice golden eyes. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per others. Also background too dry, rather not natural for this animals --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mount Eden.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 03:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Etherbug - uploaded by Etherbug - nominated by Scottthezombie -- Scottthezombie (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scottthezombie (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excessive noise. LeavXC (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise in shadows, unsharp in distance. Not an easy shot to take in winter, with shadows from the low northern sun. --Avenue (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the green/foreground and grey/background contrast. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with user Avenue. The town in the backround is unsharp and there is noise in the foreground.--Snaevar (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amsterdam photochrom2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 11:50:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photoglob AG - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mooie historische afbeelding. (Nice historical picture). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose would prefer the original colors which look better in my opinion. --Niabot (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, VI to me, but not QI. I would prefer the original colors. People are dark. Too much noise and contrast--Miguel Bugallo 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The statue is unfocused, and the whole picture has too much noise.--Snaevar (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boat in Alanya.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2010 at 14:07:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo tells a lot about Alanya. It's about its geography (sea, climate and geology), history (Alanya Castle) and what it has become (a tourist trap). —kallerna™ 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition.Steven Walling 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose main motive oof, details imo a bit imperceptible. Otherwise, the composition is good. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting scene. Strong composition, if a bit tightly packed. More space between the boat and the point would be nice. The boat is a bit unsharp, and I think the image is tilted slightly CW. No major problems, but they add up. --Avenue (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is where i live. Alanya humidity is usually very high like 60 % in the city and much more over the sea. Also this time of the day is not a good time to take pictures in that area. It s a very good picture if we look at thephotographers conditions but it is not a featured picture in my opinion. Mulazimoglu (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intresting picture. I can´t really see anything wrong with it.--Snaevar (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:A bee on a chrysanthemum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2010 at 19:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tada008 - uploaded by Tada008 - nominated by Tada008 -- Tada008 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tada008 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if both (flower and bee) were clearly identified you'll get my support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not a bee, but a hoverfly, Eristalis sp.. Subject too small, blurry and undetailed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good idea, but the execution isn't quite good enough. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mission Santa Clara.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 04:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JaGa - uploaded by JaGa - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice lightning, very good quality, very good composition. The croos is imo a superb part of the composition. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ditto. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. My only feedback is that the sky seems slightly underexposed (did you use a polarizing filter?). --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture. But it is to dark. That way it looks not realistic at all. Looks like the beginning of a lunar eclipse. --Niabot (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture, indeed. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very good overall quality and detail but the image is a bit underexposed. Easy to fix though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaded a new version which is a little bit brighter. Is that enough? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I don't think that was the most appropriate procedure. The original picture should be kept, not only for comparison purposes but also as a deference to the author and nominator. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Agree with Alvesgaspar. What about the value, now, of the previous votes ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is all the same to me. If you say the new version is bad and inappropriate, especially on the original, please revert my new version. But then it would be nice to see a better version from the underexpose-voters. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per kaʁstn--MASHAUNIX 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a thick white line on the left tower. Trees on the left side have white dots on them, and trees on both sides are unfocused.--Snaevar (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taro leaf underside, backlit by sun - edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 00:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Avenue -- Avenue (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit on the noisy side, bu excellent pic nonetheless. However, why does the metadata say the ISO rating is zero? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That camera leaves the ISO field blank. I'm not sure why it's showing as zero now, though. --Avenue (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very original composition, super sharp picture. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Like it Basvb (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Superb light, dof and composition. Great wow, but I am a bit concerned that you have turned the contrast knob too much to make it look so surreal. The original is very good too, and I think it appears to be a much truer (but still fascinating) representation of the backlit leaf. --Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very fair point. I wondered about this too. All I can say is that I was a little disappointed in the original, with its glare and somewhat washed-out colours, and that this edited version feels truer to my experience of the leaf's glow. --Avenue (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Is it OK to use doping in sports ? Well, this is somewhat a doped photo I think. But, if you say that the edited version feels truer to your experience of the leafs glow, I believe you. And sometimes you need to bend reality a bit to catch the viewer. And you have really managed that in this case. Amazing. --Slaunger (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture but unfortunately not really sharp --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was to support, but I think it is not sharp enough at High res, especially the details of the stem. Trully sorry, because it is a great picture.--Jebulon (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIn my opinion it really cannot be much sharper and still have this very unique "artistic look", which makes it such a great picture. I think that sometimes one has to throw pixel beancounting overboard for the higher sake of the overall impression. Because, I agree with you, that if sharpness is considered as an isolated property it is not overwhelmingly good. --Slaunger (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's why I hesitated a lot... Maybe I have supported this in a photograph contest, but here is "Commons"...--Jebulon (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can't claim it was entirely planned, but after taking the shot I felt that the unfocussed main stem coming towards the camera helped add depth to what's otherwise quite a flat picture. But I respect the opinions of those who oppose. --Avenue (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whether it works for the individual reviewer is, very much dependent on the personal preferences and likings, which is just fine. --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful and unique! -- TFCforever (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leaf veins always have interesting patterns, and you've brought them out in a well composed overall shot. Thank you. --99of9 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is not the best in my opinion. Something about it is really off, either it's too soft or the contrast has been manipulated, I'm not sure. Steven Walling 19:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Its a hard to tak picture but i think it needs more contrast or somewhat to make me say wow. Mulazimoglu (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VS (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Quito Accordion player.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 19:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Accordion player in the Historical Centre of Quito, Ecuador
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically, this is a good image (should nominate it to QI). But as FP goes, I don't see the value of this image for Wikimedia. FPs should be of great value for the project. I don't see how a conventional picture of a street accordion player could be of great value. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about permission of this man to public his face? Przykuta → [edit] 14:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Well, he is a long-standing public performer in the streets of Quito, where I've seen, supported and listened (with delight) to him in 2004, 2006 and 2010. There are quite a number of FPs with recognizable people on Commons: see here, with particular examples being this and this man. I've added the Personality rights warning-Template to the file description. Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image is valuable for many reasons, and one of them is to point to one of the few options blind people have to make a living in poor countries. On another hand, it is a very humane protrait. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a nice and valuable image. My only concern is the comparison with this one... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There should not be a concern. Two blind accordion players, from two different countries. There are countless similar bug pictures, and one does not exclude the other. If anything, these could start a category of blind or handicapped street musicians, a class of their own. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The more I look at this photograph, the more I like it. There is a Norman Rockwell-like quality to the image. The rich details of ordinary objects, the seam of the pants, the wrinkled leather of the shoes, the worn out case, the taped over keys, the textures... and the chery of the cake is the facial expresion. Visually it is a very powerful humane portrait of a personal tragedy, it evokes compasion, but not pity. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'm a enthusiast of people's photographs (though I don't take many) and this one is powerful and technically very good. I don't see tragedy here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very good photograph, in my opinion. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good indeed. --Avenue (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lütfen duygusal bakmayalım. Bu resim sıradan. Mulazimoglu (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alvesgaspar--MASHAUNIX 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Phyllidiopsis papilligera (Black-spotted Nudibranch - North Haiti).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 08:09:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 08:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There it is! - LeavXC (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A beautiful beastie, but blue fringing/CA is too strong near the ends. I'd support even a crude fix like this edit. --Avenue (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and instructive --Schnobby (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remembers me the motto "My end is in my beginning, and my beginning is in my end". I miss an arrow: where is the head ? the tail ? In which direction it swims ? Very strange and interesting. Technically well done IMhO. The fringe is acceptable.--Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Backlit (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Turbinella pyrum 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 14:48:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Turbinella pyrum, Turbinellidae, Great Rapa Chank; Length 12,5 cm; Originating from a beach near Beruwela, Sri Lanka; the pictured specimen is outstanding by its orange coloured aperture; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 19:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Backlit (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support please provide metadata/exif. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This causes problems, as the picture constists of five single photos with different data, combined by photoshop. All the shell photos are made with a Panasonic DMC-LZ1. --Llez (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Therefore I added the Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ1 to some of your shell pictures I found - if you don't mind. I would advice you to add the category to all the other such images too so there would be even some clue about the equipment behind the photographs. Thanks =) --Ximonic (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I think, this is the best solution. I'll add this category also to other pictures within the next time. --Llez (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Viborg Christmas street illumination 2010-11-30.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 22:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Slaunger - uploaded by Slaunger - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Felt like we needed a seasonal nomination, and I just got a new tripod, which I wanted to test, and the town I live nearby got new christmas illumination based on LEDs saving 14.5 ton of CO₂ emissions as compared to the previous conventional illumination. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate it was taken with a new tripod , but I believe neither the quality nor the composition is good enough for FP. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Thanks for the review. Could you elaborate a little on quality issue(s) you have noticed? --Slaunger (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, most of the quality issues I did not like have nothing to do with your skills as a photographer and probably could not have been avoided, but here is what I do not like: The gray and green looking snow, the green lamp (honestly no matter what that lamp would have looked like, it spoils the image for me), not so sharp looking lower foreground, and blurred people in the middle of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  That's OK. Thanks for replying. I realize the motion-blurred pedestrians could be perceived as a turn off, and it often is for me as well. It was a deliberate "effect" in this case, but I was unsure myself if it was best to include them or not. --Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I guessed that the people in the image was a deliberate "effect" , and I saw that "effect" in some other images that I supported, but in those image the blurred people took much lesser part of the images than they did in yours. Anyway good luck with the nomination!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good description, which puts the context of this picture in persepctive. FieldMarine (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congrats for tripod and nice explanation. --Mile (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd have to agree with Mbz1. The blurred people seems to obscure that part of the image than add to it, IMO. The lamp at the top is also distracting. Great Christmas lights! LeavXC (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurred people don't bother me; in fact, I'd actually like it more if they were more blurred, to show that they are walking (this pic makes them look like they have several ghosts hovering about them). However, the composition is just too scattered and busy. Still, I agree we need more FPs to fit the season. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand what is really featurable (outstanding) here. I'm not against pictures showing the day-to-day life, but I don't find anything special here. The general quality is not perfect (the lamp, the snow...). The road sign prevents me to "enter" this picture. Agree with THFSW concerning the people.--Jebulon (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation regarding the road sign, Jebulon, I had not thought about it that way, but I understand what you mean. --Slaunger (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking your time to review my photo. By and large I agree with the comments. I have gotten some good input regarding how to improve with such a kind of scenary, which is just 5-10 min away. I think I will try a reshoot, perhaps a little earlier in the day, with more people, showing some more activities, and with another position of the camera (near the ground, and at one side of the street pointing more upwards, to avoid the centered composition. I have also spotted a different location on the street, which I think is more suitable, i.e., without the annoying sign). Concerning the composition beign busy: Well, this photo is taken when the street is almost "dead" with most signs taken in. I.e., as clean as i could get it. The new photo I have in mind will be more "busy", but perhaps also more interesting. Let's see . It's an interesting challenge. --Slaunger (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Мыс Мартьян, 5 окт. 2008 042.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 13:02:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tada008 - uploaded by Tada008 - nominated by Tada008 -- Tada008 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tada008 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The horizon is very tilted. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical flaws: chromatic aberrations, at least visible on the light reflections at the bottom of the image, unsharp stones, dull composition and the already noted tilted horizon. Additionally, it lacks a "Wow effect" in my eyes. It could be worth a retry using a broader aspect ratio like at least 3:2 or even a more panoramic one, but you'll need to wait for a more exciting light and to make a more skilful use of your camera and postprocessing: it would be wise to use a tripod, the slowest ISO rating available and a more closed aperture to avoid the unsharp stones. During the postprocessing, you must rework the chromatic aberrations and you could consider a panoramic stitch of several single exposures. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grand-Duc--MASHAUNIX 21:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KensingtonRoad StefanTomek.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 16:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Backlit (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Backlit (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy background, and the guitar (as well as anything white in the rest of the image) is overexposed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure thing --AngMoKio (座谈) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support True, there is some noise on the background, but this is a low-light photography scenario, there has to be some tolerance to higher ISOs. Looks like FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You should add the template about featuring the image of a third person on the photograph, and that its use could be legally restricted.--Murdockcrc (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background too noisy, guitar and arms overexposed, blur of the left arm, strange green effect on the ear.--Jebulon (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition not great - too central, blue thing intruding at left. The pose seems a bit static, with the singer glued to the mike. Noise and blur are understandable and tolerable IMO, and while the guitar does glare, I don't think it's quite overexposed. --Avenue (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Arms (right arm) and guitar without definition: overexposed. The head is noised--Miguel Bugallo 02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is good but making the picture a little bit darker (exposure, iso, aperture, etc). would make it much better. There is the problem with the left arm and guitar, that seems to be overexposed. --Aktron (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Murdockcrc--MASHAUNIX 13:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the image quality is very good considering the difficult conditions. Very nice colors. But I have to agree with Avenue regarding the composition. Still a good photo though.--Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pholiota malicola.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 22:20:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downsampled. great shot. good composition, shallow depth of field. would support a full resolution image. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral great image, but the objects at the bottom appear distracting to me--MASHAUNIX 17:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peter and Mashaunix. Quality at the mini size we can see it is good, but poor composition. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocodylus acutus mexico 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 22:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and impressive portrait ! Useful and educational IMO.~~There is no "source" on the file description page. Could you add it please ?~~--Jebulon (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info One of the previous nominations of this photo is one that I recall clearly. It was very strange, yet entertaining. --Slaunger (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yep... it was the good old times, and as some would say, it was not evaluated properly ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Same as I voted last time. --Slaunger (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality is as bad as at the previous candidature --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bad quality ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question And how do you define bad quality? or is it just your opinion? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Actually a great image taken in a wild!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! -- TFCforever (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Ximonic (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting photo, but I don't think this composition exemplifies the best of Commons. It's useful to show the animal in its habitat like this, but cutting it off at the head is a poor compositional choice overall in my opinion. Steven Walling 19:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice illustration of the skin texture blending with the wavy water surface. --Elekhh (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support even I would prefer a little more contrast (if it is feasible) Ggia (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ggia, one of my concerns sometimes about adjusting contrast, curves, levels, etc. is that the adjustments may not make the image fit for some applications. I try to leave the images as much to the center of characteristics so that the final user can make the necessary adjustments to fit her/his needs. For example, if I push the contrast up so that it looks good on screen or for a particular need, where high contrast is needed, I may make the image unfit for a low contrast application, a background screen, for example, where some of the values may either wash up or tone down completely. Commons is not a final use of images, and people should be aware of that. To process pictures just so they look good on screen is not necessarily the best practice from the graphic arts perspective. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{o}}~~ Sorry (I'm not an expert), poor quality and poor composition (too tight or I don't like the crop). --Miguel Bugallo 01:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To me (I'm not an expert and I can't say what I want in English), there aren't something sharp or in focus. Español: Explicación: No hay nada en la foto realmente nítido. En parte se debe a evitar el ruido, en parte a una toma deficiente. Lo único que se puede considerar en foco es el negro de los ojos (ni siquiera hay brillo). Por otro lado, el hecho de que esté mojado el sujeto no es disculpa suficiente. El reflejo de la luz en el agua y en el "crocodylus" implica una inadecuada perspectiva. Sobre la pobrísima calidad de la imagen que la superficie del agua transmite, no se me ocurre qué decir, solamente que algo así para mí no es fp (¿perspectiva?,...). Lo siento, veo la imagen diferente a como tú la ves, pero acepto que tú la consideres FP y lo que otros digan, y acepto el resultado final, y no protesto ni pongo medallas, ni dejo de ponerlas. La composición carece de expresividad, pero eso es subjetivo, para mí una buena composición con este sujeto precesaría de mayor campo (y mayor calidad). Saludos y disculpas--Miguel Bugallo 01:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel, todo mundo tiene el derecho a su opinión, y tienes el derecho de que la imagen te guste o no. Sin embargo, una opinión no es un dictamen definitivo acerca de la calidad de una cosa o no, sobre todo considerando la fuente de la crítica. En cuanto a tu opinión de que si la imagen te gusta o no no tengo nada que decir, y así como tu expresas tu opinión acerca de la calidad de esta imagen, yo, como autor y recipiente de tu crítica, y de igual manera que tu calificas de pobrísima calidad, así considero la calidad de tu análisis fotográfico, ya que, en mi opinión, es evidente la ausencia de conocimiento del medio. Me sorprende tu visceralidad. Te invito a que veas el uso de la imagen en Wikipedia para que constates su uso que estoy seguro, no se debe a la falta de calidad que tu aludes. Saludos. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm learning. Español:Sigo pensando que la luz rebota demasiado en el objeto retirándole nitidez y mostrando que es preferible una toma a otra hora o con otra perspectiva en la relación cámara-objeto-fuente de luz. Es muy probable que esté confundido. Si te parece injustificado, retiro el voto. Gracias--Miguel Bugallo 04:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Es posible que esté confundido y, aunque la imagen no me gusta, tampoco me gusta votar sin motivo claro. A pesar de no percibir ni una de las escamas del cocodrilo, pero considerando que se puede deber a que acaba de acceder a la superficie, retiro el primer voto.--Miguel Bugallo 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estimado Miguel. Respeto tu voto en cualquier sentido, yo solo respondo a la justificación del voto que haces y a lo cual respondo: la composición es un sujeto en diagonal, siendo la diagonal una composición generalmente dinámica pero que también puede acarrear problemas de profundidad de campo. En este caso se debe a la distancia focal y la distancia cámara-sujeto. El movimiento del sujeto y del agua reconozco su movimiento y falta de nitidez, pero no existe regla ni de que todo deba ser congelado ni de cuanto movimiento es permisible. Lo importante a final de cuentas es como interactúan todos los elementos y si el resultado final es aceptable o no, y su aceptación en si depende de varias variables que van mucho mas allá de aspectos técnicos solamente. Por último, esta fotografía fue tomada en un entorno natural en donde es imposible controlar muchas variables fotográficas y uno se limita a la oportunidad que el sujeto ofrece, cuando lo ofrece y en donde lo ofrece. En cuanto a su piel, esta está diseñada para mimetizar el entorno, no tiene escamas y además de eso, el efecto del agua hacen difícil su buena representación. En este caso particular las propiedades finas de la piel no las considero tan importante, pero si quieres un detalle lo puedes encontrar aquí [[10]]. Saludos, --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportMulazimoglu (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon--MASHAUNIX 14:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sea pen porcelain crab.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 09:00:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeDoes not keep one's promise at high resolution. Very noisy, not really sharp, and strong chromatic aberrations.--Jebulon (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great image, but the way the borders cut the image ruins it to me--MASHAUNIX 21:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citron (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonius Kloster BW 7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 10:07:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info No. I used no polarizing filter ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a FP. --Jebulon (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as jebulon. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The image is underexposed. Please try to increase brightness and you will see how much it improves! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! Exposure looks OK to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks too dark to me, too. Please correct that, then I will strike my vote --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitly underexposed --Niabot (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I gave it another try with this one. It's brighter and a little sharper. --Ximonic (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment now a bit brighter --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edited version shows strong "blocking" noise in dark areas. Not much better if you would ask me. --Niabot (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Exceptional! -- TFCforever (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VS (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, and the lighting seems alright now to me. Steven Walling 05:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am proud to have found a dust spot, which was overlooked by our master dustspotter, Jebulon, please see annotation . --Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Congratulations, my little padawan ! Just call me Harry. Harry Dustspotter.--Jebulon (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Removed. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Herjangsfjorden & Ofotfjorden, wide, 2009 09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 18:02:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info An autumn view to Herjangsfjord (A part of Ofotfjord) and Ofotfjord from the north side of the fjord (Nordland, Norway). Created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A good composition and a nice picture though probably not special enough for reaching FP status. The white fringing resulting from sharpening is too obvious. (I was in Narvik a looong time ago, on a ship, and have nice memories...) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! Could you please add on the description the country and region where this was taken? (Herjangsfjorden and Ofotfjorden don't say anything to me). Also, please geotag if possible. --Murdockcrc (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Country and county added to descriptions. Geotag done. --Ximonic (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good job, even if it is slightly tilted. --Niabot (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! -- TFCforever (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors; would like to be there --Schnobby (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps a little bit oversharpened, but excellent work though. -- MJJR (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Beautiful, and good quality apart from the oversharpening. However the foreground intrudes too much for my liking, with several trees breaking the fjords' far coastline. --Avenue (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ankara (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb color, lighting, and composition. Steven Walling 19:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb image. The white fringe over the horizon is (a bit) annoying. It could be cloned away manually with a 2-4px wide brush. Though a bit time-consuming, it would be worth the effort. --Cayambe (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done In the new version I've removed some of those contrast fringes from various edges. --Ximonic (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect --Llez (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Локо мотив 02:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome colors. --Aktron (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lepidochelys olivacea.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2010 at 17:11:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by bgag -- Bgag (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good turtle pic but the crop on the right is too tight. And why is there blood on its eye? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The turtle was alone on the beach and looked hurt. Unfortunately I can't do anything about the crop. --Bgag (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Good enough quality but uninteresting composition. The crop is too tight. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is too tight--Miguel Bugallo 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 14:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ayuntamiento Guadix1.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 22:38:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The city hall, Plaza de la Constitucion, of Guadix, in Andalusia, Spain. In this town was born in 1487 Pedro de Mendoza, the founder of Buenos Aires, Capital of Argentina-- Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am sorry, but all the bushes / trees are blurry, and the side-walls are out of focus. In reality, only the one quarter facing wall of the building is sharp. Bjoertvedt (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review. IMO, the comment is a bit severe, this picture is generally not so unsharp. But if it were as you said, please notice that the quarter facing wall of the building is in fact a building itself, fortunately sharp, because it is the subject of the photograph: the city hall ! --Jebulon (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that it is not as sharp as some would like, but it's decent. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but 'decent' is not good enough, as FP is supposed to be the best Commons has to offer. In this case, lack of sharpness is the terrible sin (I would increase saturation a bit, but that is personal taste) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrible sin ? Wow... I knew venial sins, and mortal sins, but terrible sin... Is it really so terrible ? Should I burn in the depth of the hell ?--Jebulon (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, my personal relationship with sins & etc is not the best!... Make it a mortal sin, which means that the picture, not you, will probably burn in oblivion. Unless some Madre Tereza rescues it in time... Cheers! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TFCforever (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given ~~your~~ the general sensitivity towards oppose votes I'll also start with a sincere sorry. Is a good picture, but the composition is not the best IMHO. I think a less symmetric image in which the courtyard lamp would not cover the main entry, would have been better and more interesting. That car, which is not your fault, is also disturbing. --Elekhh (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it is a good way to make comments here about a (my) so-called sensitivity towards oppose votes, because it is a personal opinion about me, not about my picture... Composition: Please be sure that this "squared" and geometric view was a choice, due to the situation of the place ! The car : that's funny. I'll try to find the original file for you, because you don't know how many cars, road signs etc I removed from this picture --Jebulon (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I did not mean to comment about you, just was a bit worried about the tendency that every oppose vote has to start with a "sorry". My wording was unfortunate and I adjusted it to reflect the general character of my thoughts. Otherwise please don't bother to upload a worse version of the image. --Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No worries.--Jebulon (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition but colors and contrast are absolutely unrealistic. Sry. --Aktron (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh--MASHAUNIX 14:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - ¡ Ay ay ay ay ay, Adios, Andalucia querida, Ole ! I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20090719 Crkva Gospa od Zdravlja Kotor Bay Montenegro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2010 at 23:47:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info polarizer filter has been used in this image. Ggia (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Excellent composition and framing, very good quality (I want a D700!). May I suggest the slight geometric distortion be corrected? The buildings at left are not vertical. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question how I can correct that? It is a Nikon 50mm/1.2 manual lens that has been used in this image. Ggia (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I tried a manual barrel distortion correction.. the image is updated. Ggia (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. Steven Walling 05:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition and high level of detail. --Elekhh (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little blurry in the upper left hand corner, but that's where you'd expect it to be blurry. Otherwise no real quarrel with the composition, perspective and color. Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking. Would be an excellent POTD. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support dobar pogled. --Mile (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question @PetarM Since you speak Serbian: what is the translation of "Crkva Gospa od Zdravlja"? Is it translated "Our Lady of Health" as it is mentioned in the article in english wikiepdia en:Kotor? Ggia (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Its like that, yes. --Mile (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the answer. Ggia (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- VS (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice - Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support But why does that tower look lopsided? Distortion? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info check the previous version of the file.. and compare with this one.. I did some manual barrel distortion correction.. the image is not a result of stitched images (it is an image made by an 50mm/1.2 Nikon lens). Ggia (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral tending to oppose. I'm not so enthusiastic. I see some noise on the water, I'm disturbed by the badly cropped and deformed black dome below right, the car park is ugly as a car park, I feel the composition not so good because the crop of the lake...--Jebulon (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info by the way.. it is not a lake.. it is a bay of andriatic sea. ;-) Ggia (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI realized this after my vote (I used the word "water" first)... but it is an argument regarding the crop and the general composition...--Jebulon (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I wanted to comment about that carpark too - is a shame for the city, but not the photographer's fault, and given that is placed in the corner and takes up only a very small part of the image is not disturbing. --Elekhh (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Odlična slika. --Aktron (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cimosteve (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Filmmaking of "Black Thursday" on ulica Morska in Gdynia - 14.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2010 at 03:13:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Starscream - uploaded by Starscream - nominated by Starscream -- Starscream (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Starscream (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea, but the sound boom is an unfortunate (and significant) problem. -- TFCforever (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Purposely I kept the microphone, to underline that this is the reproduction for the film production. The microphone I consider the specific kind of the decoration. This photo would not have the soul without the microphone. --Starscream (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. And good answer from Starscream above.Ankara (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that's a good, original, encyclopedic and well done shot :-) --Aktron (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above--MASHAUNIX 14:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidef 024.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2010 at 17:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Özgür Mülazımoğlu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, good composition of a good subject. But the chromatic aberration are really too strong IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very bad composition, blown out sky, not sharp. Should be FPXed.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2010 (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: luminance and chromatic noise are too intense. deficient sharpness, poi, composition, crop, levels, colours. chromatic abberation. sky with blown out whites and lacking image information (blue skies would be more considerate).

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.

regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Jebulon says good composition; Mbz1 says Very bad composition. Pls anyone honestly tell me what is a composition? :) ... Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info as easy as this might sound: check out the article on composition. please consider that neither jebulon, mbz1, nor me return a final verdict - composition is very much a question of taste. your composition could be improved by changing the point of view (by reshooting the whole construction and using a different angle), applying rule of thirds, placing landscape in the bokeh or other technical modifications. if you have a closer look on old paintings you might get some inspiration for choosing a "good" composition. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i know this picture of mine can not be a featured one. That day it was too cloudy. But maybe Very bad composition (visual arts) may be written by someone. I have just learned what is a composition but i still do not know what is a very bad composition. Also i wonder if we have a such term like disgusting composition. Thanks. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Composition is a subjective criteria. I have examined the work of major artists and find, for example, the "rule of thirds" violated routinely. I would say that it is generally unhelpful to use emphasis in reviews, especially in critical reviews. If you can, please identify the element(s) that contribute to your evaluation of the composition. For example, you might suggest that part of the subject is cut off by an edge of the picture, the subject is too centered, etc. These sort of comments may be more helpful to the photographer than "bad composition". However, I find that those criteria are often ignored by major artists, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I said "good composition", because the picture was not taken randomly. There is a study of perspective, a choice of symmetry, an appropriate "framing" of the chosen subject. But I agree with others, it is a very subjective criteria. Some like symmetry, some others dislike it absolutely, for example. I think symmetry is better for "Commons", as an encyclopedic work, but it is personal. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the "rule of thirds" is not very relevant. Matter of taste... Mulazimoglu, don't give up.--Jebulon (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments. As you know i am new here and trying to be helpful for this featured pictures project. And in my comments i try to be honest and trying to be friendly. But as a newcomer it really hurts when someone tells your work very bad after some other says good. Bye the way my English is improving huh? :) Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "very bad" cannot refer here simply to the composition, Mbz1 might have meant that choosing this angle under the given light condition wasn't a good idea. I wouldn't have placed "composition" in the FPX box. Otherwise as good introduction to composition I recommend Arnheim, Rudolf: Art and Visual Perception. A Psychology of the Creative Eye. (1974), a classic translated into 14 languages. --Elekhh (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I disagree with the above statement that "composition is a subjective criteria". It might have a subjective component, but it certainly has an objective component as well, which makes people from around the world recognise the same piece of art as something pleasant. In part this has to do with our common anatomy, in part with universal elements of human culture. --Elekhh (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above statement, but is has to be a very long and interesting debate (is "Art" universal etc etc ?), and I don't have the good english words for that, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the input elekhh. perhaps one fine day this way of thinking will lead to a change of the guidelines. in contrast to jebulon i think that the rule of thirds is very relevant if talking about compositions. amongst different methods to compose an image, this is globally acknowledged, part of our guidelines and features many pieces of art and photography. for a beginner it might be a good opener on compositions (easy to check if using gimp or photoshop). @Mulazimoglu please consider that the attempt should always be to critique a user's work not the user. assuming good faith any kind of reaction is regarding your work. be aware that hardly any user knows you in person and therefore can only react to the content you provide (media files, texts, etc.) regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for a beginner it might be a good opener on compositions: agree with that. I have a problem with the english word "guidelines". In french, a guideline (guide-lignes) is only a suggestion (maybe strong), an help, a way, but not a law or a mandatory. Then, in some cases, violating the guidelines has not to be the only reason to oppose. Furthermore, I notice that in the guidelines, one can read the word "should" ("devrait", conditionnal), and sometimes the words "has to" or "must"("doit", indicative). I believe it makes a difference, but perhaps I am too cartesian... --Jebulon (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a lot to discuss. Mulazimoglu (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010-07-30-pano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2010 at 16:51:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stitching errors. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little illustrative value. (It should have at least a text description.) --Спас Колев (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale--MASHAUNIX 14:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please add more info about where this panorama is taken.--Snaevar (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lutetium sublimed dendritic and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2010 at 17:47:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alchemist-hp - uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by -- Brackenheim (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support of course. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed your vote template to a regular {{Support}} as the {{SSupport}} template is not listed as a valid template in the FPC voting guidelines and not recognized by FPCbot when preparing vote counts for human confirmation. The optional parameter can be used on the vote templates to alter the vote test from the default, e.g., {{tl|Support|Strong support}}, thus allowing you to write what you want and FPCbot to do its work, which both you and the vote confirmer happy! --Slaunger (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a myth actually. For example, the bot got this one correct Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:AgamaSinaita01_ST_10.jpg. The recent bot-confusion nomination of a bee on a flower was caused by a nomination where someone blanked an old nomination page for a renomination, and was nothing to do with the strong support vote. --99of9 (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- TFCforever (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, as usual. Steven Walling 19:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. --Cayambe (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cookie cutter style picture. Redundant. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FieldMarine (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probable hard work to make this object, and great photographical result. But it is really unappealing to me, and I cannot see the difference between this one and the other one, above. At the end, as a non specialist, I have the impression that we always feature the same cm3.--Jebulon (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I have the impression that we always feature the same cm3" ... I think you need a new monitor or/and new eyeglasses!? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon + @Tomascastelazo: Please take a look here and here. Now (I hope!) you know why ... It is similar with birds, insects, fungi, ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice advent calendar, indeed... No kidding, I understand very well (I have only an idea) how these chemical results and pictures (35 photos in focus staking ? Wow !)are difficult to do, I just want to say that it is not visually appealling to me. The current page has two nominations, (they will surely pass as FP then I feel more free to give a discordant opinion) but i'm not able to distinguish one from the other, sorry for your great friend, not absolutely unknown by me.... Oh, by the way, I'm not an absolute fan of birds, insects, fungi,...--Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: I understand your other reasons, but only not this one: "I have the impression that we always feature the same cm3". Please have a look only to the current both cubes. It is typical for the Lutetium to see a lot of the very small holes. Thulium hasn't it! You see it only in a high magnification and the right light. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Snaevar (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support from the creator too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 14:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 11:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20091108 Ano Kardamos Rhodope Greece 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2010 at 06:36:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ggia - uploaded by Ggia - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Somehow this reminds me of the cabin where the Sleeping Beauty hid!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic colors and contrast. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question what you don't like? ie. the bulding is located according to en:Rule of thirds. Ggia (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that this building is behind the trees and is hard to make out. It is a nice image, but I just do not see it as FP. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a formalistic "beautiful" image.. but is far away from an image of beautiful sun-set. It has some encyclopedic value... i.e. automn colors and trees in the region of Rhodope mountains.. etc Ggia (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said it had no EV. Of course it does.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Doesn't speak to me, sorry. Nothing tells me that it was taken in the Rhodope mountains or elsewhere. Nice autumn colors, indeed, but trees are nice everywhere in this season. There is a disturbing "fog" in the upper corner right. The building is hard to see. Pretty picture, probable QI, but not FP IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Jebulon took the words from my mouth. The pattern of textures and colors is indeed beautiful but the house is a disturbing element in my opinion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good detail and colors. Composition could be better. --Aktron (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon--MASHAUNIX 14:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ground rhyolite.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2010 at 14:09:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Doronenko - uploaded by Doronenko - nominated by Doronenko -- Doronenko (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Doronenko (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Steven Walling 04:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image of poor quality. Depth of field too low. Too much reflection. Setting too low: this image is not QI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Us Archaeodontosaurus--Miguel Bugallo 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Archaeodontosaurus--MASHAUNIX 14:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though I don't feel that this will win, I hope it does. –hover Fly | chat? 15:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others.Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sainte catherine alexandrie slovaque cluny a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2010 at 11:37:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support From a special exhibit in the National Museum of the Middle Ages in Paris, a slovak statue of Saint Catherine of Alexandria, Banská Stiavnicá, Slovenské banské múzeum, ca. 1500-- Jebulon (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, but this time not immaterially ;) Interesting picture, nice colors, good quality, sophisticated masking. The composition is okay, too, even if I miss something really outstanding. But however good enough to be featured imo. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally good, but the masking seems to have eaten slightly into her forehead. Is there any information available about the man she is standing on (e.g. religion or nationality)? --Avenue (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review. I've read some articles, but didn't find anything concerning this symbol. Maybe a pagan philosopher, according to the legend. I've trusted the caption in the exhibition. Catherine's symbol is generally a wheel with teeth, instrument of her martyr. Here we miss the hands of the statue, and maybe accessories too... I wanted to show the work of the wood, the nice golden drapé of the cloth, and the pretty face of this statue, an hesitation between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance--Jebulon (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support This has grown on me. I prefer this version to the "other version", mainly due to the background, but I'm glad to have been able to compare them. --Avenue (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The image would benefit from some brightening and contrast enhancement, imo. I don't like the "levitation" feeling either, even for a saint. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deficient levels, sharpness and nasty reflections - masking is rather poor. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Question I've tried improvements (levels, WB, levitation, reflections, masking etc...) on another version. I would be happy for feedbacks or other helpful comments, here or on my talk page. Thanks to the reviewers for losing time.--Jebulon (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The statue is better in the alternative version but I don't like the background. Maybe it is possbible to mask it keeping the base (or part of it). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 23:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that "the other version" that Jebulon pointed out is better than this one.--Snaevar (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for feedback.--Jebulon (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I see no problem. Wish i could take such pictures in museumsMulazimoglu (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snow leopard portrait-2010-07-09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2010 at 12:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tambako the Jaguar - original uploaded by Connormah - retouched by Niabot - nominated by Carschten. This alternative version was last time too late to get more votes, so now a new candidature.
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Doronenko (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I opposed against the first version because of the tight crop. I didn't review the edit version, because my philosophical and well known opposition on edited versions in the same nomination. But now, I don't see any reason not to support this very impressive picture, which deserves the FP label IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The eyes are pin-sharp, great shot. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a portrait the image lacks intensity IMO. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ticks all the boxes for me. --99of9 (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Please, let the poor thing breathe. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He can breathe at the top, at the right and the bottom. Because it's a portrait the left part of animal is cropped. Where do you see a too tight crop?? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong support great one. technically perfect. keep on rollin'. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, and I don't like the composition, too tight...--Miguel Bugallo 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 21:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Tight. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ville de Lévis01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2010 at 18:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by bgag -- Bgag (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nothing featurable in particular--MASHAUNIX 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mashaunix.--Snaevar (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing featurable in particularMulazimoglu (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monte Generoso LCD.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 17:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Murdockcrc - uploaded by Murdockcrc - nominated by Murdockcrc -- Murdockcrc (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Panoramic view as seen from Monte Generoso, Ticino, Switzerland. On the foreground: the town of Melide, the emblematic Monte San Salvatore, the city of Lugano and the Lugano Lake. On the background: the alpine ridge of southern Switzerland, starting on the left with the Monte Rosa, all the way to mount Rigi (center-right). --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. -- Murdockcrc (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for the original resolution.* Oppose downsampled. composition is good - rule of thirds works fine. would support a full res version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Peter. So, I uploaded version in the max res I have. Please note that this is really the maximal resolution I have, I can't offer anymore (no more pixels in the 500D). Thanks --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As an aside : abstaining as author is classy. Rama (talk)
- Thanks for the candor :-) --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flat lighting, there is no texture, too much mountains, little lake.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadow on quite big part of foto. --Mile (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Definitely worth my support vote. Related to other votes, I can't understand why too much mountains or little lakes can be a problem when they are part of the reality the picture is trying to depict. Maybe the commenter could enlighten us and tell us what would be an adequate number of mountains or lake sizes for a picture...--Odambrosio (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No anonymous votes, please. The creation on new accounts with the purpose of voting is not accepted either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a checkuser is in order? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, don't expect me to drop some DNA for your own pleasure Tomascastelazo. If there is an additional requirement as a new user to express my opinion for a picture it was not specified before. Now this phrase - "Perhaps a checkuser is in order?" -, what kind of a statement is that, did you steal it from a line of Chief Wiggum in the Simpsons? - genius - . I am removing the strike-through from my vote because I have the full right to vote as a wikimedia user.--Odambrosio (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, well, well.... did I ever suggest you did not have the right to vote? Don´t think so... Read my words carefully before you start out on your diatribe. As far as your DNA, no need to have it, you pretty much dated it already ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 33% of the image is sky, 60% at least is mountains, so that leaves 7% max for a picture of a lake, which could be a wide river from this point of view. On top of that, lighting is flat for a landscape photograph. There are no graphic elements that give this image aesthetic values, that is, color, texture, perspective, balance, etc., etc. and as a landmark or lake picture, photographically speaking, in my opinion, it is not a lake picture, but a picture of mountains and sky with a small portion of a body of water. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding this percentages. First off, you made my day, I can imagine the calculation of those percentages must have been fun, not only do I like the precision in that 33% but I admire your patience. Now that you have gathered all of this information maybe you can write this on a letter to God almighty and complain about the world´s composition, maybe on the next Big Bang he will sort things out for you mate, that way you can have your desired picture and your so called "balance, etc., etc"...--Odambrosio (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odambrosio: You asked for my opinion and I gave it, in line with well known photographic criteria. The image follows nicely the rule of thirds as far as composition goes, and if my math is right, 100 divided by 3 is roughly 33.3... hence the sky and my percentages. Evidently my opinion on photographic evaluation is not good enough for you, so perhaps you could be kind enough to enlighten us as to the photographic merits of this image that you seem so inclined to support and offended by opposing ideas. I do find it very curious for a new user to take such an issue on an oppose vote on a photograph that is not his (or her?). You may want to check this out [[11]], or this [[12]], or this [[13]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tomas. I do understand that the lake is not prominently featured on this image. Perhaps I wrote the caption confusingly and you got that impression. Hence, I am rewriting the caption to be more accurate, and I would like you to check it. In essence, the main subject is NOT the lake itself, but the tremendous view as seen from the Monte Generoso. I do disagree on you calling this image as having no aesthetic value, for the following reason: You can see all the alps from central Switzerland, from the Monte Rosa (on the border with Italy), all the way to Mount Rigi on canton Luzern. This comprises a line-sight view of about 200km. It is very difficult to have such a clear view of all the alpine ridge. With many summits above 4000m, their view is most of the time hampered by clouds, snowstorms or haze. So please check the new caption and let me know if you find it more appropriate.

- Hi Alvesgaspar. Would you mind telling me which official policy or guideline of Wikimedia explicitly forbids new users to vote? Thanks. --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing, for the moment, forbids new users to vote. This particular issue is being discussed in the talk page. However, the practise of Sock puppetry and Meatpuppetry (see here) is not tolerated in polls. Please notice that I'm not saying it is the case, but when a new account is created with the obvious purpose of supporting a nomination, such possibility should be investigated. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually two nominations--Mbz1 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I of course appreciate every user that votes supporting my pictures, and also those that express constructive criticism that helps me improve my photography. If somebody, however, suspects that any vote violates Wikimedia's rules, I invite him or her to please investigate the matter accordingly. --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info This issue was indeed investigated and two sockpuppet accounts were blocked by Herbythyme -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support In a way, the shadow is part of the image, because it is the shadow of the Monte Generoso--Jebulon (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomascastelazo--MASHAUNIX 14:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also per Tomascastelazo. LeavXC (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support I do think the shadow is problematic, but the view counterbalance this in my opinion. --Swissalps (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC) -- Sockpuppet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the unfair treatment I have received by some users in the community, I withdraw my nomination. If you want more information please click here

File:Lago Bianco from Diavolezza 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2010 at 20:14:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Lago Bianco as seen from the Diavolezza cable car, Grisons, Switzerland. created by murdockcrc - uploaded by murdockcrc - nominated by murdockcrc -- Murdockcrc (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author -- Murdockcrc (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clouds are overexposed, the mountains are not sharp, a bad stitching error in the lower right.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your feedback Mbz1. Just for your information, there are only two clouds that are overexposed (according to Photoshop histogram), the rest of the picture is properly exposed. Furthermore, there cannot be a stitching error since this image is made out of one photograph only. There is no stitching done at all. --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The note is added. It might be not a stitching error, but it is definitely some kind of error.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noted, thanks for the input. There is indeed an error there, whose origin I cannot trace back. Anyway, what's the norm here, should I correct the picture and upload it again, or should I withdraw the nomination and nominate a corrected version? --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to withdraw your nomination. The best way is to upload a fixed image over an old one.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I think the best thing to do would be to crop the entire image from the right side - just as much as the apparent error goes. Afterall, it's not that much off from the whole landscape. --Ximonic (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mbz1 plus WB off. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I withdraw my nomination~~ --Murdockcrc (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I created an alternative version (see File:Lago Bianco from Diavolezza 2-CN.jpg) with a better WB, better quality (downscaled) and I cropped out the error at the right. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow, great job, looks definitively improved. At this point I would want to know how to proceed, since I withdrew the nomination. Should I do a new nomination with this image you modified? Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - just strike your withdraw and make a new section with ====Alternative==== and the picture under this comment. That should be enough! Regards --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Alternative version with post-processing done by kaʁstn. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the overexposed clouds are a bit disturbing, but unbelievable dimensions and a great image --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed clouds per others. LeavXC (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 21:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose white balance imo off, partially overexposured --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Odambrosio (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mbdortmund, plus I liked the previous picture better. --Snaevar (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the unfair treatment I have received by some users in the community, I withdraw my nomination. If you want more information please click here

File:SOB BDe 4-4 bei Altmatt.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2010 at 23:23:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The BDe 4/4 is a very powerful multiple unit (2100 kW) used for pretty much anything, as a bank engine, substitute for locomotives, freight trains, express trains and, of course, local trains (pictured). Here it is crossing the Rothenthurm plateau with its raised bog, which is popular for cross-country skiing during winter.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- ~~There is an ovious counterclockwise tilt.~~ Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see any tilt? The masts at least are vertical. However, the train is in a slight superelevated right curve, so it is not vertical. --Kabelleger (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think you are right -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snow is properly exposed, good composition. Grüsse aus dem Tessin. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pic. --Aktron (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support I made a new version where some lighting has been fixed and some other changes done also... I'd like to support it now. --Ximonic (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the new sky, both version are fine with me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support You could add in what country is it too. Super ambient. --Mile (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not an improvement. New sky color looks cartoonishly fake. --Dschwen (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Dschwen; I liked the former version better --MASHAUNIX 21:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too bright. Winter colors are usually pale, as at the picture above. --Aktron (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen and Mashaunix --Snaevar (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural sky colours. --Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calliphora vomitoria Portrait.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 22:21:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems manipulated a bit too much, but the amount of detail is great. Steven Walling 04:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- An amazing focus stacking work! It is a pity that half of the antenna's bristle at right is unfocused, as well as part of some hairs. That is due to the limitations of the focus stacking process, which is unable to focus two overlapping objects at different distances. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ жесть! --62.244.28.238 10:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! LeavXC (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MASHAUNIX 18:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- MJJR (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 08:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frankkas (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great macro! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary! --Murdockcrc (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 11:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support More awesome Noodlesnack pictures!!! How do you do it? –hover Fly | chat? 15:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The recipe is always the same: patience, hard work, hard work, hard work, adequate equipment and a little talent! Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And a 65mm f/2.8 5.1x Macro lens. Too bad they don't make something like this for Nikon... --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quite right! Though I couldn't probably afford one of them! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jonathunder (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cat November 2010-1a.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2010 at 23:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Young male tabby cat. Created, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 04:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pin-sharp, great shot. Maybe adding some more categories would be appropriate. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good quality, good colors. I don't know if the poor thing breathes, but the composition isn't featured. The cat just sits the in middle of picture, the background is ugly. I miss something special, or maybe using of rule of thirds or the golden cut. That's just a common pet photo to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support But, for me, the platform is overexposed--Miguel Bugallo 02:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, the wall is overexposed, but that was a necessary price to pay. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lord knows enough people upload pictures of cats; we ought to have at least one this good. I actually like this very formal portrait-like composition ... better than one stretched out or curled up, and getting a cat to sit like this is not the easiest thing in the world. Daniel Case (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frankkas (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only a common cat on a wall, yes, but an extraordinary one IMO. Very noble posture ("You know, I could be a lion", or something like that...). The overexposure of the wall is very acceptable --Jebulon (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was thinking of nominating this myself. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ugly background IMO--MASHAUNIX 21:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need more pictures like this one! –hover Fly | chat? 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMulazimoglu (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Huangshan 5753.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 08:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Huangshan, World Heritage in China. Created, uploaded, nominated by Doctoroftcm -- Doctoroftcm (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Doctoroftcm (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors are very good looking and the picture is sharp. However, the composition does not quite convince me. --Ximonic (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but I don't like the composition. It would be a lot better if the tree in the foreground were not cut. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar--MASHAUNIX 14:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Snaevar (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thulium sublimed dendritic and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2010 at 20:43:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture and all, however, these pictures are becoming undistinguishable from one another. There is a visual redundancy now. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe visual but not chemical--Saehrimnir (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Backlit (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tomascatelazo.--Jebulon (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks it also "unappealing" for you? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 14:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wouldn't call them undistinguishable , but rather "standarized" :) And all of them depict v. encyclopedic topics in very neutral and pleasant with its simplicity way. Masur (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra alternative, now less boring and without a visual redundancy? Only for Jebulon + Tomascastelazo![edit]

Support This nice version, except for these disturbing grey things in foreground--Jebulon (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Clear lack of important colours like pink or purple glitter; boaring chemical elements in the forground. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mbdortmund, you are not allowed to vote here : according to the will of the nominator, this public insult is only for me and Tomascatelazo.--Jebulon (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Thulium_sublimed_dendritic_and_1cm3_cube.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reconstitution of a prehistoric tomb.jpg

File:Dorota Segda at closing of XXXIII Polish Film Festival in Gdynia 2008.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2010 at 22:49:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Starscream - uploaded by Starscream - nominated by Starscream -- Starscream (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Starscream (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2010 (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: Below minimum size requirement of 2 Mpix, unsharp and distracting background. --Elekhh (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2010 (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 In spite of solid arguments (I see two...)--Jebulon (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indiana State Capitol dome edit.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 19:07:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by Dschwen, edited and nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for nominating, but this version already is featured. --Dschwen (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per dschwen. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nazare 001.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2010 at 12:06:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nazaré, Portugal

Info created by MRB - uploaded by MRB - nominated by Murdockcrc -- Murdockcrc (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Murdockcrc (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2010 (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) 12:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, was totally unaware of that 2-nominations rule. Will nominate again when the Lago Bianco nomination is finished. --Murdockcrc (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jorge Aguiar 1492 MR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2010 at 22:47:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nautical chart of the Mediterranean, Western Europe and African coast by Jorge de Aguiar, 1492. The earliest extant signed and dated chart of Portuguese origin. Created by Jorge de Aguiar, uploaded and nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support unique historic item. high ev. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and instructive --Schnobby (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality and interesting. --Elekhh (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others above. --Cayambe (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to support, because of the high historical and educational value, but I have the impression that the "cut-around" looks like if it were made by cissors or a "cutter". I feel it is not "soft" enough. Furthermore, I know that it is an old document, then a bit "washed out" by the Time, but I'm not sure about the colors level. What about increase the contrast a little ? I suppose the support is a peel of a sheep (parchment), and I think it cannot be so "white". Thoughts ? --Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Yes, I guess that the mask could be made a little better (but am not sure if I'm able to do it). As for the image, I suppose that the photograph was made and processed by professionals. That is why I did not want to manipulate the colours, which I believe are close to what they look under a natural light (I have only increased contrast a little bit to facilitate reading the names). I have seen many reproductions of this chart in different publications and in all of them the parchment looks like this (too white indeed, due to the age of the manuscript). That is why I believe that, for some reason the original has the same tint. Some day (not too late, I hope) I will visit the University of Yale and examine the chart with my own eyes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for answering and explanations. Have a nice flight soon !--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 14:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Snaevar (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 11:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 10:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maslenica Bridge (A1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2010 at 12:30:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the detail and the composition. As for the former, I can actually see how many people are in the raft in the little bay on the right. Neat! Daniel Case (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Спас Колев (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KlausFoehl (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sry, but these colors make it look like from 1960's Vinnetou movies before remastering :-/ --Aktron (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 14:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case--Snaevar (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Composition. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Varaždin - statue near Old Town.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2010 at 12:27:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please add more info about this statue: who is it, when made, etc. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This is propably John of Nepomuk, autor is unknown, and date... hmmm - I think that XVII-XVIII cent. --Pudelek (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 21:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not outstanding, and useless without a correct identification. And please bring the child's head back ;).--Jebulon (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't like the angle of view (from below) and the lighting. Could be sharper too. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Information corrected. This is a statue of Saint Jerome.--Snaevar (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --Elekhh (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- No wow factor. Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rally Finland 2010 - shakedown - Jari-Matti Latvala 3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 10:40:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kallerna - uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Gnangarra -- Gnan garra 10:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- great action shot, Gnan garra 10:40, 16 December 2010 (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 original version of this pic is alreay featured --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:58, 16 December 2010 (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:Fontaine Diane Fountain Diana Anet Louvre MR 1581, MR sup 123.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2010 at 14:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes I feel a bit alone here with my "inside" pictures, but let's have another try, without tripod, without flash. Support or not, I hope you'll enjoy-- Jebulon (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically very good, excellent angle of view, sharp, of high educational value. Très belle lumière. Where does it exactly come from (before it went to the Louvre)? --Cayambe (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for support, Cayambe. You will find a lot of explanations in the file description page.--Jebulon (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is nice.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support after overlaying masked and unmasked image in photoshop, your selection revealed some problems (too many to add them via annotations). still the result is convincing. please consider readjusting levels and adding some sharpness. marble requires controlled light to get perfect results - the odds to get an item like this into an appropriate studio are rather small (unless the Louvre has such premises). long story short: the uniqueness of this item and the small chances of technically significant better results lead to FP quality for this one, IMO (like some french commons user would say). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO is to me a polite way to explain that it is only my opinion, never an attack, and to say that i know that I can be wrong. I am always surprised when I read (opposing) comments in three definitive "guillotine-like" words, I am not able to be so positive and sure of my own judgment. One could note that not only french "Commons" users use these three letters.REGARDS (like some german speaking "Commons" users would say)--Jebulon (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good sharpness, nice angle, excellent subject. The bowstring has a couple of flaws near the top and where it emerges below her hand, and the lighting might not be ideal, but overall it is FP quality IMO. --Avenue (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Filigree work --Llez (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cosmicdancer (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Confirmed sockpuppet (see here) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - sure ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, Cosmicdancer was blocked indefinitely and, according to the available information, Murdockcrc = Cosmicdancer. That is, to my knowledge, the technical definition of sockpuppet. Yes, I'm now aware of the explanations given by Murdockcrc, but apparently they had no effect on the block of Cosmicdancer. It should also be mentioned that it was my initiative to ask for a checkuser, as the only way to clean the name of Murdockcrc. The result was different from what I expected. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding work, more from the Louvre please! (BTW took the liberty to fix some parts of the description and add the german translation) --Mylius (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Elekhh (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Brienzer Rothorn Bahn.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2010 at 14:25:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Martin Abegglen on flickr - uploaded by MadGeographer - nominated by MadGeographer -- mgeo talk 14:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (as nominator) -- mgeo talk 14:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Swissalps (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC) -- Sockpuppet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If this was taken with a wider angle and further away, then it could work, but the foreground and the background distract from each other. LeavXC (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LeavXC--MASHAUNIX 18:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mgeo talk 17:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:14-48-00-f-giro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2010 at 16:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VS (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Plenty of pixels, but there's no real focus, and there's at least one stitching error (annotated). Also the railing at bottom right is distracting without adding anything. I think it should be cropped out, or much more of it shown. --Avenue (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avenue--MASHAUNIX 14:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice landscape panorama indeed. But I agree with the remarks of Avenue: (too) heavy file, some (albeit very small) stitching errors and distracting railing. -- MJJR (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little illustrative value.Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Science and Mechanics Nov 1931 cover.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2010 at 06:46:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank R. Paul - uploaded and nominated by Swtpc6800 -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Here is a 100 dpi JPG of the cover before restoration. The master is a 300 dpi TIFF.-- Swtpc6800 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely done, although the upscaling is rather inconsiderate. how did you get the extra pixels? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The master is a 300 dpi TIFF -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request could you upload & link this 300dpi tiff? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am admirative of the restoration job--Jebulon (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, for me--Citron (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating restoration. Steven Walling 03:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 10:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Wigwam Motel, Holbrook, AZ 04048u edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2010 at 16:26:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Wigwam Motel on Route 66 created by Carol M. Highsmith - edited, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 16:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PETER WEIS TALK 16:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose heavy underexposed and some distortions at the right --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, particularly the sky has a strong underexposure from left to right, but the composition is great, the colors are excellent, the contrast is very good, I think this is a FP. --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kaʁstn. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks totally artificial and affected to me. Too much aestheticism. Strong underexposure of the sky, strong overexposure of the white wigwams. Distortions. Too much "ground" in foreground... Maybe a good picture for a contest, not for "Commons", IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info i don't see any underexposure in the sky at all. either you access a complete different image, or you are not aware of the outcomes of a polarizing filter. assuming good faith i think of the second case. note that mrs highsmith used such a technical device aligned 90° to the sun - resulting in what you refer to as underexposure. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Assuming good faith, I suppose my english is not good enough to really enjoy this tone, which sounds a bit patronizing through translation. To be more clear : Polarizing filter or not (thanks for the link), "underexposure" or not (I'm only a learning amateur, thanks for correcting me), Mrs Highsmith or not, I dislike this sky very much, because I think it is unnatural and excessively manipulated-overprocessed-reworked. Only an opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Murdockcrc--MASHAUNIX 14:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is good, and might be even stronger without the last wigwam. However, while the sky is not underexposed, the variation in the sky's brightness looks too unnatural to me. One panel of the second wigwam is overexposed. --Avenue (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20100706 Terrace of the Lions Delos Cyclades Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2010 at 23:50:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The old version is nice too--Citron (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the old version I think it looks like it has no white balance.. I am not sure if the warm colors are due to the sun light or the wrong white balance and I updated to this version. Ggia (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I reverted to the first version.. has better colors, contrast.. white balance is due to the camera settings.. and I think the warm colors is due to the sun shine.. the other version has "cold" colors.. @Citron Thanks for the comment. Ggia (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support High value, high quality IMO. And this one is better to me, too.--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 20:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Snaevar (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but I do not like the light, which I find is too harsh on the backs of the lions. The mouth region of the first lion is too much is shadow and it gives an overall suboptimal texture and detail level of the lions. I think that a photo taken with low sun could have given a better result. The composition is good without being excellent. The DOF is good. --Slaunger (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:De Lelie - Aalten - Winter - 2009.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 17:17:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Walter Vaags - uploaded by Akoopal - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love this picture, most of all i like the composition. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great picture showing a classic type Dutch mill. It is part of the just completed Dutch mills project. GerardM (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per GerardM. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lack of details on the dark side of the mill, but good.--Jebulon (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support super --Pudelek (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please localize this shot? Thanks--Llorenzi (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support great winter photo. I updated the page a bit. Multichill (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like it very much --Schnobby (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 14:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ISn't it a bit tilted cw? --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it definitely seems slightly tilted to me. --Avenue (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the very middle part of the photo there is an edge of the building and a little left from it you see a drain. Both look perfectly vertical to me, so I don't get why you say it's tilted Sumurai8 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sumurai8 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sonnenuntergang über Wanfried Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 12:10:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Sunset over Wanfried. created, edited, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colours and exposure were chosen to emulate the mood when standing there. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better than the last one IMO. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark in foreground, and sky noisy, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, quite dark but I like it :-). --Aktron (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Спас Колев--MASHAUNIX 14:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support noise imo acceptable, good colours and atmosphere --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 11:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many problems (noise, dark and hazy foreground, unpleasant motion blur in trees at left), but I think it catches the mood well. --Avenue (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No FP-worthy impact for me. --99of9 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good landscape image and colors, albeit with some noise. MC10 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Спас Колев and Jebulon. LeavXC (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon --Pudelek (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aesthetically very pleasing to look at, especially the clouds and the light on those. Great atmosphere. Problems with motion blur (see annotation). Noise acceptable given the conditions. The biggest problem is for me the value. The areas on the ground are so dark that not many details are revealed there. 2/3 of the photo is sky and clouds. Could perhaps do well in photo contest. --Slaunger (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy 2 - May 2007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 04:04:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good one. looking at the pillars i sense some distortion. metadata would be great. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture is already a Featured Picture. --Bgag (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On Commons? --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There's no way you can say no to this image. This could very well be the best photograph of the Fontana di Trevi that I've seen. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Massively overdone HDR tonemapping. Looks absolutely unreal. --Niabot (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are distortions, but it is so sharp and vivid I can't say no. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full ACK Niabot --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Generally good, but strong distortions on the pediment (the four statues and the papal coat of arms, above, are really deformed). The proportions of the persons (tourists) are not natural.--Jebulon (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Niabot --Pudelek (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! I don't see any evidence of overdone HDR tonemapping though. Maybe just plain exposure fusion, if anything. But either way, the end result looks very realistic, sharp and vivid (per HFSW). LeavXC (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
just compare the reality original version to see what we mean. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks more like exposure fusion than HDR tonemapping though. The shadows are shown better in the overcast sky, and the building seems better exposed, IMO. If it is HDR tonemapping, then it was done very well. It looks natural and vivid. You can also see the building's text and details better in this version. LeavXC (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Peter Weis--MASHAUNIX 21:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cimosteve (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks very having artificial colors (per Niabot).. distortions also is a small problem.. Ggia (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great details and colors. Would have preferred without the tourists though. mgeo talk 17:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. --Slaunger (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (Original)[edit]

Support --Niabot (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 14:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 10:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird geometry at top of building. Great detail level and overall technical quality. Light not optimal. --Slaunger (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Falcon 9 COTS Demo F1 Launch.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 15:20:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Galactic Penguin SST - nominated by Ras67 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Falcon 9 launches with first Dragon spacecraft.
Support -- Ras67 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distorsion. Nothing special (feauturable) among the numerous rocket launching pictures made by NASA and uploaded here in "Commons". IMO. --Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry, I don't see any perspective distortion. Can you please be a bit more specific (there are a lot of ways and image can be distorted!)? Every launch is different. Are we going to vote oppose on every motorcycle image because there is "Nothing special among the numerous motorcycle pictures"? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, I don't know... Try !!--Jebulon (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support no distortion - perspective correction could be done, but changes the mood. composition is good. colours and sharpness are convincing. a sound shot, taken at the right moment. @jebulon: please be aware that although massive amounts of imagery are available, behind every launch a single person ~~pulled the trigger~~ pushed the button of his camera. if talking about numerous pictures of a certain topic, no further pictures of any sort of insect would be needed. but the attempt of fpc is slightly different: to evaluate each single item by its very own pros and cons - that counts for crickets and rockets. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In my opinion, the concrete structure and the pole with lights (right below) are disturbing (composition), and look leaning due to perspective distortion. I think I have now understood the FPC purpose in "Commons". But IMO, featuring photos made by NASA or US Army or other official agencies or professionals does not increase the value of the FPC project. Of course such pictures have their place in "Commons", but not in FPC, generally speaking. So it is not exactly the same with crickets, chemical elements, shells or prehistoric tools, which I may sometimes decline for many reasons, but which shows the work of "Commonists" here. I'm not sure I'm clear enough, sorry. About this one, I have nothing else to say :Nothing special among etc etc...--Jebulon (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what's featurable?--MASHAUNIX 21:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall good quality and well caught moment, but the irrelevant foreground elements in the lower left corner are distracting IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tillenberg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2010 at 21:31:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Doc_McCoy - uploaded by Doc_McCoy - nominated by Doc_McCoy -- Doc McCoy (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Doc McCoy (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment except for the stitching error I'd support this. Gnan garra 01:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful and well done but I can't support this until stitching errors are dealt with. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stitching errors. Tripod shadow. Unrealistic deformation : the different directions of the shadow is really disturbing to me. Are there two roads, or only one ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that's a 360° pano so of course this is one road. That shouldn't be the problem, I'm sure we've lots of 360°-featured-panoramas. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a problem to me, and my poor old brain refuses to understand "one road" when he sees two. Yes "we" have a lot of 360°-featured-panoramas, but surely very few with my support vote...--Jebulon (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon--MASHAUNIX 14:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice panorama. Good sharpness and light. Some minor stitching errors and a few white pixels in the sky (upper edge), which can easily be corrected. The tripod shadow is a pity. -- MJJR (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MDL.99.8.4-black.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 21:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Engraved antlers featuring horse representations. Magdalenian.

Info Engraved antlers featuring horse representations (three views of the same sample and a detail of the artwork). Magdalenian. Found in La Madelaine in 1863. Muséum de Toulouse, accession number MDL.99.8.4.

Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain -- Rama (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The history of prehistory. Nice and high value.--Jebulon (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose high ev. would support a recomposition with closeups/whole items only (note that the closeup is not flush with the edges). regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 14:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting and high technical quality and detail level. Very good light. I find the close-up very distracting in the image and I think it adds more confusion than enlightment. It took me a long while to realize it actually was a close-up of the upper item. I think that if it was cropped off, it would be a better and cleaner composition. The relative size of the item labels is large. On the one hand I find them distracting and too dominant. On the other hand they have a vintage look and are historic by themselves. All in all they introduce some confusion I think, but I have mixed feelings about them. --Slaunger (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary and joseph.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 03:40:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good dof and aperture. focus should be on joseph's/mary's face (or even both), composition could be better (adding some extra space above mary's head / changing pov), bokeh is fine including other figurines. chromatic and luminance noise are too much for a modern digitial image (could be easily reduced). please provide geotag and equipment by using Template:Photo Information or else. an enlarged image description would be helpful as well (where was this shot taken, what are the figurines made of, what size do the figurines have, etc.) regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There really should be more space above their heads and some information on where the image was taken.--MASHAUNIX 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photograph may be culturally biased.... so let´s have a little fun.... Put a caption to the picture!!!! What is Mary saying to Joseph? Or Joseph to Mary? What are they thinking? Be creative!!!! For example:
Joseph: Sorry Mary, we only have enough money for a pepperoni pizza...

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1-Can we be sure that figures are not copyrighted? There are thousands of Joseph and Mary figures . 2-Is there anything special about this specific figures? 3-Is the artist notable? Are they of special historic relevance? Are there any reasons for them to be specially good illustrations.--Garrondo (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to my comments above I find nothing special in this image and its content. Additionally I find background figures distracting.--Garrondo (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Border Collie liver portrait.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2010 at 15:34:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John Haslam - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by –hover Fly | chat? 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- –hover Fly | chat? 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice colors, but much too noisy (ISO 4.688...) and heavy chromatic aberrations --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, bad crop--Mbz1 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per kaʁstn--MASHAUNIX 18:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kaʁstn and Mbz1. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose impossible - the canon 350d does not create pictures whith such iso values. i am curious how this happened... good composition and interesting bokeh. alas chromatic and luminance noise are too much for a modern digital image under daylight conditions. thanks for keeping original size and desist from downsampling to "increase" quality. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EXIF destroying or faking, Paint Shop Pro 11.20 has made a good work in annihilating informative information. While I did not see chromatic aberrations, I saw a high level of chroma noise, I guess that the shot was made with ISO 800 to 1600... Grand-Duc (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlexanderNevskyCathedral-Sofia-6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 12:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Sofia, Bulgaria.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly overdone perspective correction, but beautiful and impressive anyway. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the crop could be tighter (from the top and the left)--MASHAUNIX 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support shame of the blue crane and yellow car left, and grey car right, but otherwise great picture, interesting and useful !--Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is an impressive monument and the photograph is up to its beauty. I like the stormy sky, which adds to the mood. The blue crane at left can be removed easily, Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Although I agree that the crop could be tighter to avoid the distracting elements (but it might ruin the whole perspective that way). I'm really glad to see such a nice picture of something that would otherwise be surrounded by parked cars. Those kill almost every idea of a good shot. --Laveol (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Let's feature this one, but please notice i've tried a derivative version without the distractive elements mentionned above.--Jebulon (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since the changes are so minor I suggest the retouched version to be uploaded over this one. Who should make the decision?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not want to cause any problem to this very featurable nomination. My changes are indeed very minor, regarding only details, and this picture (boths versions) is yours in my mind. It was a gift. Please feel free to upload over if you want.--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cassis cornuta 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2010 at 16:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cassis cornuta, Cassidae, Giant Helmet; Length 20 cm; Originating from the Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MASHAUNIX 17:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice one. keep on rollin'. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Odambrosio (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC) -- Sockpuppet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really like very much the way you captured the delicate "violet" shades. Strong congratulations for showing us these nature delights.--Jebulon (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I want to inform the community, that I have nothing to do with this sockpuppeting above. Pictures must be featured in a honest way --Llez (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- We know that, Llez! Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Amphiprion melanopus (Black anemonefish) in Heteractis magnifica (Magnificent anemone).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 04:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nhobgood - uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some reflections near the right lower corner. Is it possible to remove them? --Llez (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an aquarium shot, and that's why there could not have been a reflection. It might be some out of focus grass, and I'd rather leave it as is.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The composition isn't good enough IMO.--MASHAUNIX 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mashaunix --Snaevar (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viljo koirarannalla 17.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2010 at 10:54:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 10:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dogs can make impressions. This one was taken in Mäntyluoto dog beach and it illuminates just how much tollers love water sports. —kallerna™ 10:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is really too tight! I prefer this one, though it suffers from the same disease. In my opinion the suggestion of motion would be reinforced by adding some more space in front of the dog.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could work with the original file. —kallerna™ 12:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info New version uploaded. —kallerna™ 13:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info And also new version of the another one you liked. —kallerna™ 13:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I would have nominated this version myself if I could (I already have two active noms) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Awkward composition (he looks like he's about to run right off the side of the image, and even then you can't really tell he's running), and the WB seems too warm. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awww, the subject of the picture is so adorable I almost supported...but I'm afraid I don't think it's quite featured picture material. :) It's cute, and clear, and with a high resolution - but it's also awkward, and the blurry splashes are rather distracting. Despite my not feeling it's a featured picture type, I do like the picture. Regretfully, Clementina talk 13:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 14:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose confined composition, we've a better candidate --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lumakranen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2010 at 08:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Lumakranen is an old gantry crane in Hammarby sjöstad, Stockholm.

Info created by Ankara - uploaded by Ankara - nominated by Ankara -- Ankara (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ankara (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the composition is quite brutal. --Aktron (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 14:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Night shots and long exposures can produce slightly blurry pictures if camera not perfectly motionless. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 17:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the light on the crane and i think the technical quality and DOF is good for a night shot. My main concern is the composition. I find the crop too tight at the top and I think the composition is too centered. Like the snow covered slope-hill in the foreground though. Try again and experiment some more with the camera position. Use rules of third for the crane position if possible. --Slaunger (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huka Falls.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2010 at 04:38:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Avenue - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frankkas (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Washed out, nothing especially sharp, and the foreground is blurry and suffers from lighting issues and CA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little illustrative value--MASHAUNIX 14:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have increased the contrast and slightly sharpened it. --Avenue (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~tending towards oppose~~. I have mixed feeling regarding this nomination. On the one hand the colors of the water and the light are very good, and it is an interesting place. On the other hand I am not entirely convinced by the composition, ~~tha value~~ and this border of foreground foilage. There are some soft areas on the photo as well. I have marked one of them. ~~Something went wrong in postprocessing?~~ --Slaunger (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I compare that area in the current image with the original file from the camera (which is the first version in the file history), I think the latest version is significantly sharper, so the post-processing seems to have helped here at least. On the foreground foliage, there is a platform about 50 metres further away from the falls where you can take unobstructed photos (and I did), but I thought the angle wasn't nearly as impressive. As I recall, this was the least obstructed viewpoint between the falls and the platform. Regarding value, these falls rank among New Zealand's best known waterfalls, and are certainly the most famous in the North Island. This picture has remained the lead image in the falls' English Wikipedia article for several months, and IMO has more encyclopedic value than the nice artistic image it replaced. --Avenue (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Avenue. I agree with you the soft areas is not a postprocessing issue, and I also feel enlightened regarding the value so I retract that comment. I also understand that you have probably done what is reasonable to find an adequate spot for the photo. I am not entirely convinced about the foreground quality though so I keep my neutral vote. --Slaunger (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. And you're welcome. --Avenue (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- per Juliancolton Mulazimoglu (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alouatta seniculus 5perspective.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 20:31:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow to me.--Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice Mardetanha ^talk 23:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 10:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically precise, great value! --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Avenue (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good. Jonathunder (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Hardhead Duck 1015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 02:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by gnuchris - uploaded by gnuchris - nominated by gnuchris -- Gnuchris (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnuchris (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remove my former FPX, since a new version >2MP has been uploaded. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a new version above 2MP can someone please change this so people can support my nomination Gnuchris (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this truly great photo User: CathG Per FPC talk page discussion and poll -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow this really captures the beauty of this Duck, I see them all the time in Brisbane Botanic Gardens User: TravisWise Per FPC talk page discussion and poll -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this photo is jizz-worthy; the HDR photo flatters the beauty of this fowl preening itself beside the famous City Botanic Gardens pond. absolutely lovely! User: leongmingen Per FPC talk page discussion and poll -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Alvesgaspar, thoughts about these votes, please ? --Jebulon (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is ducking amazing User: Jacklord Per FPC talk page discussion and poll -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support yeah this photo is off the hook Per FPC talk page discussion and poll -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sense meatpuppetry, although the photo is nice. THENEWMONO (a real person) 04:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please someone take care of this issue and ask for a checkuser, other than me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems fair to cancel the support above, I don't doubt their sincerity and I'm grateful for the support and feedback, the slang used gave me a chuckle. I think many highly talented photographers have looked at the photo and neither supported or opposed it. I'm not sure what that means.Gnuchris (talk)

Oppose Noisy and the top right corner is not in focus.--Snaevar (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much grain.--Garrondo (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I will fix the noise and grain over the weekend, I work for a company that does large format digital photographic printing, I pretty much print all day, it looks ok 1:1 but when magnified the noise and grain is noticeable though most people just look at the duck and dont stand super close to it. I dont really agree that the top right should be in focus.Gnuchris (talk)

Oppose Background very noisy, DoF problem. Strong and ugly horizontal disturbing line above--Jebulon (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RhB Xrotd 9213 am Lago Bianco 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 05:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kabelleger - uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice action shot. high ev. composition obeys rule of thirds. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- By the way, could somebody please forward this picture to the Dutch railways, who seem to be unable to cope with more than a few centimetres of snow? ;) MartinD (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's the same problem with the German railways! --Schnobby (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same in France ! Funny (?) !!--Jebulon (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info French caption added--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice picture of something that I'd never have thought about by the sounds of thing neither has some places that actually experience snow Gnan garra 14:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting. Jonathunder (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good action shot, makes you want to know more. --Avenue (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 10:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool picture with an interesting complementary series. mgeo talk 17:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- May I join the bandwagon? Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Great photo kip (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:-Lindenstumpf,Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2010 at 17:13:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downsampled. would support a full resolution version. focus, sharpness, colours and composition seem very well-considered. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could you tell it is downsampled? I do not believe it is a legitimate reason to oppose the image --Mbz1 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes it is. see the guideline and the image's file history. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think that just because it used 69 MP and it isn't anymore isn't any legitimate reason for opposing. It's still well within the guidelines at 17 MP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A fine quality picture though not special enough to deserve the FP status. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice motive (natural monument, one of the 100 most beautiful Bavarian geotopes), nice lighning (cool blue sky, pleasant sunshine, appealing colors), good quality (sharpness is very good, no noise, no chromatic aberrations), composition is nice (interesting point of view, the photograher drawed the attention good to subject, I like the appropriate sign about the „Lindenstumpf“), good detail (resolution is good and big enough, details are nice. I actually don't like downscaling, but here it not harmful). Really clearly a FP to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent technical quality, well captured, geologically interesting structure, listed as natural monument and therefore with a high EV. --Cayambe (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A very nice landscape and good technical quality per kaʁstn. I also don't see the need for greater resolution (unless somebody wants to look after ants in the grass), but that information panel is just too distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is uninteresting, also giving some tough shadows from the trees. Perhaps if it was taken in the early morning or in the evening... LeavXC (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great image, but the thing at the right-bottom appears distracting to me.--MASHAUNIX 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Same as Mashaunix. Looks better to me without the sign --Jebulon (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually oppose downsampling, but I think that would be unfair here since the author went to the trouble of stitching an object which may have fit in one frame. I support per Carschten, this is an excellent illustration of the subject (which itself has geological interest... if not so stunning aesthetically). The information sign is an unusual choice, but since it's part of the scene when you approach this kind of object, I suppose it's valid, and it could easily be cropped if someone wanted to use the picture without it. --99of9 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent detail level and light. Interesting subject. Do not like the sign although it can easily be cropped as 99of9 mentions. I have indicated an odd looking area close to the sky with some washed out twigs. This looks like the kind of stuff I sometimes make if I try to selectively denoise the sky, but fail to make my masking good enough and by error include some elements, which should not have been smoothed. It could also be motion blur? It just looks a little odd. Composition is quite good although not the best I have seen. --Slaunger (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ if I may sneak my support in before this is closed.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Voting closed. --Elekhh (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 5 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dorflinde Haselbach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2010 at 17:12:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too tight crop to my taste. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 17:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop is fine IMO. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support but I think the crop was OK on the first one, too--MASHAUNIX 17:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image in general...--MrPanyGoff (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mashaunix. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very nice kip (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support prefer this one if I were choosing. What is that tree? --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salix caprea 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 13:39:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Wilder Kaiser - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 13:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was to nominate File:Zürsersee 01.JPG or File:AD2008June23 Silvaplana-Surlej.jpg, but this one is just simply beautiful and has a lot of EV. —kallerna™ 13:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! LeavXC (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very nice, but wonder if File:Salix caprea 03.jpg wouldn't a better alternative given that it illustrates another stage of the flower as well (although is a bit tightly cropped). --Elekhh (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but elegant. Nice.--Garrondo (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 10:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AWESOME Support for an AWESOME picture! <----- –hover Fly | chat? 19:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Avenue (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice. I would support this alternative if it were cropped larger. Jonathunder (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2010 at 18:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Besfort Guri (www.besiguri.wordpress.com/) - uploaded by James Micheel DuPont - nominated by James Micheel DuPont -- Mdupont (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdupont (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Contrast and sharpness too low. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with THFSW. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don´t like the perspective on the picture, plus the sharpness is too low.--Snaevar (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad colors (too gray or blue), bad detail (the trees seems to be somehow fused together as a single entity instead of nice branches etc. - that should be seen. Aktron (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mdupont (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC). ok you win, I agree. bin it. Mdupont (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ARS Lygodium microphyllum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 19:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Peggy Greb - uploaded by PDH - nominated by Mashaunix -- --MASHAUNIX 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --MASHAUNIX 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, oversaturated and not really sharp. --Niabot (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Niabot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs)
Oppose Poor saturation, and overall technical quality. --Snaevar (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nin - Church of St. Cross.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 22:27:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor technical quality. lacking details, deficient dof, nasty shadow in the foreground, CA at shadows on the church. sharpness and levels should be reworked. composition is okay - did you take another shot depicting the entrance? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sry, but underexposed and bad colors. --Aktron (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viljo koirarannalla 11 edit.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2010 at 17:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kallerna - uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Vomirencostard -- Vomirencostard (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition with a great impression of movement, very sharp. -- Vomirencostard (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support that's the best! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As promised. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose The composition is not FP in my opinion, sorry. --Swissalps (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC) -- Sockpuppet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Perhaps if the dog was placed on the other third of the frame...the cutoff splash leads me out of the frame. LeavXC (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not a perfect pix, as leavXC points out, but I still think that it couldn't get better. These dogs grow on you! –hover Fly | chat? 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The water that the dog splashes is cut out, while the right side of the image is useless. As LeavXC, I think the dog would have to be on the other side for the composition to be good enough.--MASHAUNIX 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb action shot. The composition works for me. --99of9 (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should be croped. --Mile (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just another dog ... what is the point GerardM (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moros y Christianos 22:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice but per GerardM --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green-veined-White-(7).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 15:53:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green-veined White Butterfly on Purple Flower

Info created by Ken_Billington - uploaded by Ken_Billington - nominated by Ken_Billington -- Ken Billington (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ken Billington (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2010 (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) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iceleaf.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2010 at 03:11:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by bryan.calloway (talk)
Support -- Bryan.calloway (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting subject matter, but unfortunately, it is noisy and blurry. I think softening it a bit would make it much better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking depth of field. The only thing, in my opinion that is in focus is that icesculpture. --Snaevar (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sry, but there is too much of pictures like this one on Commons. It should have some unique value, like depicting some unordinary species and of course - to be technically perfect. --Aktron (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Aktron--MASHAUNIX 17:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vianden Chateau.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2010 at 18:39:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cimosteve - uploaded by Steve Cimolino - nominated by Cimosteve -- Cimosteve (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cimosteve (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good composition. could need a rework on levels and sharpness. distracting branches and top of church (?) on the right should be removed/cropped. would support an edit. the haze in the right part of the skies is rather awkward - was this natural or is this some sort of stitching issue? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That with the sky on the right is natural, it was on a rainy day, do you think I have to crop this part of the picture? Steve Cimolino (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you could hardly crop that area without destroying your composition. the only thing you could to is retouch it - but since it is natural i would leave it as it is. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 18:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Media needing categories" Could you add one. Przykuta → [edit] 19:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done done.--Jebulon (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Garrondo (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sharpness thing per Peter Weis, just under my bar for full support. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Callyspongia plicifera (Azure Vase Sponge).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2010 at 13:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 18:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Either strong chromatic aberration or invalid filtering. The right side of the sponge tells the story. --Niabot (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expected this comment. It's not really a chromatic aberration, it's especially a natural effect of this sponge with the light, see it. --Citron (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this kind of sponge and i know that it "glows" under the right conditions. But the right side tells me that it isn't the natural effect alone. You can clearly see that you have strong violet/blue colors at the right edge, looking a bit further down you see a "ear" with a left border showing yellow coloring. This is a strong indication for CA. --Niabot (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But it is very minor. The subwater pictures aren't easy. IMHO, it's not a good reason to eliminate this picture. --Citron (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Maybe it is a natural effect, but there is CA too, IMO. Please see annotation--Jebulon (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support CA is so minor. This is otherwise excellent. Maedin\^talk 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --Moros y Christianos 22:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Condylactis gigantea (Giant Anemone - yellow & pink tip variation).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2010 at 13:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Zhuk (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 18:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Perhaps good. I'm not an expert of this kind of pictures. To me, oversaturated or unnatural colors, but it's only a opinion of somebody without experience--Miguel Bugallo 01:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Hamandir Sahib (Golden Temple).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2010 at 16:02:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Oleg - uploaded by Oleg - nominated by Oleg -- Oleg (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Oleg (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice one. consider increasing sharpness and adjusting levels. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 00:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great picture Breawycker (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Very nice image. MC10 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support great picture Please log in to vote. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Очень хорошо! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Yes, the temple is beautiful but the image quality and composition are not up to FP standards. The subject is tilted (or distorted), a little overexposed (which affects contrast) and not sharp enough. The compositon seems a bit random to me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reduced exposure and increased sharpness as you have asked. Thanks. Oleg (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot better now, thanks! But the geometric distortion still needs to be corrected. The tilt of the buildings at left is disturbing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very busy composition that deemphasizes a striking and important subject. Not FP quality. Steven Walling 02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! Very nice quality. Plus good composition and most importantly the subject itself is awesome! Thanks. APTOC (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great subject, but composition and angle are not FP standard IMO. It feels cramped to me, and much of the main dome is obscured. --Avenue (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2010 at 09:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Saint Catherine's Monastery, Sinai, Egypt
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very good, and I was going to support, but the CAs are imo too heavy. I added notes where they are very blunt. If they were removed (or maybe reducing is enough) from there, I will support. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've tried something as light as possible, and uploaded a corrected version. Could you please check again ? Thanks --Jebulon (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 18:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CA indeed should be corrected. --Elekhh (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've tried something as light as possible, and uploaded a corrected version. Could you please check again ? Thanks--Jebulon (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly very good, but the dark rock in the foreground intrudes a bit too much for me, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good image and great subject but I think you should put here this version of yours.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Jebulon reduced the CA. Thanks to him. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is indeed better now. I like it more than the pano suggested by MrPanyGoff as is more focussed on the interesting architecture and cars are less distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per mrpanygoff. uploading a new version over the current nomination is very disturbing - no matter how few adjustments have been made - consider uploading an edit under a new filename and provide it as an alternative on the nomination page. current annotations won't make much sense with the updated version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the change is a minor technical improvement, than I find much preferable to be uploaded on top of the existing one, even by current nominations. --Elekhh (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support now: good work, Jebulon! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ville de Québec01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2010 at 16:02:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by bgag -- Bgag (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!--MASHAUNIX 18:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice framing and good light. I would have preferred it without the ferry obscuring the buildings, but looking to other images it seems to be docked there most of the time.--Elekhh (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Great image. MC10 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A wonderful composition and subject! It's a shame that the image quality is not up to FP standards. Why this weird exposure choice (1/1000, f/5)? Was the camera in automatic mode?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anime Girl simplified for typical US understanding of the world.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 17:28:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good illustration and applicability to use in articles. although title and german description do not meet encyclopaedic standards and should be changed to increase neutrality. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info For those, who do not know, Niabot has created an FP of a the same girl in a different view and pose. If you want to undestand the background for this nomination, please cf. en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ecchi. --Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Econt (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We don't need a second FP of the same subject. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically very good, but agree with Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. I am also uncomfortable with the idea of FPs incorporating position statements in the attribution field. --Avenue (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As said, this is a exceptionally good image, but is essentially "Anime Girl" with a different angle and background. But regardless of that, at this angle, I find the crop distracting (would have liked to see the whole girl :-), I did not find that to be an issue on "Anime Girl"). Furthermore, the railing is better on "Anime Girl" (i.e. glass panels & horizontal bars). G.A.S 05:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I know that this is the same girl. But the discussion at EN told me that a good composition is a bad composition. At least at a point if you can't find any more good reasons to oppose an image, that you find offensive (for some reason i can't understand it as an educated being). So i have thrown away the composition guides and gave up upon the misunderstood dutch angle, since no one noticed that it has bigger meaning than just depicting something evil. Maybe Hollywood is to blame to use it without thought in always the same repeating patterns. If you look at the comparison you can clearly see that i was giving it a thought. That means either that the voters (on EN) don't know anything about composition or they are actually playing dump, to make a point based on prudery. I don't really care about the outcome of this voting, basically i wanted to hear the thoughts on composition (as G.A.S. did) and how much anyone cares about the image description. --Niabot (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen a discussion on en.Wikipedia and I can only say that some people really have issues. I'd support this image only if it's not pretty much the same image as already featured one. --Lošmi (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support it too if we didn't already have the other one. I like the other one's composition more, so I wouldn't want to replace it with this. --Avenue (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Lošmi said, en.wiki has issues with anime-related topics. Do not let it bother you. But I still believe the original is superior to this one, and would not want it replaced with this one. G.A.S 20:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others--MASHAUNIX 17:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- recycled image with deliberately offensive title kip (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above --Karelj (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Commons NPOV rules, I don´t think neutrality matters. Commons is not an encyclopaedia. --Snaevar (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, that Commons is part of Wikipedia and Wikipedia is encyclopedia. --Karelj (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "Commons" is not a part of Wikipedia.--Jebulon (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offical NPOV policy: "Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites. [...] For the reasons given above, it may not always be possible for file names and related descriptive text to be "neutral"." From Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. --Snaevar (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fortesque Bay Sunrise 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 21:19:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by noodle snacks - nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks is such a good photographer and his landscapes are exquisite. One can pick any of his landscapes at random and come out with an FP -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This version is already featured.--Snaevar (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is nicer. Stunning. THENEWMONO (a real person) 04:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors much more natural in the already featured picture.--Garrondo (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per garrondo. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 20:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Garrondo. --Avenue (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Garrondo. --Elekhh (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Garrondo.--Miguel Bugallo 22:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --- Marmoulak (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assange.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 23:25:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Robbespierre - uploaded by Robbespierre - nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great portrait of Julian Assange like a en:Barack Obama "Hope" poster. Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not neutral.--Jebulon (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Us Jebulon. Sorry, not neutral--Miguel Bugallo 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Really not the right time and place for this nomination -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure where is it in the guidelines that an image has to be (politically?) "neutral", but anyway is below 2Mpix. --Elekhh (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in the guidelines, but Isn't neutrality a "Commons" policy ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neutrality isn´t a Commons policy either, see here. ~~But isn´t the fact that the image is below 2Mpix reason enough?~~ --Snaevar (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whether or not neutrality were to be taken into account, I wouldn't support this image either way. It's nothing astounding to me in terms of artwork, and it should at least be in svg form. And then there's always the small size of it. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Assange is notable. This specific art work probably is not notable in itself, of no artistic merit, of no historic merit and not specially illustrative.--Garrondo (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The arguments against stink. Here you can read my point of view.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Still, you don't give any objective reason for your support other than the stinking smell of the opposes. In what way is this picture special enough to justify a promotion to FP, other than the oportunity (we could say opportunism) of the nomination? In case of promotion, will it be delisted next month, when the issue has already cooled down? Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Answer A need to balance is one reason. Asking for objective reasons is in itself a folly, this picture is certainly as interesting as all the bugs and kitties that do make it. Your assumption that a picture like this would be delisted demonstrates your objectiveness again. Given the pace of the publications of WikiLeaks material, I am sure that next year we will still be hearing from them. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question Must we feature this picture only because Julian Assange piss off the United States ? That stinks, in my opinion --Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Template:Answer This picture is an example of a category of pictures where we are extremely weak. This has everything to do with the prevailing notion that featured pictures is about photos and about pretty. Mr Assange represents a controversial organisation, an organisation that is not about pissing off the USA. GerardM (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- way more political than any featured picture I've seen kip (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where does it say that a picture cannot be political and how does it relate to what Commons is about ?? GerardM (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ignoring the subject matter and evaluating it as an image, I do not see this as FP material. Jonathunder (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I do agree with GerardM that "bugs and kitties" are way too common on FP but this picture is not the answer. Elfalem (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question what would be the answer, voting against critters to make a point ??? The only reasonable response is allowing pictures of other categories like this one. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, i converted image to svg and to hires png. Not too hard, so i guess that discussions about the technical aspects are solved(?). About the content. Image is nice example of political propaganda poster about the current topic. Especially i like the text "Honor" in the bottom, because it is so provocative. Nice touch i would say. In more generally i think we should encourage people to create more images about the current topics not less. --Zache (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~, because this motive is a complete fabrication for Wikimedia Commons. If this motive was part of "operation paperstorm" or something similar, it could perhaps be used as a document for current events. But as far as I've seen "anonymous" has it's own interpretation of the iconic Obama portrait, that is not identical to this one. --81.173.132.80 17:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture does not meet the minium 2 million pixels needed for an FP. --Snaevar (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should be properly spelled "Honour". Assange is Australian. Rama (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out of scope, as long as it isn't used elsewhere. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think most of the artwork we see here about politicians, recent and past, isn't neutral; either puts them in a charming light of bad one. I kind of respect Julian Assange, but in this case I don't think I really see something particularly feature-able. A good photograph would've probably been nicer. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Temple of Bel, Palmyra 11.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 00:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dissorted perspective --Snaevar (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best view for a chapitel.--Garrondo (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pyramid of Cheops - side.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 00:22:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kallerna - uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny and unusual view of one of the most famous monument in the world -- Jebulon (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a different perspective is refreshing for highly photographed locations Gnan garra 01:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the perspective, but the bottom barrel distortion is disturbing. --Elekhh (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special for me --Pudelek (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh --Snaevar (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-uxegney-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2010 at 08:41:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

One of the 75mm guns in the casemate de Bourges West (HDR), inside the fort d'Uxegney (in France).

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question what is it? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- read the description. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - difficult with a small description without links...and in French (dense for a non-French-speaker) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read it. --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack a proper description. Yann (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I tried to complement the descriptions. But the image needs a better file name imo. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very important chromatic aberration --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Archaeodontosaurus--MASHAUNIX 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and unbalanced color (too much yellow). I neither like the unbalanced composition with the light at the right.--Garrondo (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For something like this multiple angles I think are more educational. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Animated gun turret.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2010 at 05:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Emoscopes - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good nomination !--Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes it is indeed! --Murdockcrc (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Scewing (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 19:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are there four of those yellow things? Is the green stuff (shell) ejected and if yes, is it depicted in the animation? bamse (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yellows are gunpowder, they explode and give kinetical energy to granate. --Mile (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that, my question was why there are four packages of these gunpowders? Also I was wondering whether the granate is visibly ejected in this animation. bamse (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Why 4 ? Well i suppose it depends on caliber (mass) of granate. Perhaps there are just 2 in smaller tubes. --Mile (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tornadowhiz

Per talk page consensus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As long as the image is accurate I doubt anybody could oppose. I certanly can't.--Garrondo (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Slaunger (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Avahi 5 face noir.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2010 at 23:05:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Celebrating the work of Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this one very expressive and impressive ! Please look here for further informations about this animal-- Jebulon (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking and educational composition. Steven Walling 01:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another triumph of Archaeodontosaurus' proficiency with focus stacking, delivering an image witha depth of field impossible to achieve with conventional means. Rama (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Hi Didier, are you sure this is not the alien who crashed in Roswell in 1947? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice ET :). --Elekhh (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you for this surprise and your votes. This is not an alien skull but a new mutation that affects the descendants of Commons contributors. By dint of watching too much in our cameras, this is what awaits us! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intriguing picture of a Woolly Lemur's skull--Tornadowhiz

Per talk page consensus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Creepy... Maybe we should censor it since may give some people nightmares...:-)--Garrondo (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Cajal-Restored.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 07:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Clark University (1899) -Restored by Garrondo from File:Cajal.PNG -uploaded by Garrondo - nominated by Garrondo -- Garrondo (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Garrondo (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe an explanation on the file description page could help. Or a link to the wp article. Done in french.--Jebulon (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done-Description and link to article done for Spanish and English. Link to article also done in polsky.--Garrondo (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support historical value --Snaevar (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an encouragement for the restoration job. In the past, we had in "Commons" very good "restorators", but they are no more active and it is a pity in my opinion. I think that we have to support this kind of work.--Jebulon (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a problem on the file page with the licenses. The same license template appears twice, and there is a problem with a superfluous ending brace character. --Slaunger (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoneProblems fixed. Thanks for the comment.--Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Jebulon --Schnobby (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Chichen Itza 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 19:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dschwen - uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 19:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 19:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this version of the photo series is already featured. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition, focus, sharpness and colours are good. sadly distracting amounts of tourists destroying the aura of this illustration and the landmark itself. metadata should be added. you might as well want to see this photograph by the same author, which has been featured already. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry kaʁstn, but... it's the same image File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg and this image? Can not be this image FP? Can not be FP another image of Chichén Itzá? I think that this image can be FP, but I don't know all, I'm sure that I don't know all: Can you explain to me what happens?--Miguel Bugallo 00:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please look that I didn't oppose. And I don't FPX. So of course the picture could vote featured. I just want to mark that there is a (somewhat similar) shot from the same photo series which is already faetured. Nothing different. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I must express to me in English, in Spanish, it would be different. Ok, Carschten. I have already observed that, but your words are a observation to be the image FP. Rules? Rules nonwritten? I can accept the norms nonwritten of the community. My question is this: As they are? If I knew those rules, perhaps I had not proposed this image (Sorry: very poor english)--Miguel Bugallo 20:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Español(Spanish): Deseo hacer constar que el hecho de que haya propuesto esta imagen no se debe a un acto que pretenda promocionar mi identidad ni la identidad de cualquier otro. Ultimamente he estado en México, he intentado hacer fotos de este mismo objeto, y me he quedado sorprendido de la calidad de esta foto: Las mías no valen ni para ser propuestas para imagen de calidad, tras ver esta. Si he dado con esta imagen es porque he tenido que intentar categorizar las mías. Más vale que proponga esta imagen y no las mías--Miguel Bugallo 20:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Jebulon (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to Miguel´s statement above: Those two pictures, the one kaʁstn pointed out and this one are of the same subject, but from different viewpoints. No guideline or rules, written or unwritten says that two similar pictures can´t be voted as FP. The only purpose for kaʁstn pointing out a similar image seems to be that other users could make use of that information, for individual accessment of the picture if they personally like having two similar pictures as FP, or not. I hope that this explanation clarifies the issue.--Snaevar (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lighting and balanced composition. Steven Walling 02:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok Snaevar (in response to...). I understand.--Miguel Bugallo 12:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Nice, informative, colorful.--Garrondo (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coloured, textured craft card edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 18:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Let's celebrate the images of other authors. Created and uploaded by MichaelMaggs, edited and nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 19:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different. I support both the image and the idea of nomination.--Jebulon (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- doesn't seem very interesting to me kip (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nicely done, and harder to do well than it looks. Jonathunder (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- simple subjects can be hard to get a wow result Gnan garra 15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the arrangement and colors enough, although another user would complain that the subjects are cut (unless it's a ...portrait of paper?). --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would appreciate a diffrent arrangement of the colored cards. In comparision to other pictures with color theme, this one doesn´t quite pull it's weight.--Snaevar (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a good photo, and close to how well a photo of color-textured paper sheets can be. However, form a composition point of view I think that Michaels existing colored pencil FP is sets a higher bar for this type of studio shots. --Slaunger (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it.--Garrondo (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per kip - unsigned vote by User:Ozgurmulazimoglu, counted too --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 21:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Taxiarchos228 - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great architectual beauty, great light and composition. Very good image quality. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not absolutely perfect (motion blur of the flag, harsh light over the information pannel, text above the gate not perfectly sharp), but otherwise I agree with Slaunger.--Jebulon (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good - building lit nicely, composition good. The night sky is a little too blue for me, but otherwise good! THENEWMONO (a real person) 04:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support love the architecture. is the sky real? or did you blue it up a little. love the colors. background lights distracting though but oh well. bryan.calloway
the sky is not blue up, it's real. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Maedin\^talk 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ganz sicher. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I really like it.--Garrondo (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mulazimoglu (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pfahlbaumuseum Unteruhldingen Bronzezeitdorf Unteruhldingen SO 2010 04 10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 04:19:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by AFBorchert - uploaded by AFBorchert - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are quite a few quality images in Category:Stilt houses in Unteruhldingen but I tend to agree that this one might be the best, due to it's successful illustration of the stilt structure and several types of façade configuration. Would have been better if the tourist were wearing some more neutral colours, but is still ok. --Elekhh (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and high EV--Jebulon (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would definitively vote for this image as VI for the mentioned category. What I don't see as FP on this image is that the main subject is right in the center. I don't see the rule of thirds or the golden rule being applied here, which makes the composition less interesting. Look at this image for instance. This composition is certainly more appealing (and is already FP). --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I nominated this image because it provides a reader with a look inside. There are paintings on the wall that are clearly seen in one of the windows. It adds EV to the image, and IMO higher EV is more important than a better composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sphinx of Giza 9059.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 09:28:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO too much contrast and oversharpened, not the best one of Great Sphinx of Giza. —kallerna™ 13:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a short Comment: good polarizing filter, good light + weather, good camera (EOS 5D Mk II), good lens (EF 24-70mm L 1:2,8) + 3-5% saturation. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna--MASHAUNIX 17:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support might not be the most interesting composition of the sphinx, nonetheless a technically good image. obeys rule of thirds, good focus. some luminance noise in the shadows. nice to see that there are some folks around working with dpp. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- To harsh shadows, uninspiring composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bad composition. mgeo talk 17:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Snaevar (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beinisvord, westcoast of suduroy, faroe islands.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2011 at 17:10:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Erik Christensen - uploaded by Arne List - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing landscape but at this very low resolution you cannot evaluate any detail of it. --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2010 (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 small, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:33, 23 December 2010 (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:Mount Worth National Park02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 02:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Striking colour, but over-exposed with badly distorted leaf silhouettes at upper left, and some CA at upper right. Composition also lacks focus. --Avenue (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Snaevar (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, of course I have a reason for it. In my opinion the picture lacks focus and illustrative merit. ~~--85.220.118.18 01:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)~~ (forgot to sign in)--Snaevar (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Avenue--Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 16:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adi Holzer Werksverzeichnis 850 Lebenslauf.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 21:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Adi Holzer - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The life is like a tightrope walking. Handcolored etching «Lebenslauf» (English: «Life» or even «Biography») by Adi Holzer 1997. The size of the etching is 490 x 395 mm. More information in the German description. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise. See annotations for details.--Snaevar (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I would love to support this magnficent picture, but I agree all too much with Michael Gäbler... :'( –hover Fly | chat? 19:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per annotations...--Jebulon (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snaever brings up some good points, but I'm too impressed by the quality. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Noise removed and sharpened slightly at the left end of balancing pole.--Snaevar (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again. Is there symbolism in this? --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Eye of Providence shows the presence of the Holy Trinity. The castle Greifenstein remembers of the words A Mighty Fortress Is Our God in the hymn by Martin Luther. The cross on the grave and the black entrance of the tunnel are symbolical of the death, and the open end of the tunnel is symbolical of the Resurrection. The House on the right side remembers of the saying by Jesus: In my Father’s house are many rooms (John 14,2). --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OIC. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Naqsh-e Jahan Square by Pascal Coste 1.jpg

File:Cathartes aura -Santa Teresa County Park, San Jose, California, USA -adult-8a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 02:19:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Don DeBold - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the crop is probably too tight on the one side, but I still love this picture. Maybe the excellent composition and lighting can make up for it. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! Ggia (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pose and lighting, but I think the sharpening halo is too strong. DoF a bit shallow too. --Avenue (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 16:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tornadowhiz
- Per talk page consensus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --Lošmi (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:L Wercollier La rampante.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2010 at 15:44:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

InfoLa rampante (creeping creature), bronze sculpture by Lucien Wercollier in Luxembourg City, photographed and uploaded by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info L Wercollier is considered one of the major sculptors of the 2nd half of the 20th century. La rampante is from 1962 and is 4 m long. For permission see file description.

Support -- Cayambe (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I really prefer the subject to be either entirely in the sun or under a shade (but not that of a tree) since it kinda distorts it. Plus, a better composition could be sought and maybe a wee bit of focus.--Laveol (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Laveol. I also find disturbing the break in the trees in the background.--Garrondo (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image but not FP because of the distracting background. I like this one more. --Elekhh (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lead electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2010 at 01:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Including three similar electrolytics is too redundant for my liking. Are there any other options to enhance the diversity? --99of9 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I chose this setup to reach a nice composition. I think I did great. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tornadowhiz (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Per talk page consensus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Chemistry is much nicer with these images.--Garrondo (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having the two in the left and right corners does make for a better composition, in my opinion, via rule of thirds (or something similar). Overall excellent. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 00:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peter Ustinov black & white Allan Warren.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 10:49:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info - Celebration of other authors' images - Created and uploaded by Allan warren - nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- This is an excellent portrait but relevant information is missing: the date of the photograph. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I put the year which is known from the other two photos of Ustinov by Warren, obviously taken at the same time.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good --Schnobby (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice one. good to see a nomination of a analogue photograph at this quality, which is not from one of the major archives. could you provide additional information by using Template:Photo Information and provide some input on why and where this picture was taken? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done i mailed to mr warren, and he provided the metadata. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very good, thanks. Didn't he specify where exactly in London was this?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the london info is not part of his or my information. it was on the image page already, but outside the summary box, so i put it inside. i do not want to spam mr warren about further information on the picture, since i pointed out that it is up to him and his generosity to provide additional information to his photographs. nonetheless very remarkable knowledge on equipment and settings after all those years. you can get mr warren's email address on his homepage. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 14:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Grainy but good. --Avenue (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural and affected pose. Too grainy for my taste. It is a good thing we have this picture in "Commons", but in my opinion, it is not featurable.--Jebulon (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I like the pose, which I find characteristic of Peter Ustinov. But also have to agree with Jebulon on the quality issues. Even considering that the picture was considerably upscaled by the scanning process (relative to the negative), this is too much grain indeed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree, the pose is characteristic of this great actor.--Jebulon (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question how can you tell it was upscaled? we do not have any information on the method of digitalization. seeing the image at 100 percent and noticing a certain amount of pixelation and unsharpness must not necessarily be an indicator for upscaling. think of the possibilities of digital image editing - these results may as well been achieved by post processing. there are too many technical aspects unknown to make a clear statement here. a 35mm negative has lots of reserves for digitalization which might not have been used at large - i agree that there is a certain tendency towards bad scanning process. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again a miscomprehended understanding of analogue photography if voting against grain. i've stated this in the past and i will state it now: by opposing such imagery for grain (as only reason) is fatal to most imagery of the second half of the twentieth century (older images will pass the grain argument mostly due to their historic value). these pictures will consequently hardly ever be picture of the day and reach the masses. i am aware of the guideline encouraging grainless images. reading the description of the noise paragraph reveals the digital point of view (ISO notion from 200 to 1600). but even worser - the example images make a clear statement: noiseless digital image good - old damaged noisy analogue picture bad. furthermore encouraging the people to remove noise via filtering is counterproductive to preserving the intrinsic value of analogue photography. rules can be broken and guidelines can be changed.

if there are any signs of damage to an old analogue image i am perfectly fine with restoring these damages or other ~~making other~~ adjustments (like increasing sharpness lost during the digitalization progress, increasing contrast and colour lost due to age, etc.) but i strongly oppose any tinkering with such photographs just to please the eye of digital photographers and editors unaware of the past and especially unaware of the meaning of analogue filmspeed. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike to comment comments, but maybe it is a bit presumptuous to write that opponents to this nomination are unaware of the past and especially unaware of the meaning of analogue filmspeed . Maybe.--Jebulon (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info -- I know the image was upscaled because no negative, or even a paper copy, is likely to be more 1700 mm wide ;o). As for the thesis that most photographic images of the second half of the twentieth century are as grainy as this one is plain wrong. I had an analogue lab and have some idea of what I'm talking about (including the film speed...). Of course, grain could be added artificially - I did it in some occasions - but I don't think it is the case here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again a miscomprehended understanding of what i wrote above.
@ jebulon this is not about opponents to this nomination this is about opponents without other arguments than grain.
@ alvesgaspar my thesis (if it is one) is not that all imagery of the second half of the twentieth century consists of black and white photographs shot with kodak 400 film used for this image, resulting in the same amount of grain. my point is that even digitalized analogue photographs shot with low film speeds (anything beneath ISO 100 and comparable) will have visible grain from a digital point of view to the issue. not to speak of digital photographs shot with ISO 100 who got opposed because of grain on this very platform. the question must not be: how low can you get? (note the ambiguousness).
the exact measurements of the negative or print used to produce this digitalization are unknown to us, as well as the technical method for digitalization. anything in that direction would be mere guesswork. feel free to contact mr warren and ask him about both if you want to make a well-founded statement. post processing did not refer to the digital adding of grain, but to the possibilities of up- and downscaling an image.
@ both DO NOT PANIC! this is not about you (i don't even know you, nor do you know me). i am not particular interested in your qualifications for voting here (assuming good faith i think that even unexperienced users can contribute and make their statements). i therefore do not challenge your integrity. this is about the current guidelines on the issue of grain, and votes made accordingly to it. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's panicking? The only sign of panic I see is a large red and black signature all over the thread! Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who's panicking ? Alles gut für mich. But I still think that in this case, "grainy" is a sufficient argument for decline, even if it is the only one, sorry. I do not panic. My only qualification for voting here is that I am a "Commons" user, in accordance to the guidelines (even to the future guidelines).--Jebulon (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the answer is : 42.--Jebulon (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see a listing of all featured photographs broken down by decade. Any way to find this out? @Peter_Weis does make a good point that age has to be taken into consideration when judging the technical value of a FPC, and I'd bet some time periods are underrepresented here because of this. I also think @Alvesgaspar has a point that the large red and black signature is a bit of an eyesore... Scewing (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Snaevar (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A colour photography would be better.--MASHAUNIX 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question could you please state why you think a colour photography would be better than a b/w photography? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it shows more of the nature of the object.--MASHAUNIX 15:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hard to believe that one of the best photos in Commons cannot gain enough support for FP. No matter upscaled or not, it is perfectly printable on A3 format.--MrPanyGoff 08:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a nice grainy b&w pic of Peter Ustinov. --Lošmi (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Sepia latimanus (Reef cuttlefish) dark coloration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 02:17:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some strong CA, but not on the main subject. --Avenue (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Saqqara BW 4.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2010 at 16:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good technical quality, but (to me) uninspiring composition. Maybe a more dramatic or extreme perspective could work. bamse (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also find the composition ambiguous, in particular the left crop. --Elekhh (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nazare 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 13:25:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MRB - uploaded by MRB - nominated by George Chernilevsky --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nice photo, was found and noticed as good candidate by Murdockcrc
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Naturally it has my vote! --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support mine too! mgeo talk 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I know very well the place and this is a nice view indeed (please see here). However the image quality is not up to FP standards: overexposure (affecting the detail of the houses) and geometric distortion are the obvious flaws. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm frustrated (on both photos) by the missing of the left part of the city. There is surely a rational and rationale explanation, but I think the composition is not good: could support a crop right, and needs an extension left.--Jebulon (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info - Not possible due to the geometry of the terrain (please check the geographic location of my picture) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't quite convince me.--MASHAUNIX 17:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martin Kozák (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC) – Rather nice, but light and contrast is quite strange.[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Malkovich KVIFF.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2010 at 09:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by che - nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose downsampled. fail focus, chromatic noise, unbalanced light conditions (intention of a dark to light gradient is good, but the outcome is not very satisfying). dof and bokeh are okay. please provide additional information on equipment used to create this shot (lense, possible filters, etc.) regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting (right part of the head on shadows) and slightly OOF. --Murdockcrc (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Small-Tortoiseshell-(9).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 15:49:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Small Tortoisehell Butterfly on Rudbeckia

Info created by Ken_Billington - uploaded by Ken_Billington - nominated by Ken_Billington -- Ken Billington (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ken Billington (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking depth of field, has white spots and I could actually find a better picture of an Small Tortoiseshell on Commons.--Snaevar (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Snaevar, although I disagree in some points.--MASHAUNIX 17:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emperor-Dragonfly-(8).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 15:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ken_Billington - uploaded by Ken_Billington - nominated by Ken_Billington -- Ken Billington (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ken Billington (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose top right wing of the emperor dragonfly is somewhat blurry, and I would like a solid background.--Snaevar (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a very difficult shot and we can't expect the same quality standards of a still subject. Let's wait and see the assessment of the macro specialists. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support considering that it is not a still subject. Ggia (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a non macro specialist, I like it !--Jebulon (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is good considering the extremely difficult shooting situation. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion it really was a very difficult shot. I admire the author for taking such a picture. I think I wouldn't be able to do it. On the other hand, the dificulty of taking a picture does not imply it's great value. It was a difficult shot but the effect isn't strong enough to promote it as a FP. Most of the dragonfly's body is OOF and one wing is covering a part of its thorax and the legs. The head is only partially visible. -- Von.grzanka (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I have to agree... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I supported the image.. because the image with the dragonfly flying has high EV. Ggia (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose downsampled. luminance noise of ISO 1000 is still visible in the bokeh (which is rather poor and should be replaced by a solid background). dof could be better for a view from the side (the whole dragonfly should be in focus). please provide information on the equipment you used (besides the camera body) by adding Template:Photo Information. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info the lens used was the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L, hope this additional information helps. -- Ken Billington 21:30, 19 December, 2010
Oppose The key value of this image is the flight. Unfortunately the quality is not as high as that of the already featured File:Thomas Bresson - Aeshna cyanea-1 (by).JPG. If we didn't have a better example already, I would have suported. Sorry. As others have said, this is a very difficult shot to take, and you certainly have my congratulations. --99of9 (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The species photographed by Thomas Bresson was actually "Aeshna cyanea". This image is of the species "Anax imperator". -- Ken Billington 21:30, 19 December, 2010
Question Why is the background grey? --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The background is the surface of the pond, which was completely out of focus. The subject, however, was well lit by the sunlight, which brought out the colours in good contrast --Ken Billington (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bank-of-america-seattle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 17:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rahula59 - uploaded by Rahula59 - nominated by Rahula59 -- Rahula59 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rahula59 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I like the distortion in this, espcially the way that the road on the left appears. –hover Fly | chat? 19:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support i agree with the above. however there is a weird black spot you missed. little to the right of the white building in the center with the pointed top. bryan.calloway, not featured
Info Oops, I'm gonna try and fix that, tough I've worked much on this I hadn't seen this spot beforehand.
Oppose I dislike very much deformed panoramas, yes. But I furthermore find some technical problems: bad crop and glass reflection right, unfortunate shadow left (please see annotations). And...I dislike deformed panoramas very much.--Jebulon (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info For your information, it is impossible to have not deformed panoramas (plus, this is almost a 360 degrees panorama with 35 photos). I'm sorry I couldn't break the glass for you, it would have been a pleasure. And the shadow and the bad crop give the image a context.
Oppose per Jebulon. LeavXC (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, really bad light. --Aqwis (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, also per Jebulon.--MASHAUNIX 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the light (too dark image at right and left) and I'm agree with Jebulon--Miguel Bugallo 00:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose would love to support were it not for some stitching errors -- KlausFoehl (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hacha grande from papagayo pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2010 at 10:02:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Yummifruitbat - uploaded by Yummifruitbat - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A geocode would be nice though. --Murdockcrc (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info it is not my image and I cannot provide geocode.. Ggia (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have added the geocode to the page from the wp article coords. Amazing pic. Mdupont (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- beautiful Scewing (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Garrondo (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 00:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shadow and light effects, spectacular. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LeavXC (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Independência ou Morte.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 20:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Tonyjeff - nominated by Lecen -- Lecen (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lecen (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Of all versions colors in the case seem the most ackward for a painting. Too greeny and oversaturated.--Garrondo (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor digital quality unfortunately, that's a good quality oil painting. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Brienz from above.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 22:44:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Martin Abegglen on flickr - uploaded by MadGeographer - nominated by MadGeographer -- mgeo talk 22:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (as nominator) -- mgeo talk 22:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion this is a Quality Image, but since it is quite intresting, I´ll give it my support.--Snaevar (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The horizon level seems a bit too low (close to center). LeavXC (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it supposed to be according to you? bamse (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Preferably higher (according to the rule of thirds). The picture would be nicer, IMO, if it showed more of the bottom. It could use a little less sky and a bit more land. - LeavXC (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support If you lower the horizon level, then you cut the lake. If you raise it, then you sacrifice the sky and add more grass on the bottom. I don't mind the horizon being at the center, the "big picture" is that this composition is great. --Murdockcrc (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wonderful landscape, but bottom cropped too tight IMO. --Avenue (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't like the images. The shade of the right hinders (disturb). Mountains need contrast. The sky is “dead” (without life to me).--Miguel Bugallo 01:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info After reading the comments above I thought a cropped version could be better. --mgeo talk 15:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tornadowhiz

Per talk page consensus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer this. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't like the images. The shade of the right hinders (disturb). Mountains need contrast. The sky is “dead” (without life to me).--Miguel Bugallo 01:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, I don't like the crop. Too tight crop at bottom to me--Miguel Bugallo 01:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martin Kozák (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC) – Rather nice (hm, above average), but unfortunately problematic composition.[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siratus alabaster 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2010 at 08:37:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Siratus alabaster, Muricidae, Alabaster Murex; Length 15 cm; Originating from the Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support another great one. keep on rollin'. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mollusc power!--Citron (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Best of them yet! Keep snappin', 108.9.86.109 18:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)please login to vote--Jebulon (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Steven Walling 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glad to have the opportunity to provide the seventh support! ^_^ Rama (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tornadowhiz

Per talk page consensus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alabaster it is.--Garrondo (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Surfers December 2010-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2010 at 18:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Let me try something different, in the line of a couple of existing artsy FPs of the sea. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brings back memories Scewing (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 22:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice mood, but not sufficient, per "almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing" and lazy surfers. --Elekhh (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The surfers aren't lazy, they are waiting for the waves, but this image has no EV, no "wow" and the quality is below average. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Elekhh and Mbz1; no EV whatsoever!--MASHAUNIX 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just love the intimacy of it even though the opposers are half right (may I redirect them to rule #7 once again ;-) --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not oppose on EV grounds. Anyway an interesting comment from a user who just tried to sneak through Rule #1. :) --Elekhh (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others LeavXC (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martin Kozák (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) – What is featured there? Or maybe better question, what is there? Featured picture should have some content suitable for encylopedic use.[reply]
Oppose I can't find anything special about it, sorry. -- H005 18:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bismuth crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2010 at 20:00:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alchemist-hp - uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by -- Brackenheim (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support this one, look at the detail on the ridges. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the geometry of this one --Jebulon (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon --Schnobby (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, as usual. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elekhh (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The first time I see the "Oxide free version" --Llez (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2010 at 14:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alchemist-hp - uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by -- Brackenheim (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh... --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colours --Llez (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great visual impact, even for a layman--Jebulon (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow.--Garrondo (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of you best ones yet. Were do you get all these things? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! this crystal looks like an object of art! Ggia (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all has been said. --Elekhh (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful --Schnobby (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply amazing. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 00:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - just when I was starting to think these all look the same (but are still good), here's one that's not. And it's very good. Jonathunder (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intresting... LeavXC (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent illustration! Aesthetically a bit kitschy though...Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Microcarbo melanoleucos Austins Ferry 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2010 at 23:24:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is this picture taken? I have two theories in my head about that vertical white base in the foreground (the same as the bird is standing on). It might be weathered salt crystals, or a human made rock. I am leaning to the second theory of mine. --Snaevar (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't help but just love it. Great contrast between bird and water. --Laveol (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Garrondo (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot --Llez (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Superb image, do you have anymore like this one? --Ken Billington (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Quite exceptional. This is what a featured picture is about! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zion Court of the Patriarchs Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2010 at 23:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by LeavXC - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pixelated sky, strange distortions and the shadow part at the laft ist (a bit) disturbing. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm flattered, but I agree with Carschten. It's not FP quality. I'll reshoot this again sometime. LeavXC (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enrique morente 3353510495 26547d0a8c o.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2010 at 15:35:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alterna2 - uploaded by Anual - nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd suggest a recrop. The left-hand side of the picture seems a bit random and untidy; furthermore, the background at the top of the picture is confusing: are those figures statues embedded in a drapery? Anyhow, I'd rather have them cropped out entirely, or integrally visible. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 19:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on pictures from the same flickr collection as this one, I´ll say those figures are statues with tiles around them. Additionally the statues are illuminated in red light. Also, regarding the crop of the picture, there are pictures from the same collection where the crop is not as unfortunate.--Snaevar (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, i gave it a try : this is a cropped version. It gets rid of the boom and some of the wiring on the left, as well as of most of the statues. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the new version too. Kadellar (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support--MASHAUNIX 17:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kadellar (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murgjo Sharr Mountain Dog Nedi Limani.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2010 at 16:23:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nedi Limani - uploaded by Bresta - nominated by Mdupont -- Mdupont (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdupont (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I miss a permission... Did Nedi Limani agree to a publication? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry Mdupont, but the lighting is not good and the framing seems a bit random to me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nedi Limani made this photo on contract for Kosovo Guide, which publishs all data under creative commons. Also Bresta is the owner of the rights. Contract work. -- Mdupont (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Framing is not random, it is the side of a mountain, that is why it looks funny, very steep. --- Mdupont (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This was taken at 2476 meters on the mountains --- Mdupont (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bresta (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arianit (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose poor lightning, hard chromatic aberrations, also blurry parts --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lightning looks good now. I'm not sure if the quality is good enough... I think twice! Neutral --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Perhaps the thing that makes me not consider this image as FP is the fact that the main subjects (the dogs), are very underexposed. For example, you have almost no texture on their faces, which are almost completely under shadow. This is due to the fact that the lighting is very harsh on them (as Carschten and Alvesgaspar already pointed out). --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info see here File:Murgjo_Sharr_Mountain_Dog_Nedi_LimaniBrighttest.jpg with gimp I have brighten up the dogs faces, you can see that the details are there in the pic. I just did a quick test on the lowres pic. I dont think all is lost, we could brighten up the dark sections, or someone who knows what they are doing could fix this. At least the data is there and the details were captured . --- Mdupont (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've put e retouched version up. The original one was raw. --Bresta (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely an improvement. Sure, the image still has it flaws but in my opinion they are all expected.--Snaevar (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad IQ. Otherwise this dog is from Serbian/Macedonian mountains. Its not Ilyirian, its Šarplaninac (derivated from Šar mountains). --Mile (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info yes, the term Ilyirian Sheep Dog is the term the locals use. The photo was taken in Kosovo, which declared independance from Serbia in 2008 and which is still an ongoing conflict. We have been working with locals to submit the best photo of kosovo for wikipedia and this is one of the better ones. We are also working on improving the wikipedia. There are at least 3-4 alternative names and spellings for everything there. I dont use Šarplaninac much cause I cannot type it easily on this keyboard and remember the name. Sharri Sheepdogs is another easier name to remember. But are using the serbian names on the english wikipedia because they have been standardized on that. Qeni Sharrit is the albanian name for this type of dog. If you want to see some of the other pictures from the contest check out Category:BestPictureOfKosovoForWikipediaContest maybe you can help tag, categorize, name and use these pictures, or help nominate some. Thanks, Mike. Mdupont (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I kind of like it, but it's dark, there's visible chromatic aberration and the tilt is disturbing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 17:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per IdLoveOne and Alvesgaspar --Miguel Bugallo 00:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~-- Its a really great picture, and it is indeed an Illyrian Shephard, that lives in the Sharri Mountains in Kosovo, have seen lots of these dogs on hiking trips. HeroidShehu 20:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~-- Its a really great picture, and it is indeed an Illyrian Shephard, that lives in the Sharri Mountains in Kosovo, have seen lots of these dogs on hiking trips, you can see these kinds of dog along with people in Stables, they are very calm dogs if you are with their owner else if you are a stranger they get pretty mad... HeroidShehu 20:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per talk page consensus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps if this were shot with the dogs closer to the left side of the frame. The current framing takes away the "wow" factor. Sorry. LeavXC (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martin Kozák (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC) – Bad composition and bad lens (details drawing) quality.[reply]
Oppose Overall confusing composition. Especially, the pose of the dogs seem random and point-and-shoot like. Other elements in the composition such as the row of sheep in the background, and the strong slope are good and interesting. --Slaunger (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Earth at Night.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 03:13:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by LuisArmandoRasteletti - nominated by LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although often with these types of images someone finds something similar and better already featured... --IdLoveOne (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose exactly. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:44, 26 December 2010 (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: another version is already featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2010 (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:Flickr - The U.S. Army - U.S. Army Reserve Command Best Warrior Competition's night-fire qualification.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2011 at 13:56:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Mark Bell - uploaded by Boing-boing - nominated by Royalbroil -- Royalbroil 13:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Royalbroil 13:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kozák (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC) – Good composition, good quality, rather illustrative in fact.[reply]
Oppose Poor EV: we can't see what they are doing, unless we already now it. Yann (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann--Jebulon (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm sorry, but I can't see anything that would make this a feateured pciture. MartinD (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High AV (artistic value) but alas, I agree with the others. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are all these US military photos taken with the D1X? Is it the official camera? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann --Snaevar (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I withdraw my nomination This clearly won't pass and I understand why. Royalbroil 18:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still interesting FWIW. I added the withdraw template so FPCbot knows to close this one. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Interesting artistic value, but too limited encyclopedic value. Royalbroil 03:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colt Python IMG 6783-4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2010 at 07:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Colt Python with 6-inch (15 cm) barrel and nickel finish. Two views of the same object
Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Rama (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although you should wipe them down and try again, I can see fingerprints. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, though agree with IdLoveOne about the fingerprints.--MrPanyGoff 10:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~, I like it for the detail and informativeness although as an european I find it quite disturbing that you can take such a close up from a gun...--77.208.254.166 21:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, log in to vote.--Snaevar (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support It seems it logged out while writing. Sorry.--Garrondo (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duesternbrook Leopard auf Baum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2010 at 01:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ikiwaner - uploaded by Ikiwaner - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bgag (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice shot. But imo too tight crop at the top and the left. Would there be this more space, you would also see an attempt of the rule of thirds... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice kitty. --Aktron (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO the leopard is the main feature of the picture. And from that viewpoint the composition is as I would expect.--Snaevar (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive landscape, the leopard is the cherry on the cake, very natural colours. May I suggest you to remove the tiny intruding tree branch at the ~~very left~~? --Cayambe (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I wanted to say: ... at the very right, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tree could be in piece, but that cat make it thru. --Mile (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome, definitively FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flawed composition: you can barely see the leopard at all and the tree is cut out of the frame partially. Steven Walling 19:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Per Steven Walling 75.95.115.127 22:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Interesting, good quality but not special enough to deserve the status. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this image of a leopard taken in a wild is not special enough, I do not know what is.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition per Steven Walling.--MASHAUNIX 17:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. I like the image, but poor composition to me at top and left--Miguel Bugallo 01:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the image is not tilted, but the image seems tilted--Miguel Bugallo 01:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The slightly cut off twig isn't miss-able to me nor enough to negate this highly interesting picture. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cut off the tree doesn't bother me at all. Good composition, good quality and wow. --Lošmi (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martin Kozák --Martin Kozák (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC) – Very problematic composition. Especially branch in front of the hill in middle of the picture is absolutely disgusting. In fact, it's very common photo of some tree in bush with something which looks as leopard if it's zoomed. Pardon. Colours and light aren't good too. Although it's sharp.[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valuable, rare and of good technical quality, but composition not good enough. The leopard, which is the scoop of the photo fills too small a fraction of the frame, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Estrela Março 2010-16b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2010 at 19:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alvesgaspar - uploaded by Alvesgaspar - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 19:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 19:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting conditions are not ideal, CA all over the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please add a note were you see this? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added some, but there are many more. In foreground almost every border between rocks and snow has some.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per mbz1. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martin Kozák (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC) – At least composition is very problematic. It leads eye to inappropriate parts of the picture and destroys overall value effect.[reply]
- Question -- Where are the inappropriate parts of the picture (I hope it is nothing obscene) and what is precisely the "overall value effect"? Merry Xmas! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both the review and the response made me laugh I believe this is a case of "lost in translation" Actually I find the composition quite nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gian Lorenzo Bernini, self-portrait, c1623.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2010 at 02:59:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gian Lorenzo Bernini - uploaded & nominated by Scewing

Comment -- Bernini is frequently credited with inventing Baroque art. He was a badass architect, sculptor, painter, and playwright. Wikipedia says "he effectively became the successor of Michelangelo, far outshining other sculptors of his generation". This digital copy of his self-portrait is reproduced in amazing detail, and lets his talent speak for itself. View fullsize to see his brushstrokes, as well as some mold spotting on a ~400 year old painting. Scewing (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice one. metadata would be great. would you mind contacting your source for it? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 19:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MrPanyGoff 10:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the image a bit yellowish... To confirm my impression a searched in google for images of the portrait and there are some with more natural colors. Assuming that this is a photo from the painting, how can we be sure that the color balance is close to reality?--Garrondo (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you can't. the equipment needed to achieve results close to reality is no standard to many viewers and users on commons. note that the correct output would require a hardware calibrated display, a working environment suitable for evaluating (no distracting lights, 18% grey wallpaper) and other things. my assumption is, that this constellation is rather unlikely. the users/viewers featuring the aforementioned equipment could do the white balance. the average user with inferior hardware might receive different results on his display and tinker around with the image, until he thinks it fits for his very own environment. even the actual painting itself might not be visible with a correct white balance - think of the light situation in the museum/gallery. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Garrondo (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sct Mathias xmas illumination 2010-12-14.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2010 at 01:28:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by slaunger - uploaded by slaunger - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we need something for the season, and this one looks nice. -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple enough, the bicycles set the scene nicely. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but the composition still seems too clutered and busy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Opinions differ. I do not see the composition as cluttered myself. Christmas illumination is inherently related to areas of commerce in towns and cities. Thus, it is only natural that there are signs for the shops visible as well as other elements such as street lamps, etc (if those are the elements you refer to as clutter). The photo is taken after the shops closed, meaning the photo is not cluttered by the presence of goods for sale and additional signs on the street. There are also no people to clutter the composition. Thus, IMO the composition is as clutter-free as is realistically possible for this kind of subject. --Slaunger (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merry Christmas! --Schnobby (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... and a Happy Ner Year! Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Cayambe (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose somehow i am not getting it. What is so special about that photo? --AngMoKio (座谈) 17:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This of course depends on personal preferences of each reviewer, but for me it is, in decreasing order of importance: Composition, value, ligtning, atmosphere, DOF, overall image quality. The lightning is LED based. I think it is clear from the photo, that the light from the LED illumination is pleasant and quite similar to traditional lightbulb illumination showing how much has been done over the years to improve the "quality" of LED light, which consumes much less energy and saves a lot of CO₂ submission as compared to traditional light bulbs (14.5 t/year for the small town of Viborg alone). --Slaunger (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks Mila for nominating my photo! This photo is a followup on a previous nom, which I withdrew after having received some very sensible comments regarding possible improvements. I have tried to address those points in this new photo. --Slaunger (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale.--MASHAUNIX 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AngMoKio. --Moros y Christianos 22:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photo appeared (with permission) in 16×26 cm printed format in a local Danish Newspaper printed in 10000 copies on December 20. --Slaunger (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Then we have to congratulate. --Mile (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martin Kozák (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC) – I don't see any feature thing on this picture. It's absolutely average one. Almost anyone can take similar on streets of most cities in my country. (But nobody does it because hasn't any reason take similar photos.) Strange.[reply]
- Wow, you must come from a place of photographic geniuses! Please share some examples with us. ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is fantastic that almost everone in the Czech Republic could take similar photographs if only they found it relevant and did not have more important things to do. Congratulations! --Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Extraordinary indeed! If only one of those could come here and help us with our pathetic attempts... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kids in Rishikesh, India.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2010 at 21:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Another excellent shot by the winner of our last POTY contest. Created & uploaded by Paulrudd, nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitively. --Murdockcrc (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Love it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand what is featurable here. Technically, there is a strong overexposure behind-between the heads which I find disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's only noticeable in the preview thumbnail. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alas, Jebulon was perfectly right. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pitty for the distracting background. --Elekhh (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposure above the head of the right and smaller child.--Snaevar (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overexposure schmowerexposure. Didn't notice before it's mentioned. --Lošmi (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What does mean "schmowerexposure", please ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'S'called mocking. :) --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, but would prefer a little less distraction...perhaps crop the left ~1/4 of the picture and the right side to halfway between the picture's edge and the subjects? If my visual calculations are correct, this would result in the picture still being of good composition, but less distracting. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 00:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Martin Kozák (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC) – Background is very problematic here according to me. At least because of very long depth of field. And what is featured on this photo by its overall value?[reply]
- Comment -- Very long depth of field. Are you sure what you are talking about? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposure in background near heads, per Jebulon. The gaze of the larger child detracts from the composition for me too. --Avenue (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset between the trees - Coronel Fabriciano MG.jpg - not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 18:01:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by HélioVL - uploaded by HélioVL - nominated by HélioVL -- --HélioVL ^(talk) 18:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --HélioVL ^(talk) 18:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In my opinion, this image is appropriate to featured. Sorry, I'm not a professional. But I hope ratings. --HélioVL ^(talk) 18:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Olá Hélio, bem-vindo a FPC. É bom ter alguém mais aqui a falar português! Você próprio poderá responder a essa pergunta, comparando as suas imagens com as actuais FP do mesmo tema (veja aqui, pf.). Verá como os padrões actuais de pôr-do-Sol são exigentes! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obrigado, Alvesgaspar. Já percebi como os critérios são exigentes :-) --HélioVL ^(talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sorry, but I do not think that they offer anything special. Nice, but as any sunset.--Garrondo (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Garrondo. Same applies to all alternatives. -- H005 18:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pleace, cancel this FPC. I think I've listened what I needed. --HélioVL ^(talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Please add a {{Withdraw}} template on the nomination, and the FPC bot will take care of its removal.--Slaunger (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still beautiful, was considering voting for it but was lazy. --IdLoveOne (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image is beautiful, but according to others users, don't is appropriate to featured. --HélioVL ^(talk) 10:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Alternative 1[edit]

--HélioVL ^(talk) 10:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giant clam black&white komodo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2011 at 16:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Royalbroil 16:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eels? lol --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Luxembourg Pfaffenthal Alzette Béinchen 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2011 at 05:18:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cayambe - uploaded by Cayambe - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Celebration of other authors' images: I like how this one captures the serenity of the place, and those balconies over the river I find remarkable.-- Elekhh (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I wish I had a balcony like that. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, I don't think the geocodes are quite right. They say the photographer was in the river, so he'd either have to be a Basilisk lizard, swimming, or in a boat. There is a bridge very close to were this picture was taken; was it on there? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Elekhh for the nomination. THFSW is right... I have corrected the geotag, the photographer being now positioned on the bridge. :-)--Cayambe (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Would be a nice place for a holiday --Schnobby (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good in this picture (colors, composition, subject). But the best is the "mood", indeed. Congrats.--Jebulon (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It does look idyllic, but if you look in Google Maps you'll find there is a large road bridge just behind the photographer's back.;) MartinD (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kozák (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC) – Good composition and very nice colours. Maybe be details capture can be better, but it's suitable.[reply]
Support Great composition. I wish I was there right now. Royalbroil 16:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In every way a good picture. -- MJJR (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support So schön kann es ganz in der Nähe sein. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info The image was taken from the lower of the two bridges seen here. --Cayambe (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good. -- Felix König ✉ 17:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tilted slightly anticlockwise (see e.g. reflections), but very good nonetheless. --Avenue (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salinas de Janubio at Lanzarote.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2010 at 09:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alchemist-hp - uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition (rule of thirds), aperture and dof. please consider a rotation of -0,3° (0,3° CCW) to straighten the horizon. rich colours and good contrast. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info it is not my image.. but I can rotate it if Alchemist-hp likes to do it. Ggia (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -0,3° aha! OK I test a rotation and upload the image again. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done now rotated. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the rotation. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice overview. --Elekhh (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting scene, well illuminated, high resolution. --99of9 (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course from the creator too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20100701 Pelpin, cathedral, 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2011 at 15:41:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Martin Kozák -- Martin Kozák (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info nominated especially because of very high resolution (369 megapixels)
Support -- Martin Kozák (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor lighting, image is tilted ccw (large is not necessarily valuable or beautiful) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per alvesgaspar --Snaevar (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Alvesgaspar. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per alvesgaspar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What a waste of pixels! -- H005 18:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark IMO and not very eyecatching. --Slaunger (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa Monica pier, dusk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2010 at 16:20:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Boqiang Liao, uploaded by PDTillman, nominated by Yann (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interesting colors & clouds, nice composition. --PDTillman (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC), uploader[reply]
Comment - There are a lot of black spots in the picture. Any explanation for that? -- Pro2 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to me like some water got on the lens, but I'd definitely support it otherwise. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice composition but very poor image quality, with numerous dust spots and dead pixels(?). The horizon is tilted and the out-of-focus clouds in the upper part are disturbing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per Alvesgaspar: at close up many problems appear.--Garrondo (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar.--Snaevar (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. The camera needs a cleaning. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, the image quality is not FP. --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de la Concepción Agaete 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 10:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Felix König ✉ 10:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Felix König ✉ 10:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed in top left corner.--Snaevar (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Composition is not as good as it could: at right trees cover the building.--Garrondo (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Image taken with a broken camera.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 19:18:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Here's the story. I went to tide pools with my 2 mega pixels underwater Sony. I was looking down at the pool, when a rock I was standing on got way. I fell in a pool face down, and hurt myself. Apparently my underwater shock resistant Sony got "hurt" too because here you see an example of the images it started to take ever since Does this image has EV? I guess it does because it is more or less typical image taken with a broken camera. please see example here. Besides it is something different, and with New Year coming why not to have something different? And besides one could not oppose the image because of quality issues. After all it was taken with a broken camera --Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice joke for me, but no. Beside it is not bad enough to come from a Korean horror film. ;o) Yann (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on mow, Yann. I have never said that it was bad enough to come from a Korean horror film. I only said that it was good enough to become FP on commons

--Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ev is questionable. please consider reworking the image description. describing the difference to a "normal" shot can help others in understanding the meaning of this image. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will appreciate, if you will re-write the description please.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done see for yourself if you are happy with this. please reconsider adding the camera model to the description. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zion Cliff HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2010 at 23:25:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by LeavXC - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info For a side note, this isn't HDR. My mistake. Perhaps the filename could be updated? ~~I haven't figured that out yet...~~ done - LeavXC (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LeavXC (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO Unsharp --Snaevar (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green turtles at Black Sand Beach.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2011 at 05:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting subject but the photomontage doesn't work.--Citron (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific. What does not work and why? Maybe it is fixable. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agree with Citron. The photo is too obviously faked. And I think in the description it should get mentioned in detail, which parts are fake in this picture. I am not even sure if such a fake should get uploaded to commons at all. --AngMoKio (座谈) 21:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I do not understand the comments about a photo montage. Are you saying that the presence of the turtles are fake and inserted? This does not at all look like that for me, but very real. I notice the retouched template mentioning manual cloning. Could you elaborate mila, on what has been cloned, please? Could you also add the specific date for the photo? --Slaunger (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a look at the previous version of the photo it gets more obvious. But also with a closer look at the current version, you can see that the smaller black lava stones which are around the left turtle don't actually belong there. --AngMoKio (座谈) 22:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that was added to the image was the left turtle. Everything else is just a normal panorama. I added "retouched" template to the image. Is this a fake? Here's an original of the left turtle. Does black sand the turtle pours over herself belongs to those lava rocks? I did add the left turtle to the image because IMO the left turtle, who was pouring the sand over herself is an interesting subject, and I decided to add her to the image to show the whole picture of the beach and the turtles. Of course the images were taken on the same beach at the same time. The turtles were located 5 meters from each other.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask with which camera model you made the photo? --AngMoKio (座谈) 23:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original image I added here and to the description of the nominated image has that info. I used my usual Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi, but how does this matter? May I please ask you, if you believe that black sand from the original image belongs there, but does not belongs to photo montage, and why?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The camera model matters as your camera has a 10mp sensor and your photo here has 16mp. So there is something else you changed manually here which isn't mentioned in the description. Furthermore I think it is just totally unnecessary to clone a originally none existing turtle in - that's just not what I expect of a photo that might end up in a wikipedia article. One more thing: By looking at those to versions of the pic 1 and this 2, I seriously doubt that the right turtle was on the original pic. --AngMoKio (座谈) 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I am lying? The only other things that were done to the panorama was fixing stitching errors!!!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know the question is why didn't you mention the cloning-in of the left turtle in the first place? You didn't even mention it after Citron mentioned his doubts about the pic. This all makes it a bit dubious. --AngMoKio (座谈) 23:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention the cloning. I added the template manual cloning as soon as I uploaded the image. I simply did not believe that it was such big of a deal. This left turtle together with the black sand could have easily been where I placed her. No beach, no rocks were changed, except fixing some stitching error maybe. But what in the world is dubious? Where that right turtle came from and why did I add to this image in your opinion? I do not know even why I am still talking to you after you said that I was lying. So, here I uploaded 4 of the originals I took that day at the beach. I took few sets and, I do not remember, if those ones were used for panorama, but it could be seen from them how panorama was made File:Hawaii-black sand beach 1.jpg;File:Black sand beach 2.jpg;File:Black sand beach3.jpg File:Black sand beach 4.jpg. And here are two more images File:Hawaii 2010 035.jpg and File:Black sand beach5.jpg, on which there is easier to see the whole image. Any more doubts? What in the world were you thinking, when you made your statement? That I photographed the turtles in aquarium or what? Now I added two more images, the last image of the first turtle (right one) and the first image of so called "non existing" turtle the left one. The first one was taken at 4 p.m., the other one was taken 4:01p.m. There are 15 other images between those two shots. I said the turtles were about 5 meters apart from each other, but now looking at the time the images were taken I doubt they was even 5 meters between those two. I have done nothing wrong by adding the left turtle to the image. Any article the image could have been used in, would have only benefited from the use of the image, but after you claimed I was lying I am not sure I want to upload any image to commons ever again --Mbz1 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get too much involved in a wikilawyering discussion whether you did anything wrong accrdong to policy here, but it shoud be pretty obvious to you, that inserting the left turtle is not a good thing(tm). I actually laughed out loud upon looking closely at this image. Cutting a turtle that was originally in the sand and pasting it onto rocks is a fairly ridiculous thing to do. It does not add value to the image, it spoils it. More turtle != more good. Sorry. --Dschwen (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how many times I have to repeat that the turtle was not at the beach. She was at the rocks next to the ocean with some sand between the rocks.This very turtle with this very sand could have easily been at the place I put it. I am glad you laughed at the image, it is always a nice to laugh at something, and I am laughing at those comments too.I uploaded yet another image of the left turtle. I cropped out my relatives , who were sitting on the rocks!(not on the beach) next to her, but did not change anything else. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind uploading the whole of this picture? You can pixel your relatives, I just want to get a better understanding of the whole scene. --AngMoKio (座谈) 19:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not like when the reviewers claim something they have no idea about, and in process make personal attacks--Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You put a turtle (and the stones around it) in the picture, which didn't belong there and you didn't mention it. So doubting that other things might also not be as they seem is not so far fetched. To accuse me now of a personal attack is a bit ridiculous. --AngMoKio (座谈) 01:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those "stones" as you call them, "black sand" as I call them are loose. They could go anywhere, on any lava rock of that beach exactly as a turtle could. I have done nothing wrong! To call the left turtle that was less than 5 meters apart from the right one "non existing" was ridiculous. Any article about Black Sand Beach would have only benefited from this image. What was beyond ridiculous it was your assumption that the other turtle was added to the image too, and even after I told you it was not, you continued to press with your doubts. Of course it is a personal attack D: D8 D; D= DX--Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course this black sand just appears at certain spots on the rock. But I won't continue this now...don't want to be next to get into an endless fight with you. --AngMoKio (座谈) 11:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How! Peace my friends! I would to felicitate Mbz1 for its beautiful photos, very interesting. But, indeed, this picture could lead to confusion without description. What does the left? turlte? I thought she was digging to lay its eggs, hence my surprise, as beside water! After, I saw the description on the original picture : Green turtle is throwing the black lava sand over herself to cool off. How. Why the turtle wants to refresh, as she heads towards the sea? It's so ambigous, Not natural. Best regards--Citron (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The turtle was not going back to the sea. She was basking next to the sea. They often do. One could see water next to the turtle in the original image too. It was the very first time I saw such behavior although I saw many turtles backing at Black Sand Beach .--Mbz1 (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mbz1 and Citron. Of course, one shouldn't doubt the right turtle is real or fake just because the left is added. Author already mentioned that it is retouch and that he added left (in first comment) Soewinhan (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what Citron wrote?! I doubt that. I quote it for you again: "But, indeed, this picture could lead to confusion without description. What does the left? turlte? I thought she was digging to lay its eggs, hence my surprise, as beside water! After, I saw the description on the original picture : Green turtle is throwing the black lava sand over herself to cool off. How. Why the turtle wants to refresh, as she heads towards the sea? It's so ambigous, Not natural.". So in the end he said that the fake makes not really sense, and he is right about that. Bcs this scene is on the rocks and not on the beach with the black sand. And btw to assume good faith although she didn't mention the initial fake...well I don't know..she didnt mention that in her first comment. But I already start discussing here again, which I said I wouldn't... Mbz1, I also recommend to you to just stop the discussion. --AngMoKio (座谈) 20:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will you ever shut up, AngMoKio? The left turtle was on the same lava rocks next to the ocean. She was not on the beach. She was not going back to the ocean, she was not laying her eggs, she was basking, and trowing sand over herself.I mentioned I did a manual cloning. If panorama is confusing, so is the original image. I have done nothing wrong. The nomination is withdrawn. Please shut up now, and please do not post here again. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeah...now who does personal attacks. You are really funny. --AngMoKio (座谈) 21:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We must be cool like a turtle, my friends!--Citron (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But be careful not to do anything in cold blood. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 07:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]