Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2012

File:Apatani tribal women.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 11:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Doniv79 - uploaded by Doniv79 - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good portrait. I like it a lot. I am not well versed in Commons:Photographs of identifiable people - in the country specific section it is mentioned that in India there are exceptions to the general rule of allowing to publish a portrait taken in public without explicitly asking for consent. But I do not know what these exceptions are. I am pointing this out because the {{Consent}} template is not present on the file page. Probably everything is OK, but can someone more competent than me please confirm this? --Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it: Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#India. The exceptions are ...publishing a photo in a manner that might be "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" is illegal ... and I do not think any of these exceptions apply in this case. --Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would think the question whether this is taken in a private or public setting is more pressing. I know very little in regards to wedding celebrations in the Hija village at Ziro (or the rest of India for that matter), but I would expect such a thing to take place in a private place? If it is then {{Consent}} is needed in any case. If it is in a public space, then I would think it is okay. According to a paper by the Centre for Internet & Society in India not much privacy can be expected on the streets of India and the photograph of the woman doesn't appear to "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" (per Commons:Country specific consent requirements#India). In kind regards, Henrik/heb [T C E] 14:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know about this particular tribe, but weddings are often a public event in India. Yann (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting, but the light is not ideal. The face is in the shadow, and the reflection on the forehead of the background woman is overexposed. Yann (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good EV (per EN:FP); but technically not enough for an FP here (eyes in shadows, blown background object between the faces,not sharp enough, bad crop). I like the other low res. picture in the article, more. J Kadavoor J e e 05:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a great photo, but I don't like the possible ambiguity as to whether this is taken in public or private space. In kind regards, Henrik/heb [T C E] 14:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann --Dey.sandip (talk)
Oppose per above --Stas1995 (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. Michael Barera (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iguana in the Maracaibo wild.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 20:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The Photographer (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cj.samson (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not optimal; only the head is in focus, not the entire animal in frame. I prefer a portrait with enough lead room in such a case; you can "cut" between the two legs on left (only my opinion). J Kadavoor J e e 05:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and good composition. --Selbymay (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture! Michael Barera (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Imperial Coat of Arms of the Empire of Austria.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 11:43:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and by uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Imperial Coat of Arms of the Austrian Empire, between 1866 & 1915, Wonderful work, historically perfect and esthetically very nice, as usual, by User:Sodacan-- Jebulon (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A marvelous drawing! I feel like a pathetic amateur when comparing my poor illustrations with this... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding! Great work. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 17:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 08:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice work, congratulations --The Photographer (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply stunning image. Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 01:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ruhrtalbruecke-Sonnenuntergang.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 09:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset at "Ruhrtalbrücke" (Bridge of the Ruhr Valley)

Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. -- -donald- (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yesss --Llorenzi (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I have mixed feelings about HDR and I think this one is on the edge of appearing unrealistic or overprocessed. On the other hand it has very nice colours, detail level, mood, and a good composition, so I surrender. Could you indicate in the {{Panorama}} the software used for the HDR stitch? --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am by the way intrigued by the fact that I cannot see any stitching errors in the grass in the foreground. It is usually very hard to avoid parallax errors in the extreme foreground. Did you use a special pano-head? On the other hand, the stitching method used in some recent stitching software is so smart that it can zig-zag in between the individual straws and make a seam, which is very hard to see. --Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Info I've added the information regarding software and # of pics to {{Panorama}}. The shootig conditions were not optimal. I stopped spontaneously at the road (because of the great sky formation and sunset) and had only a simple tripid (no pano-head). I even had no remote-control with me and pressed the trigger by hand. The seven photos were prepared with Lightroom. (noise reduction, WB, CA). I auto-aligned the source photos with Photomatix 4 and used the Detail Enhancer method with medium light effect. In the end I postprocessed the jpg output from Photomatix again with LR (noise reduction, sharpening, shadow-highlight correction).
  To your other points: The use (and usefullness) of HDR is ambivalent and highly debated. I personally prefer the use of HDR in situations with extreme dynamic ranges. E.g. the direct sunlight here and the bottom side of the bridge (completely in shadow) blows the DR of every camera thus I used HDR. I always try to let my HDRs looking naturally and go beyond the limitations of the camera sensor. Thanks for your interest and (weak) support. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Forgotten: I also like the photo :) --Tuxyso (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sunlight occulted by cirrus or other thin clouds is about the one place I could think of where HDR might actually help. It does here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The HDR effect here is obvious but still eye-pleasing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a bit overprocessed HDR, but not enought to really oppose --PierreSelim (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Michael Barera (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great composition and lighting/shadows but partially thank to much digital processing Poco a poco
- Info To the skeptics of HDR: On [1] you find a very similiar sunset photo of the same object. Impossible to carve out the interesting structure of the bottom side of the bridge. As you can see on this photo the worth seeing strucutre of bottom side is completely shadowed independently of the time of the day. In this case here I would even go so far that HDR is more natural than any other shooting technique because our eyes can master both: the beautiful sunset and the structure of the bridge by rapidly alternating between bright and dark areas. HDR (more precisly the final tonemaping) just merges this mechanism into one photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 21:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Kürbis (A mode✔) 22:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like good HDR images, but this unnatural example hast just an end in itself. To show a nice view of this bridge the time was definitely chosen wrong. We have a dramatic sky with an average good bridge photography. Sorry, but the EV is too low in my opinion and the artistic mood too posed. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as Wladyslaw.--Jebulon (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rare coincidence. J Kadavoor J e e 16:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a coincidence. An agreement about a good and relevant review, IMO. I was to oppose too, but I did not have the good and precise words for that. Wladyslaw expressed here exactly my meaning.--Jebulon (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Have to agree with Wladyslaw, sorry. Basically, I like the winter sunset atmosphere here. But the bridge itself does not find much expression. The eye-catcher here are rather the sky and the sun, which actually should not have been so. A better exposure of the bridge is desirable. It's also the fact that the image resolution is rather on the poor side. - A.Savin 19:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- I am open minded to criticism and I know that HDR is controversal, but your statement "image resolution is rather on the poor side" is absurdity, sorry. The photo has a resolution of 5,6 megapixel! It was my decision the downsample in order to minimize noise here. I think LR can do it much better than the image rendering of Commons. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  - Well, looking at some other FP's of comparable motives I don't think it's an absurd requirement. Even more, it's not that essential and in case of some exceptionally good images voters may overlook an even lower number of pixels. Here, however, we also have some other technical issues, given the fact that even compact cameras of today have far more than 10 MP it's also a point, albeit just one of several ones. - A.Savin 20:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
    - I just answered back to your statement regarding the resolution. Like or dislike of HDR and of the composition I've choosen here is a subjective matter and I accept the negative assesments to this aspect(s). If 5,6 Mpx are problematic I can upload the photo in full resolution. Compared to the other nominated photos, 5.6 Mpx is a good average and not "rather on the poor side". Please do not take resolution as justification for your reservations on HDR. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
      - I am happy with your in-detail comments (also in future). I think circumstantial comments are beneficial to everyone. Thus keep on commenting that way. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A pretty picture to look at, but unrealistic enough for me to oppose --Dey.sandip (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Very unrealistic editing, extreme halos on the piers. The latter is the biggest problem for me. --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info My initial plan was to shut up until the vote if finished, but some statements are hair-raising to me:

Julian H.: "Extreme halos" - what is extreme? Extrem enough that up to now no one despite of you has realiszed it? We are here at FP. As I initially wrote: The shootings conditions were not optimal, the formation of the sky and the sunset were very unique and led to this beautiful result (in my eyes). Slight halos should be correctable via image editing.
To the naturalists / realists (Wladyslaw, Jebulon, Dey.sandip, Julian H.): I cannot follow your argumentation. What is real? Are the NASA images shown here real? No! Are the beautiful FP-panoramas real? No, no one can look 360° around. Photography is always communication between photographer and viewer (and never) reality. The resulting photo was the way I've seen the bridge and the beautiful sunset, nothing more and nothing less.
Bridge photographer (Wladyslaw, Savin): I agree with you that there might be better perspectives for pure bridge photography. But as the german title "Bridge of valley of the Ruhr with sunset" indicated the motive here is the symbios between sunset and bridge architecture. From my view a selected the best shooting position, probably you can come to Germany and find a better one :)
Wladyslaw: With all respect, but your comment "I like good HDR images, but this unnatural example [...]" annoys me much. I've seen and processed a lot of HDRs and I am sure that mine is for sure not a bad one - in contrary. Be so kind and have a look at the English wikipedia entry [HDR] to see bad and overprocessed HDRs. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it's bad (technical the image isn't bad for sure), I have said it's unrealistic and dramatic and therefore it looks posed. That's a difference. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These halos would indeed be easily correctable with the original material, if the editing software supports this. "Extreme" means that they result in a darkening of the edges of the pier compared to the center (they should be the same colour) by about 30% (at least it looks like that). Why others didn't notice that or had no problem with it is none of my business, the point of a democratic vote is that everybody can vote according to his impression and standards. And for me, these halos are too strong. It might also be that others noticed it but didn't mention it.
I completely agree if you say that photography is never 100% real and doesn't have to be. But if my immediate impression upon looking at the image is "this looks very wrong", then this is a problem for me. In other conditions, it might not be. And "the shooting conditions were not optimal" doesn't change the quality of the image or the editing. This isn't a vote about your abilities as a photographer, so please don't feel defensive about this. I'm trying to be objective, as far as that's possible when talking about photography, and my impression is that this shouldn't be a FP. Others think it should be, and that's perfectly fine. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wadden sea and a silhouette of the Maria church in Wierum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 14:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uberprutser - uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Uberprutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interesting sky, but thereof cut could be better picture. A high horizon line creates depth and places more emphasis on the object main. imho --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young Cossack Ivan Kudryavtsev.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 21:17:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Аркадий Зарубин - uploaded by Аркадий Зарубин - nominated by Аркадий Зарубин -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like his expression, but it's underexposed. Could you increase the exposure a little and fix the vignetting? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- awesome work, warm framing. Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same as King of Hearts. Good expression, interesting background, but vignetting too distracting. Support from me if vignetting and exposure is fixed. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the vignetting and exposure. Is that better? Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, it is better, now. Unfortunately a bit unsharp/noisy but expression and overall message of this portrayal is great, thus FP for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Second version is pretty noisy~~. --Ivar (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed --Ivar (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait. Yann (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer it a bit brighter (sth. like the previous version, but not that overprocessed). - A.Savin 10:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and unsharp. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the subject's expression! Michael Barera (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Set nomination: Apollo 11 flight, not featured[edit]

Visit nomination page.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 21:17:36 (UTC)

Prelaunch: astronauts enter the spaceship
Check of instruments
16 July, 1969, 13:32: Launch by a Saturn V rocket. This is followed by two revolutions in Earth orbit
2h 44-50m: Third stage of the rocket reignits to send the spacecraft to the Moon
3h 5m: CSM separates from the third stage and the LM is uncovered
3h 24m - 4h 17m: The CSM extracts the LM and they continue to the Moon (the rocket stage will miss it)
The docking maneuver is followed by a correction of the course
3d 4h: After 3 days travel the SM engine slows the spacecraft to enter Moon orbit
3d 23h: In Moon orbit, Armstrong and Aldrin move to the LM
4d 4h: The CSM and LM separate, the CSM with Collins onboard remains in Moon orbit
20 July, 20:17: Landing using the descent stage engine (4d 6h)
21 July, 02:56: First step on the Moon by Armstrong (4d 13h).
In all 2½ hours of Moon walk is made
5d 4h: 21½ hours after the landing the ascent stage lifts off
5d 8h: The ascent stage goes into Moon orbit and docks with the CSM
5d 10h: After the crew is united in the CM the ascent stage is moved away
5d 15h: The SM engine is fired to escape Moon orbit and go to the Earth
8d 2h 49m: Before reentry the CM separates from the SM and turns 180° to face the heat shield forward
8d 3h 00-18m: Air friction heats the shield and slows the CM until it can be landed by parachutes on 24 July, 16:50
8d 4h: Astronauts are picked up and brought to an aircraft carrier

Created by NASA, 1969, uploaded by Soerfm, nominated by Soerfm. Soerfm (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info An artist concept of how the first manned flight to the Moon was made by Apollo 11 in July, 1969. Date and time of day is UTC; time in dd-hh-mm format is mission time. CM = Command Module, SM = Service Module and LM = Lunar Module or Moon lander. CSM = combined CM and SM.
Support Soerfm (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good example of a set, where the whole collection adds a lot of value to each image. Yann (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice set and the subject matter is notable enough. Sadly the quality of the individual illustrations isn't up to par. BNesides...Why is this one missing? Kleuske (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an excellent, valuable set. But each image in it is smaller than the required 2 megapixels - indeed, they're less than half the size. As well, it's missing one, as Kleuske points out. May I suggest COM:VIC? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing pictures are added. Soerfm (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined once in VIC. J Kadavoor J e e 04:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Per Kleuske. Michael Barera (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Set nomination: The Early Poems of Alfred, Lord Tennyson, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 07:23:35 (UTC)

This is a complete set of illustrations by W. E. F. Britten for the book, "The Early Poems of Alfred, Lord Tennyson". I realise set nominations likely haven't been used for a while, but they still have their own section in the rules, and I checked on the talk page, so I'm going to presume this is fine.

That said, there's no actual templates for a set nomination, so feel free to tweak this page.

Anyway, these are photogravures; the slight grey cast is entirely part of the artistic medium, and the contrast with the paper is what identifies them as such (so please don't cut the border; I know people always want to, but it's really never a good idea for historical works). This is also from a slightly unusual artistic movement, the Arts and Crafts movement, which emphasised relative simplicity. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden at Somersby Rectory
Mariana
The Deserted House
The Lady of Shalott
Œnone
The Lotos-Eaters
St. Simeon Stylites
Sleeping Beauty
Sir Galahad
Break, Break, Break

Info created by W.E.F. Britten - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Yann (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support After careful scrutiny of all drawings in full res (took some time to download and inspect) I must say I am impressed by the artistic and technical quality of the drawings. I have not found anything to complain about in any of the drawings. The image pages are excellent too with many relevant details and additional source material. Simply excellent! --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 04:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work! Michael Barera (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bramantino - De aanbidding der herders.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 01:21:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by circle of Bramantino 1500 - 1535 - uploaded by Ophelia2 - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, good details, I like the simplicity of the picture and the resolution is sufficient. Could be a relevant POTD for next december, 24...--Jebulon (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jeb. J Kadavoor J e e 04:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 12:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fuente (Plaza del Rosario de Nuestra Señora de La Chiquinquira).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 01:52:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Rjcastillo -- Rjcastillo (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain as creator. -- Rjcastillo (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the composition seems disorganized, e.g. the half cut-off building on the right, the place where the fountain is cut off at the left, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for review --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 12:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mahab Pano1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 04:57:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cj.samson - uploaded by Cj.samson - nominated by Cj.samson -- Cj.samson (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure why f/20 was required for an image of this nature. Lighting is pretty harsh, gives a washed out feel. --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting --Stas1995 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks sharpness in certain areas. I checked a 3000px preview, and no, the high number of megapixels does not mitigate the problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I would have preferred a looser crop --Muhammad (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Muhammad. Michael Barera (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not fond of the crop at all and unfortunately the missing sharpness forces me to decline Poco a poco (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Vamps (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 12:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naqsh-e Jahan Square Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 08:44:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Monfie, Colin - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A huge panorama for sure. But unfortunately don't find much in the composition -- Dey.sandip (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree as per above.Fotoriety (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like it overall, but the lack of symmetry in the capture bothers me a bit. Michael Barera (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Taha (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have enough edits to vote. 50 edits are needed. --JDP90 (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ -- Farvartish (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have enough edits to vote. 50 edits are needed. --JDP90 (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 15:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. BTW, I don't like the canvassing. Tomer T (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the lack of symmetry is off-putting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not centered. -- -donald- (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support For such huge panorama, its hard to archive fine composition. Instead, lots of information is included.Monfie (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dey.sandip --Vamps (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 12:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tahrir Square, Cairo, in the early morning.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 04:33:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The foggy atmosphere contributes to a mysterious mood. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting topic, but I miss a clear idea with the composition and the image quality is rather dissapointing in 2 Mpixel preview. --Slaunger (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 08:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~perspective distortion~~ --Ivar (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've replaced the file with an updated version. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info It was better, but buildings on the left side were still leaning. I uploaded new version. --Ivar (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like it overall, but the buildings in the foreground are a bit distracting. Michael Barera (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the mood and the colors of the sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a hazy feel is sometimes nice, but this feels too hazy. Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a comment on my vote? Tomer T (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. It's a comment on the process as a whole. Nothing wrong with your vote :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info The image is criticized for its haziness and image quality, so I tried editing it a little bit to - in my opinion - improve it. However, the changes are too big to justify overwriting the original. Do you think this helps? --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Less space at right, a bit more at left, then perfect. But featurable as it is now. I don't know if this nomination is valid...--Jebulon (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I, really. I actually think it's featureable now, too (probably won't get enough votes though), but just in case: I Support too. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renominate the alt in a week, I'd say. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 12:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista desde la torre de observación, Parque Estatal Brown County, Indiana, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-14, DD 07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 18:58:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Landscape view thru the observation tower, Brown County State Park, Indiana, USA. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP to me. The nice autumn colors and the unusual perspective together make it special. - A.Savin 11:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unusual. Good colours. -- JDP90 (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a 3-panel abstract painting. --Selbymay (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool perspective and nice colors! Michael Barera (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a part of a contact sheet for film photography users ! --JLPC (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a good idea, and it is well done. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info --New version uploaded: color balanced (less blue) and converted to sRGB. Feel free to revert if you don't like the edit. Sting (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thank you, Poco a poco (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice idea but not that outstanding that I could overlook about the technical issues: pixels look very painted and unnatural --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose: As Wladyslaw stated: nice idea, but no "Wow" for me. I cannot see the real value for Wikimedia projects. Probably you can make some clarification on this issue. What is the main motive? The parque, the observation tower, the colors or your artistic idea? --Tuxyso (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I nominate a picture here is following the well-known official criteria of Commons. My hope is also that the evaluation is based on it, otherwise we'd need to update that criteria to avoid confusion. I spent one day in the Brown County State Park (Indinana, USA) middle of October and I tried to transmit the most representative of that place at that time, and it was, without doubt, the Indian summer, with its explosion of colors. The frame is of course an "artistic" touch with the target to have a more original result. I was hoping that this would please the reviewers here at FPC. I also think that this picture can be used in articles like Autumn, Brown County State Park or Indian summer enriching them, although I would expect this kind of question rather at VIC. All the best, Poco a poco (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably my comment results partially from a misinterpretation of the sentence "Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. " of the guidelines on Commons:Featured_picture_candidates. But for me the photo is still not representative for general topics like "autumn" or "Indian summer" because of the dominant artistic touch. Art is a subjective matter, and your undoubtlessly great work evokes no "Wow" with me in contrast to the most other voters. And no (personal) "Wow" is (as I've learned here) a concern of FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea and the framing are simple and probably nice. But beyond that, I fail to find anything particularly interesting. --Dey.sandip (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The black border and the projections of the sunshade beams (?) are very disturbing. The "landscape views" are not very attractive as other autumn pictures. J Kadavoor J e e 16:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Great "wow," very artistic take on it. But I feel it is lacking in value. Convince me of any Wikimedia project that might reasonably use this (no, I can't see this in the Wikipedia article on "autumn"), and you'll have my support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what about wikibooks:Basic Photography/Composition and the usage of physical elements to frame the pictures? Poco a poco (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC) PD: Anyhow, I think that I have understood the message. I will sort out my pictures before I upload them to avoid something that could be considered too creative.[reply]
All right, that's a good one. Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking value and quality. --Vamps (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good value and quality, special effect to me (some say "wow"), very good idea and composition. Result is featurable, IMO. I remember that for years, some of old sacred cows here ( †, R.I.P.) took time in explaining me why useful or not in Wikimedia projects was actually not a valid criterium to oppose in FPC, because "Commons" is not only a repository for Wikimedia bla bla bla... Times are changing --Jebulon (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 14:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 19:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:00026 40 mm quartz.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 12:07:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Siim - uploaded by Siim - nominated by Athanasius Soter -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool stuff! Michael Barera (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF not enough. Caption very poor, no size or scale. No place of deposit. No wow effect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Archaeodontosaurus -- Ra'ike T C 12:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When I have a look at the series of FP in this category, I think this one is far below from the "FP Minerals bar" I'm afraid...--Jebulon (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow effect.--Biser Todorov (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 15:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amanita muscaria vliegenzwam.02 JPG.JPG

File:Blonde d'Aquitaine Vallée Campan 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 18:28:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JLPC - uploaded by JLPC - nominated by JDP90
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info For reference, some other cow FPs. --Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful view. --Stryn (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view! Michael Barera (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this wide view as she in her natural kingdom; so I think the other FPs are not comparable to this except the one by Slaunger. But that 105mm is also much different than this. Too many flies on her face is a bit distracting to me even though it is quite usual. J Kadavoor J e e 05:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral An excellent shot. The unfamiliar focal length for this portrayal make it very special. I would prefer a different crop, because the head at the left has too less space compared to the area at the right sight. If you would crop tighter in the vertical direction (see my notes) you still keep the beautiful wide view of your photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion; but I don't like to miss the beauty of the landscape to any extend here. So I would like to compromise on this composition even though it is against lead room. J Kadavoor J e e 10:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cow's backside and the flies on its head are too distracting for me. The image also seems to lack any fine detail as though heavy NR applied. Colin (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, this makes the image more interesting. It seems to say Why are you looking on my back? ;o) Yann (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Tomer T (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of fine detail. --Vamps (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grass is badly smeared. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin...--Biser Todorov (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. Thanks a lot to JDP90 for having nominated the picture. It's now time to count the votes : unfortunately there were only eight afficionados for 6 toreros... and it was only a cow ! -- Anyway, I also thank all reviewers who took their time to vote on this page. --JLPC (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catopsilia pomona 3 by kadavoor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 06:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Catopsilia pomona male enjoying the warm lights and Marigold. See how the back-lit helps to show his inner costumes! All by me -- J Kadavoor J e e 06:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’m relocating to Uppala, Kasaragod related to the job of my wife; so into a wiki-break for the time being. Hope to come back with the pictures of the fauna and flora of that place, soon. -- J Kadavoor J e e 06:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bud in the bottom, is drawing the eye :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily remove it; but I love that little bud. :) (Feel free to remove it, if you prefer; I will be on a long vacation.) J Kadavoor J e e 08:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support i like as it is --Cj.samson (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice contrast and colors. --Selbymay (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good focus, composition and colour. The bud is not very distracting. -- JDP90 (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some orange/red CA's at the petals should be removed. - A.Savin 19:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you like the bud, include more of it; otherwise, remove it; but you can't leave it like this. Gidip (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lower part of the flower is completely blurry, noisy and unsharp. As for the bud, I fully agree with Gidip.--Jebulon (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 15:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crassula arborescens, Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-21, DD 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 07:41:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Crassula arborescens, Botanic Garden, Munich, Germany. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Beautiful, but why so tight crop? Gidip (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agree, it was a bit tight, new version uploaded with more generous crop Poco a poco (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 07:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gidip (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cj.samson (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this crop is much better. Michael Barera (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 15:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Harilik kivikärsakas.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 12:11:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Heiti Paves - uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by Athanasius Soter -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF not enough; focus not on the head. J Kadavoor J e e 16:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice capture, but fairly low on "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The upper part of the branch is overexposed. Too many blurred areas, and no effect Wow --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jee and Archaeo. -- JDP90 (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 15:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Long Pier, Pondicherry.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 18:45:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info --New version uploaded: color balance, noise reduction on the sky, leveled horizon. Feel free to revert if you don't like the edit. Sting (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the edit. Its good. --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose In many respects a very good photo. The scenary is very interesting, and the composition is very good. But the light is "dead" and flat for me. It gives the photo an overall dark look and makes it hard to appreciate the many small details and elements in the photo. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Agreed, that the light quality is not good enough to illustrate the scene. --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 20:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reindeer Torkilstöten 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 20:36:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Female reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) at Mount Torkilstöten, in Ljungdalen, Berg Municipality, Jämtland County, Sweden. In summer, reindeer prefer to move upwards to higher altitudes to escape insects. Created, uploaded and nominated by Arild Vågen (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A nice capture, but for me a bit low on "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward pose (urinating?); one leg is almost "missing". Composition would be better if rule of third is followed. JKadavoor Jee 04:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rule of third is used (download the photo and see where you find the reindeer and the head).--ArildV (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes; but here the subject is going out of the frame. Coming into the frame is more preferred; sorry, I should be more specific in commenting (earlier). JKadavoor Jee 10:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, no. The reindeer is looking to the right, so it is better if there is more room on the right. Yann (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes; I noticed it. But all other body parts in left direction. Just turned to give an angry look (I think a big no as I usually get while peeping into the privacy of people on street) to the photographer for disturbing its daily routines. -- J Kadavoor J e e 16:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I dont think we should confuse animals and humans. Reindeer are vigilant (bear, wolverine, wolf and lynx occur in the area, and is the major threat to the reindeer). From a encyclopaedic point of view its very good to show both the body and head of the reindeer.--ArildV (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info Different crop.--ArildV (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better composition; but the falling droplets and the widespread back legs are still an issue for me. Do you have another photo after it is urinating? J Kadavoor J e e 16:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See above. Yann (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reindeer ran away. It is extremely difficult to get close to the reindeer, without frightening them. It was the best opportunity I got in five hours.--ArildV (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts; but we've to ignore some photos due to the inferior body language of the subject that may happen to be captured by accident. J Kadavoor J e e 16:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just answered your question if there were other photos. What do you mean "we've to ignore"?--ArildV (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andriv, it seems a language problem between us. I appreciate your efforts and wish you to successfully capture a better photo later. I love animals. But I'm not happy to support this moment, unfortunately. J Kadavoor J e e 05:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azulejo - Igreja de São Bento - Ribeira Brava.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 06:32:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 17:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llorenzi (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 08:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 20:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berliner Dom Interior.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 22:52:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rob2Kx - uploaded by Rob2Kx - nominated by Rob2Kx -- Rob2Kx (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but some of the whites are clearly overexposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --A few little stitching errors (see notes), some CAs, lens barrel distortion visible in particular at the right. Sting (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It looks good, but there isn't enough "wow" factor for me. Michael Barera (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 11:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:EmissionNebula NGC6357.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 03:51:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Tryphon - nominated by Beria -- Béria Lima ^msg 03:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Béria Lima ^msg 03:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! Tomer T (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Kelvinsong (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing different from other NASA/ESA pictures. We have three current candidates like this one for the moment, it is enough. No wow.--Jebulon (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm; Astronomy is too tough for me too. But I don't want to oppose; because it reveals my ignorance. :) J Kadavoor J e e 05:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well, this is not 'just another NASA picture'. It's almost an abstract art work... -- MJJR (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Created by NASA", so, it is a NASA picture. If it is an artwork, then I was mystified, and it is a better reason for me to oppose ! --Jebulon (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 08:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW -- Ra'ike T C 12:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photo with definite WOW factor russavia (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Nebula

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Self-Portrait - WGA12798.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 08:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leonardo Da Vinci - uploaded by JarektUploadBot - nominated by TheOriginalSoni -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2012 (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: minimum resolution is 2 MP.

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.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Is that not relaxable for sufficient mitigating circumstances? The picture's main concern is its notablity {in being probably the most recognised images/pictures/portraits of a very famous scientist [to say the least]} than its total technical perfection. Considering that, should this picture not be allowed a bit more cushion than, say, a picture of a similar quality but of a completely non-notable topic? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noone disputes the notability. The endevour should be focussed on finding a source image in much better technical quality. FP is about value and high technical quality. --Slaunger (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this picture should be tried as a valued image candidate. The minimum resolution of 2 MP is a reasonable expectation of FP. --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salle de lecture Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve n06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 10:37:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the light and shadow! Michael Barera (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it just me or do we have more FP's on this subject? It looks very familiar. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See also here and here Kleuske (talk)
  - The two links you provided are of a single picture; much different from this composition. But I think one FP is enough, and this feels much dark to me. So Oppose. JKadavoor Jee 16:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops... Sorry. It should have been this one instead. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks; that also better than this. J Kadavoor J e e 16:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Primarily because of the significantly dark, underexposed area at the upper right corner --Dey.sandip (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Existing FP-s of this subject are better. --Ivar (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 08:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom crop is weird and other photos of this subject are better at showing the room. --Julian H. (talk/files) 18:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 16:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jkadavoor. Béria Lima ^msg 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coimbra November 2012-11.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2012 at 17:34:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Alvesgaspar - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great autumn mood and interesting tree species. --Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition and colors, but the photo does not attract me, nothing special - a tree in autumn. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 20:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cat March 2010-1a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 23:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of a friend. The white background is on purpose as well as the relatively shallow dof. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I expect a self portrait of you in his eyes!!! J Kadavoor J e e 05:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the unnatural background. Tomer T (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Tomer T. --Stryn (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the white bg :) --Muhammad (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Muhammad -- MJJR (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomer. --Vamps (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very expressive. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't underestand why, but I like this cat --The Photographer (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Good portrait of a cat, but yeah that background ! --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per the others opposing, the background has an adverse impact on this photo. Michael Barera (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 04:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Street sign in cyrillic Skopje Samoilova.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 22:56:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Raso mk - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The colors and the weathering on the building are great, but it doesn't have as much "wow" factor as many FPs I've seen. Still, it is quite good. Michael Barera (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no "wow". Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the chopped window, declared subject is only a small part of the composition, which isn't very balanced nor striking on the whole. Kleuske (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Vamps (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ю. Данилевский, sorry --Stas1995 (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 16:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio).jpg

File:Iguana de Venezuela.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2012 at 00:03:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You already have an existing nomination on the same subject. Agreed, this one is more of a close-up, but I prefer the other one where it shows a bit of an environment --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in the same place and not the same animal. Please refer to comment for this nomination and not compare it to another. Thanks :) --The Photographer (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support If that's the case, it should be fine --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like it, but it is a little low on "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Iguana is rare --The Photographer (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:B-2 Spirit original.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 09:25:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III - uploaded by Trevor MacInnis - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support not bad. --Llorenzi (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 13:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --Ezarateesteban 16:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Curiosity - Robot Geologist and Chemist in One!.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2012 at 15:53:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech; uploaded and nominated by Stas1995 -- Stas1995 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stas1995 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great "artist's impression": I really like it! Michael Barera (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like something out of modern CGI video game. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 15:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 16:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Ezarateesteban 16:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Haute Couture Autumn-Winter 2010-2011 N01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 14:46:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by beyrouth (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too unsharp and noisy. Tomer T (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose by Tomer T, overprocessed in dark parts (see note for an example) --Tuxyso (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. + the clothes are probably copyrighted...--Jebulon (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 21:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-11-23 16-05-52-grande-cascade-tendon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 20:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Алый Король (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I dont like this water, it seems to be manipulated by photoshop. Ashkan P. (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a photoshop manipulation -- this is what water looks like if you take a 20s exposure. Colin (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have enough edits to vote. 50 edits are needed. -- JDP90 (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral No doubt a pretty picture and good use of slow shutter speed, But I am not able to see much value in it, at this point. Appologies. --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cj.samson (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and classic example of the use of a ND 16 filter to achieve a long exposure (20s) to blur water. Colin (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Burg-Anholt-Westfassade-2012.jpg

File:Cathedral of Mount Mary, Old Goa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 07:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info The choice of B/W as the medium is intentional, as it provides more contrast and is suitable for the lonely/deserted mood of the place --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 21:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:GC Dunas de Maspalomas R04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 21:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Extremely average composition.Fotoriety (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition, I have to agree, is rather simplistic. But the colors give this picture great "wow." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 08:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Fotoriety. There are also some technical issues (lack of crispness; on some of the clouds you can see overblown areas and red CA). Pretty, but not excellent, sorry. - A.Savin 19:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The horizon is wavy. Is it a stitch? If so, some more/better horizontal control points should probably be added? --Slaunger (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a stitch; only some lens distortion was corrected -- MJJR (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but the lens distortion correction has resulted in a distorted horizon. Maybe the correction is improvable? --Slaunger (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Long live minimalism! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, the contrasts and the colors. However, I agree with A.Savin, overall sharpness is "so-so". There is a thin white sharpening line (halo) all along the horizon (+some magenta CA in the sky, and a strange spot at the horizon). But I'm sorry of this opposition.--Jebulon (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning! Michael Barera (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 16:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition--Claus (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 21:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia de San Ildefonso, Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 20:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info San Ildefonso church, Porto, Portugal. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! just a question, the cross in the image has two horizontal cross, any idea what it means?--Cj.samson (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the two-barred cross is not unusual in christian buildings, but -after some quick search- I cannot tell you why the stained glass of this church has one, sorry, Poco a poco (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Roman Catholic Church, three (and only three) archbishops are called "Patriarchs". They hold not a crozier, but a patriarcal cross. They are the archbishops of Jerusalem, of Venice, and... of Lisbon. It is a church in Porto and not Lisbon, but in Portugal. Maybe it is a beginning of an answer ? I don't know...--Jebulon (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...But the diocese of Porto is suffragan of the archdiocese of Braga, not of Lisbon...mmmhh... Needs further researches...--Jebulon (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good details of shadows. Slight HDR look, like it that way. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lehise käbi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 08:17:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Heiti Paves - uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by -- WikedKentaur (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Really nice in terms of composition and color, but the DOF is a little too shallow (the back of the cone at the top is not in focus). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lucasbosch (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the DoF is fine but not too keen on the composition. I've uploaded an alternative. Colin (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support (and I don't like the alternative crop.) Kruusamägi (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are gradation lines and dust spots in the background which should be fixed. Otherwise great, including the composition. Gidip (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support The colours are a little overdone in my opinion, but an overall excellent image. Besides, I think the composition is just right, and I like the well executed shallow depth of field. -- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid using templates other than {{Support}} and {{Oppose}} because FPCBot dont recognize it other templates. Thanks! Béria Lima ^msg 21:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop[edit]

Support Better crop and vertical cone. -- Colin (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't agree with this crop. The cone is too far left. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original one is better. --Lucasbosch (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Tamba52 (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

The chosen alternative is: File:Lehise käbi.jpg

File:Opel Olympia Rekord P1 Kombi 2012-09-01 14-29-57.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 09:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great! Michael Barera (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special--Claus (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Claus. Tomer T (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 21:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 21:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St James's Park Lake – East from the Blue Bridge - 2012-10-06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 15:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A popular tourist spot, the Blue Bridge on the lake at St James's Park offers a view of many London landmarks. See the image description page for details of the view, which is in 74MP of detail. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, nice sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice serene view, like it. --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 18:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JDP90 (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite some noise in the dark parts (see water), and maybe a little bit oversharpening, but very good picture for the FP gallery, for sure !--Jebulon (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 16:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tombs inside Jama Masjid complex.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 20:16:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The window is overexposed --The Photographer (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, agree that the window is slightly overexposed, but had no choice. My goal was to expose the interior properly and the only light source was the light coming from the window. HDR was not a possibility, because usage of tripod is not allowed in ASI protected monuments. The brightness around the window can possibly be selectively reduced, but since the over-exposure is not too intrusive, I would like to leave it as it is, in order to maintain the realistic feel of the photograph (i.e. the captured image tries to represent the reality of the then conditions as close as possible) --Dey.sandip (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had similar problems in places where it is not allowed tripod. In these cases, I perform two photographs from the same place, one taking the brightness of the window and the other with the ambient brightness. Later, I created two layers in gimp overlap the window, erasing the overexposed layer, only the section of the window. e.g. Interior de la Basilica de la Chinita.jpg. There are always options, the only limitation is your imagination ;) --The Photographer (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't deny that multiple exposures is not an option :) But then, it involves extensive post-processing and the whole thing gets into the domain of Digital Retouching. Okay, now there can be a lot of debate about the usage of softwares and to what extent it is acceptable. I'm not getting into that kind of discussion. Everyone has their own views on the subject, and its really upto the photographer. But my personal preference is only to do minimal post processing and minor corrections and use as less softwares as possible. This is the best that I could achieve in this photo, but I appreciate your views on the photograph :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. I like it despite the overexposed window part, and the suboptimal shooting conditions. Surprised there is not more noise considering the ISO. Surprised the DOF is so good considering the aperture.... --Slaunger (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment f8 at 18mm will give you a hyperfocal distance probable from 2-3 meters to infinity, so if focused appropriately, as here, there should be n DOF issues... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose overexposed window and right side tomb is cutoff --Cj.samson (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week support The lighting isn't ideal, but overall I really like this photo. Michael Barera (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination As it fails to excite the community :). Thanks to those who took their time to review. Appreciated --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 21:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord's Cricket Stadium Panoramic.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 01:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Natesh Ramasamy - uploaded and nominated by Armbrust -- User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 01:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 01:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but large parts of the sky are overexposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Burnt out sky, overall a dull look of the image --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OE and CA --The Photographer (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CAs would be correctable, clipped whites aren't. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 13:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 21:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exterior of Sultan Ahmed I Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey 002.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 16:39:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moonik - uploaded by Moonik - nominated by Moonik -- Moonik (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moonik (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As good as in QI. :) --Selbymay (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 18:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe some sharpening haloes along the minarets, but wow ! --Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Georg Schütte (2012).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 17:09:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Morray - uploaded by Morray - nominated by Morray -- Morray (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Morray (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The subject's body language is great, but overall there isn't enough "wow" factor here for me to see this as an FP. Michael Barera (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The low angle of view emphasizes the legs instead of the head. Gidip (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What has he got growing out of his face. Distracting. Colin (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 13:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harris's Hawk Parabuteo unicinctus (Temminck 1824).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 00:12:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and sharp portrayal of an eagle. Every single hair and nearly every single feather is visible. Is it the Nikkor 60mm AF-S? An incredible sharp lens, I also possess and like it :) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chapeau! --Llez (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Moonik (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kaganer (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Good --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per other "Very good"s.--Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 07:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Senor de villaseca facade.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 21:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Perspective problem, I'm sorry --The Photographer (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perspective problem? Of course there will be a convergence of lines, the degree of them depends on the distance camera-subject, focal length, etc., which will give you an angle, thus perspective. Even the use of a crane to center "something" would yield a perspective towards the outside of the center, which would in turn be an unnatural view of the buiding. This is the top of the church door, so the perspective rendered is somewhat normal... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you stand far enough away from the structure you can take the picture so that the columns are displayed right and thus give a sense of uniformity. Mr. Tomas, I'm not sure, I would have liked to see more of the columns and not that feeling like they were cut, also a little over the top. --The Photographer (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but the problem is that there is no space in front to back off... I took the picture as far back as possible, beyond me there were stairs, a gate and a tree that obstructed the view. As far as the cropping, one has to determine the sections in such a manner that one has a "complete" "partial" story. Details in architecture are common and they demand thoughtful cropping. I think I achieved this. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification, I've run into similar problems, what I do is an panoramic, and then modify the perspective. Use a wide-angle lens is an option. Nice shoot --The Photographer (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Software can "fix" perspective "distortion" by stretching but no software can change the angle-of-view from below-the-subject to perpedicular-to-the-subject. This is clearly shot from below and that can't be fixed with any software. Some of our building shots, with perfect verticals, look weird because they are still shot from close up and below. The only solution is to get further away and/or higher up, to approach the perpendicular angle-of-view. But if the ground slopes down or there are obstacles in the way, there is no solution. One may consider that the artist deliberately wanted us to "look up" at this facade, in worship. Colin (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Colin. Angle of view in itself gives us a perspective. The recent tendency to "correct" perspective in my opinion is an abuse of technological resources, the fact that the option is there does not meann one has to use it all the time. Perspective, up and down and side to side occurs naturally and it is affected by several factors: distance camera-subject, focal length and angle of view, etc. To try to "fix" up and down perspective, which gives us a visual sense of distance, height etc., is just as ridiculous to try to "fix" lateral perspective that gives us a sense of depth. In some cases correcting a little converging vertical lines that result from wide angle lenses, and thus a distorted view, works in order to render a more natural look, when a natural look is desired. In this particular case, the converging lines are in tune with the natural way one would see the subject (see the focal length) in person. In some architectural shots parallel lines may be desire in order to give a more dramatic view. The best way anyhow to correct perspective distortion is through the use of perspective correction lenses or view cameras with tilt/shift/rise/fall. Sofware correction, in my opinion, most of the time works as a gimmick. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert but my understanding is that perspective control lenses can't perform the magic trick of fixing the angle-of-view either. If you are only able to see the bottom of a gargoyle then there's no lens in the world will let you look it straight in the eye. A periscope perhaps? The perspective control lens has two advantages over software. Firstly, the software stretching will result in resolution loss. Which is why some stitched building images benefit from a little downsizing. Secondly, since the camera is pointed upwards, and a standard (rectilinear) lens has a flat plane of focus that is parallel to the sensor, one can't get the whole building in focus when tilting other than relying on a large depth-of-field. I dare say, however, that such lenses have their own distortions, limitations, and they are expective. The perspective fixing feature in Photoshop/Lightroom isn't very clever compared to Hugin. "Ye cannae break the laws o' physics!" -- Colin (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The angle of view remains the same, but what is important is how the image is recorded and the optical process. Basically perspective control lennses and view cameras allow for the film plane to be parallel to the subject plane, and the image travels in a diagonal manner. The center of the lens is not centered to the film plane but offset, and the subject plane and the film place are parallel, thus maintaining the verticals pretty much the way the brain sees them. There is a good article here #[[2]] and here #[[3]]. In any case, perspective control with a rise movement either with perspective control lenses or view cameras is entirely different than perspective control with software. Software will stretch pixels and the affected areas will not have the same resolution across the film plane. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for your links and analysis. I'm just starting out in photography seriously. I can not vote because I'm not sure, sorry. When I vote for something is when there is no doubt that it is an excellent job, obviously I am wrong, I will carefully review your links and learn a little --The Photographer (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- VolodymyrF 08:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting facade captured in detail. I agree with Tomascastelazo that the view from below is natural. Looking online (e.g., this) shows the whole front is interesting and hard to decide where to crop without cutting something. A single shot of the whole facade would not be as detailed as this one (a stitched image would be necessary) so one has to choose between capturing detail vs the whole. -- Colin (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detailed shot, the perspective is natural IMHO, so I'm okay with it. --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 18:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Colin. Maybe could you denoise a little bit ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting --Stas1995 (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spb 06-2012 Chesme Church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 11:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Front view of the Chesme Church (built in 1780 in Saint Petersburg, Russia), cr. & upl. by A.Savin, additional rework by Muhammad Mahdi Karim. Nominated by A.Savin. 11:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 11:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Изящно.--Alexandronikos (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kaganer (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JDP90 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Święto Niepodległości Warszawa 2012 30.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 19:13:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Plogi - uploaded by Plogi - nominated by Plogi -- Plogi (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Plogi (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don't like how the people in the lower portion of the photo have their faces cut off by the crop. Michael Barera (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sharpness issues, english description. --Dey.sandip (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 13:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Exploding E Match.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 16:24:17 (UTC)
This image shows an exploding e match that is widely used in pyrotechnics for a controlled ignition.

Info created by Lucasbosch - uploaded by Lucasbosch - nominated by Lucasbosch -- Lucasbosch (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image! Michael Barera (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I can't see how a grey-scale version makes this feature-worthy?!Fotoriety (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made it grey-scale because the colored version doesn't add much to the overall image. The sparks itself would stay white and the background would have a slightly brown color. --Lucasbosch (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. And no reason for black and white. If it was a colourful background, we could tell the sparks were white, but this just shows they are bright. Composition is messy. Colin (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't help with the composition, but I've uploaded the colored version of this. I hope this is better. --Lucasbosch (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't help as beige isn't colourful. And I think your colour temp is wrong. Colin (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done The color temperature has been corrected. --Lucasbosch (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khaled el Masri, Haute couture Spring-Summer 2010.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 21:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Beyrouth (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much noise Béria Lima ^msg 21:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What noise? I see no noise. Colin (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dark background areas do have a lot of colour noise. Since the rest of the picture is relatively noise-free, it might be an editing problem. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Copyright problem ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personally I do not like this picture. --Llorenzi (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fibroblastid (BPAE).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 18:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by Ivo Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Refreshing topic. I believe an FP should be able to tell its own story, but for the layman it is very hard to understand what is going on here. The two blobs of green color are also esthetically pretty terrible IMO. The English translation on the image page could use some elaborations, such a description of the meaning of the colors and an identification of where we see what. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Insufficient description, can't understand what the photo is about. The green blobs look over-saturated though this is a scientific photo, so not quite sure. --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good, but not enough "wow" factor in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kosmoloog Arved Sapar..jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2012 at 18:53:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Lauri Kulpsoo - nominated by Ivo Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, I'm confused about the choice of the setting. Perhaps it's a pretty shot for a photo album or a framed portrait, but I miss a real encyclopedic value. The quality is good nevertheless. - A.Savin 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I understand a machine-translated version of the Estonian Wikipedia article regarding this atrophysicist, the photo is taken in a field close to an observatory, which might be the context, although this is not apparent from the photo. A COM:FPC does not need to have encyclopedic value, but educational/informational value is a broader sense, and I think it has. --Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo lacked categories, and I have created Category:Arved Sapar. I do not understand much of the Esstonian article about this person, so other parent categories to that new category may be needed. --Slaunger (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support An eye-catcing and interesting portrait. Interesting birds perpective, the yellow rape-seed field surroundings, the scientist in suit. The light, composition and expression is good. I like it. --Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Slaunger. It makes me smile. Kleuske (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmm. A breath of fresh air. I like it! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like its boldness. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ nice picture, but confusing - because from looking at it I thought he is a botanist. Tomer T (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been thinking about this photo during the day and the setting makes sense to me now. I see the rape-seed field as an analog to the universe. One of the most important things you learn if you are into cosmology is that the universe on a large scale is isotropic and homogeneous. That is, all galaxies and clusters of galaxies are evenly spread on a large cosmological length scale. Just like a flowering rape-seed field seen from a distance. Everything is yellow (isotropic) and nomatter which direction you look at, the field looks the same (homogeneous). Yet, on a smaller scale, there is structure (galaxies and clusters of galaxies). I think of each plant as a cluster of galaxies, and each leaf and flower as a galaxy. Each plant share the same overall structure, yet has individual differences. A rape-seed field is just like the universe. Quite an adequate scene for a cosmologist. --Slaunger (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - wow !--Jebulon (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Or maybe he just fancies yellow! --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still, to get to this conclusion, you need to know he's a cosmologist. Without knowing it, you'd probably think he's a botanist or something. I decided to Oppose. Tomer T (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can see that "rape-seed field is just like the universe" analogy being used in a TV doc or science magazine and would work in the context where that argument is being made explictly in the voiceover or text. It would then be a great visual aid to help folk remember the point being made. A good image. But without that context, the "Comsmologist in rape-seed field" image just becomes an illustation for the dictionary definition of "incongruous". Colin (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Tomar T. I am confused whether its a portrait, a portrait with the subject in its environment or what exactly? At this point, not able to see anything beyond a framed picture or something. --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose <rant>Not bold. Just daft. An image for folk with no attention span or interest in the subject. Reminds me of the popular science programs on TV where they can't just film some fascinating scientist's head and shoulders and leave us to listen to what he has to say. They have to add vignetting and fake tilt-shift effects and zoom in on a close-up of his hands or fly him at great expense to Patagonia so he can stand silhouetted on some desert mountain...</rant> Colin (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose: Per Colin, or at least in that direction. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be more precise: I think the setting makes sense. But I find it difficult to even look at the subject due to the very high saturation of what's not really only a background. --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomar T. --Алый Король (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)--Алый Король (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good photo, though I am a bit confused by the subject and the setting. Michael Barera (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athanasius Soter (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomer T--Claus (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historisch park Heremastate. Achterste vijver 2.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 16:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nederlands: Achterste vijver in historisch park Heremastate in de herfst.
Info English: Loosely translated: rear Heremastate pond in historical park in autumn.

famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice reflections and intersting colors. But: The burn out sky is too disturbing for me. HDR technique had possibly helped here. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tuxyso and looks overprocessed in high resolution. --Slaunger (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, but over-exposed sky and a bit of over-processing --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination famberhorst

File:Paddenstoel op els.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 17:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nederlands: Paddenstoel als een vogel op de stam van een afgezaagde els.
Info English: Loosely translated: Mushroom like a bird on the trunk of a cut alder.

famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting find, but the mushroom isn't that sharp and the composition and lighting not at feature-pic levels. Colin (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of noise, imperfect colours. -- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. --Lucasbosch (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mist soortnaam en geen adequate categorisatie. B.p. 12:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination famberhorst

File:Metronom ME-146-18 Zug der Ideen.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 01:17:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose: Contrast too high (a lot is lost in the black areas, some slightly clipped whites), WB slightly off towards blueness (not a big problem), but mainly I don't really find the composition very special or appealing, which is of course very subjective. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per Julian H. --Dey.sandip (talk)
- Neutral for the new uploaded version --Dey.sandip (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support There is a bit of a contrast issue, but overall I still like it. Michael Barera (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for the informations by Julian_Herzog, Dey.sandip and Michael Barera. I made a better update with color balance, less contrast, less blue and correct white. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition doesn't inspire me. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:CoA of later Ferdinand I Holy Roman Emperor as King of the Romans 1536 Hofburg Wien Austria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 16:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The CoA of the later Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, brother of Emperor Charles V as king of the Romans, of Hungary, of Bohemia, and Archduke of Austria, in 1536. Please notice the Golden Fleece order collar. Schweizertrakt, Amalienburg Courtyard, Hofburg palace, Vienna, Austria.This is a re-nomination of a better version of a previously withdrawn candidacy -- Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality shot in a very plain and straightforward style. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peter Weis. Michael Barera (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athanasius Soter (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and seems valuable too --Dey.sandip (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gentau Pic du Midi Ossau.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2012 at 11:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Myrabella - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some noise, dark or very light areas (high contrast), slightly blurred areas, however, prominent enough and very nice composition imho --The Photographer (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not very sharp, but excellent "wow" factor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good composition, a lucky cloud and a nice reflection makes a "wow" factor happy. --Selbymay (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Absolutely lovely composition. But exposure-wise it looks weird washed out, especially in the area around the white cows. As if they were originally overexposed and blown, then brightness reduced and postprocessed. The histogram also has an unexpected discontinuity in the high end. --Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 21:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - sharpness issues at certain areas, although no denial, its a lovely composition --Dey.sandip (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful landscape and composition, especially the reflection of the small cloud and and cows in the foreground makes it very special. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Slaunger, per supporters and per opposer.--Jebulon (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --Cj.samson (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, Tomer T, for this unexpected nomination :) --Myrabella (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful location, beautiful colors! Michael Barera (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. --Moonik (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 08:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jaani kirik Talvel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2012 at 18:10:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rene Suurkaev - uploaded by Rene Suurkaev - nominated by -- WikedKentaur (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice Winter atmosphere, but I think there are a few things, which are not spot on for FP. I think the crop is too tight, expecially at the top, the composition is quite good, but not excellent, especially the right hand side is a little weak with some image clutter of distracting elements and the mix between centered and third-of-rulish elements does not work well for me. Perhaps a little to much fog obscuring the elements, on the other hand it adds to the winter atmosphere. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong Support It is a work of art. A little surreal, but exciting and interesting. Nice with a picture that is not taken on a beautiful summer with saturated blue sky.--ArildV (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would have liked a bit of space around the subject. Crop is too tight. --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think exactly the same as Slaunger. IMO, it is leaning a bit ccw too.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop is too tight, but other than that it is a great photo. Michael Barera (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athanasius Soter (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wonderful scene, yet unfortunately dull colors. A night shot of this would be much better. --Aktron (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support To Aktron: there are plenty of night shots but they don't show thisarea that well and with this frosty weather these are rather good colors (and they help to show that it was cold). Kruusamägi (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Tomer T (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theatre of Ostia Antica.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2012 at 16:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kleuske -- Kleuske (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Kleuske (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point, I fail to see much beyond some steps and a pigeon. Is there anything specific, that I'm missing ? --Dey.sandip (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite a lot, actually. See Ostia Antica. Kleuske (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ostia._Theatrum.JPG shows the environment better --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you're joking. This isn't about the environment or the tourists. This is about the theatre. Kleuske (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neutral May be I am more enlightened now about the subject. But I would have liked if the photo itself had some feature or characteristic to highlight the importance. Simply looking at it, does not really tell much about the significance of the place to a casual viewer. --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe because I'm European, I understand Kleuske's purpose very well (and I like this minimalism very much).--Jebulon (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It looks good, but I have to agree with Dey.sandip: the focus is too close. A broader perspective would have been better. Michael Barera (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like abstract forms but this fails to reach FP imo. The pigeon is a big flaw. The lighting is shadowless and not particularly flattering. The 4:3 crop doesn't seem to suit. Colin (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange. The pidgeon is what made this picture interesting in my mind. The image isn't cropped. Kleuske (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Crop/frame same difference. The sensor crops reality. Colin (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow" effect for me, sorry --Stas1995 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barcelona - Farola Avenida Gaudi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 20:40:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Selbymay - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for this nomination! --Selbymay (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 14:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed a very nice picture to look at --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berg December 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 17:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panorama of Berg, a village at Möja island, Stockholm archipelago. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very typical nordic landscape in winter, implemented in a well stitched, high-resolution pano. Good work! --A.Savin 20:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JDP90 (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks to be a beautiful place, and photographer does it justice for sure :) - Benh (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--impressive clarity across the image Almonroth (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 23:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gusseinserne Kolonnade Marianske Lazne.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 18:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Harke - uploaded by Harke - nominated by Harke -- Harke (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Harke (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Don't find much in the composition, not much "wow" --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow" effect --Stas1995 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mesa Arch, Canyonlands.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2012 at 20:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by snowpeak - uploaded by snowpeak - nominated by Till (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Till (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Obviously huge wow and it looks really great in preview. But already at 2Mpixels it begins to look overprocessed with posterized cliffs and chroma noise in the sky. At full res, the problems are very apparent. I had a look at the creators own comment regarding the shot on flickr, where he says "...I worked a lot on it because I forgot to use the tripod and also didn't set the exposure right. Paying for my sins, so to speak. All those other tourists that were there blocking the shot got me all flustered!". It explains why it looks so processed. --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request A geocode would be helpful and add value to the image page. --Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Added per [4]. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Slaunger, at full resolution certainly looks a lot over-processed. --Dey.sandip (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, great moment to choose. Sadly the holes near the top of the arch look dreadful in full resolution. Kleuske (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. –Makele-90 (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just too many flaws. Shame. Colin (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the obvious reasons. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The colors and the idea are great, but there are just too many flaws, as already pointed out. Unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. --El Grafo (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 23:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torre del Oro flag Seville Spain.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 17:20:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me-- Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Torre del Oro, famous landmark of Seville, Spain.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and hight quality--Miguel Bugallo 20:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tell me, how did you arrange the lady to hold the Spanish flag to improve your shot? :) Poco a poco (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Keep your secret, secret", but it was very expansive.... In real: she was there, and I was here. With my camera.--Jebulon (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but nice. - A.Savin 19:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support That flag really improves the image. Kudos ! --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 23:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cell Cycle—Animal Cell.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 21:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Kelvinsong— Kelvinsong (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice diagram. Info looks correct, at least by what I remember from high school biology. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Well done, however, the colors are very loose, I suggest darkening in some areas it is difficult to read the text. I'm sorry~~. Look better now --The Photographer (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree on the text-color. Kleuske (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific?—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Light colored texts on a white background makes for difficult reading, especially if you are vision-impaired. I would much prefer somewhat darker colors. Kleuske (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info Alright, I've darkened some of the text now. —Kelvinsong (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- JDP90 (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 08:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the colors, this is an excellent illustration. Kleuske (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! Michael Barera (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Durga Puja Preparations.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 16:46:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created/uploaded/nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personally I do not like this picture. --Llorenzi (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but will you be kind enough to explain the reasons for not liking ? Objective feedback will be more useful to me --Dey.sandip (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - May if only the "statue" in the backgroud was highlighted... I ll vote for the picture, but in this case it seems very distracting what happens in the foregroud.--Llorenzi (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The background statue is the idol of Goddess Durga. The activities in the foreground show the preparations of a "Puja" and is an essential element of the photo. The people are priests. The intention was to include the activities to give a sense of the puja preparations. The idol is still highlighted with directional yellow light. --Dey.sandip (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image could use a bit of perspective correction. Kleuske (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a tool for Perspective correction, neither I have any experience in fixing perspective. If you or anyone else wants to do this, you are welcome to post a new version :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can download The Gimp free of charge. Kleuske (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it's an interesting picture, I did try to correct the perspective but the crop is too tight, we lose a lot of elements doing it. --Selbymay (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for trying the Perspective correction. This photo was shot using a ultra-wide lens from a very tight spot to accomodate all of the foreground elements. Hence the presence perspective which I personally don't find much of a problem --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not enough "wow" factor for me. Michael Barera (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the assessment --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 11:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katya Gordon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2012 at 10:59:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Taya Nevskaya - uploaded by Александр Сигачёв - nominated by A.Savin 10:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Professional studio shot of a notable Russian TV host. - A.Savin 10:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose: Commons definitely profits from professional studio photographs of celebrities. But for a "professional shot" there are two notably problems with hightlights on the skin (see notes). It is normal in portraiture that one side of the face is brighter than the other one, but espcially the hightlight on the forehead is too disturbing for me, probably a result of the slightly too low position of the main light. After dodging (if possible), pro from me. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes apparently from the studio flashlight. Sadly, I cannot follow your expectations. - A.Savin 18:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not, do you diagress with my editing suggestion or my observation? Or are you not allowed to edit? --Tuxyso (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photography aside, I fail to see the value of featuring a portrait of a "notable" local celebrity. I think that the celebrity status should be reserved to those who make advances in science, the arts, politics, etc, that have a universal reach and who generate a universal agreement. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is not Wikipedia and here we have no discussions on notability. Besides, this image is curently being used in a Wikipedia article. Are all of your FPC's being used somewhere? - A.Savin 19:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is the featurable characteristic of this photograph then? Why then characterize this shot as as a professional shot of a notable Russian TV host, if notability is not an issue. The proposal then should be a professional shot of a Russian TV host. As a portrait of a person, not considering her notabiility, it is of marginal quality from the photographc point of view, that is, there is no extraordinary craftsmanship, and the portrait tells me absolutely nothing of who this person is, what she does, nor the field where she is "notable.". This photograph is undistinguishable from zillions of pictures of ordinary people. A portrait of a person? Try this #[[5]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support An attractive subject photographed well. The hightlights identified by Tuxyso don't bother me and fashion photography often has the face evenly light. The notability of the subject is a matter for their Wikipedia article, not Commons FP. Colin (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all, nothing interesting and intriguing: neither subject, nor composition, just girl and white background. I don't like unnatural studio background, especially white background, it's real shame. Beside, per Tomascastelazo, it does not reveal much to me about the person, who is she, what is inside, and thus it does not give a huge reading on my wow-o-meter. --Алый Король (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The subject's expression is great, but there just isn't enough "wow" factor here, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 11:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Стрельба из лука.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 23:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info "Shooting from the Buryat bow. Balzhinima Tsyrempilov." created by Аркадий Зарубин - uploaded by Аркадий Зарубин - nominated by kaganer -- Kaganer (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kaganer (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~I love this image but, only 1.5 mpx ? :(~~ FP now, maybe Picture of Year!, WOW --The Photographer (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I are asked the author... --Kaganer (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  I ~~downloaded~~uploaded the file with better resolution. --Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite some noise, but the capture is nearly perfect, great shot! -- A.Savin 10:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 13:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shame of the modern finger protection... Some CA to be reduced (fingers, along the arrow...), and chromatic noise too (hand).--Jebulon (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A sharp portrayal and notably a beautiful composition. Well done! --Tuxyso (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The image quality is not perfect with some colour noise in many areas, but there is still great detail and the composition is spot-on. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JDP90 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! Michael Barera (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Cathedral & Capilla Real Granada Spain.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 19:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me (with the kind help of Alonzo Cano, Diego de Siloë etc...)--Jebulon (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination The Cathedral of Granada (1505-1703) and the Capilla Real, (where are buried the Catholic Monarchs), as seen from "Torre de la Vela" of Alhambra, Spain.--Jebulon (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is good. But, almost monotonic color tone throughout the image, the capilla real is somewhat indistinguishable from the rest of the buildings and overall nothing much is holding my attention, composition wise. The presence of one or two strong focus points may have had worked. --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Tomer T (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like as well ;) Béria Lima ^msg 23:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Dey.sandip: not enough contrast or "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too chaotic, can barely even tell what it is at thumbnail size.—Kelvinsong (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Picture taken at wrong time of day. Earlier or later, depending on sun´s direction, you could get a lot of texture and volume, making the picture more interesting. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was thinking the same thing as Tomascastelazo when I saw this. INeverCry 07:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination No chance this time... Thank you all for feedbacks !--Jebulon (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grüttpark - Winter2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 14:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Taxiarchos228 - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All I see are couple of benches covered in snow, otherwise the image doesn't say much to me. The snow of the benches are back-lit, would have liked it light was falling on them. Nothing special composition wise as well. Sorry. --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As per Dey.sandip.Fotoriety (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor for me. Michael Barera (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, photographhing white is difficult, but this is pretty decent. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dey.sandip and Michael Barera. INeverCry 07:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peacock Pansy, Burdwan, West Bengal, India 05 12 2012 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 08:09:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Peacock Pansy (Junonia almana) is a species of nymphalid butterfly found in South Asia. Taken at Burdwan, West Bengal, India. Created / uploaded / nominated by JDP90 (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose The last pinch of sharpness is missing for me. We have a lot of butterfly photos in FP, I think the use of a dedicated macro lens had made this photo FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I find this photo of this species to have more vivid blues and reds than most (if not all) others on Wiki. However, composition, sharpness and overall saturation seem slightly lacking. Sorry.Fotoriety (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. --Lucasbosch (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I like the picture, I just wish there was a bit more contrast—it's too washed out. —Kelvinsong (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Fotoriety and Kelvinsong. Michael Barera (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the reviews.

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JDP90 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Entrance Hall of Mr Chas. Green's house, Savannah Ga, now occupied as Head Quarters by Gen Sherman.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2012 at 17:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Waud - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great restoration of a historical work. Michael Barera (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Historically interesting, with a certain charm, but too drab IMO for an FP. --Avenue (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manastir Dobrun, Republika Srpska.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2012 at 15:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, but the crop is too tight at the bottom, a little bit more of the road could have been shown. Right now, it gives a sense of discontinuity. Also the buildings probably needed a bit more breathing space around them. --Dey.sandip (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors are clearly great, and I don't think the crop is an issue. Michael Barera (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technical quality is really great. I wouldn't see the crop as a problem, but exposure. However, making the picture brighter can make the facade overburnt. --Aktron (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per sandip--Claus (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-11-17 09-35-30-saut-truite.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 18:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very nice technical quality (including the use of the ND filter for the long exposure), good colors and light, but that log of tree in the foreground is really distracting for me. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is flawed per Slaunger. It is difficult to get a sense of scale. The long-exposure-water theme can get boring quickly :-) Colin (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate framing, looks worth a retry though. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Slaunger. Michael Barera (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 23:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carcar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 18:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! The colors of the vegetation fits extremely nicely with the bird. --Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition. Colin (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful and rather cute subject, interesting setting.Fotoriety (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. -- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Чёткая фотография.--Alexandronikos (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! --Schnobby (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JDP90 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --Dey.sandip (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Love the composition, so i'll be tempted to "me, too.", even though it's utterly superfluous. Kleuske (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tu vas nous faire tous les "Pierre Dalous" (et tu aurais raison ;-) ). - Benh (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~--Tomás66 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have enough edits to vote. 50 edits are needed. --JDP90 (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 31 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shivaji Maharaj Raigad.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2012 at 19:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Statue of Shivaji Maharaj,founder of the Maratha Empire at Raigad fort,Maharashtra.

created by Cj.samson - uploaded by Cj.samson - nominated by Cj.samson -- Cj.samson (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the perspective, the composition and the detail, there where it matters, Poco a poco (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose halo, CA, bad bottom crop. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Would have liked if it was not centered so much, Base seems to be clipped, Framing not that good overall --Dey.sandip (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- i felt this crop is better and i composed in this fashion because the base structure is not worth coming in the frame. Also, there was some celebrations going on and lot of people from near by village had gathered and sat just below the statue, you can see the fresh garlands and clicking picture in between all these was a challenge, you would know this better :) --Cj.samson (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neutral OK, I see the reasoning. Still there are some technical issues, like halos and centered composition that are not exactly flattering, sorry :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The bottom crop is unfortunate, but I still like it overall. Michael Barera (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. As Micheal --Muhammad (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support After see the base of the statue I totally understand the botton crop (I would do the same). Also please see the notes i left in the image! :) Béria Lima ^msg 15:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, linked image clearly shows the base, and regarding annotation, the left crop would make the image too tight and if i digitally paint to remove those marking, then the inscription at bottom will be lost,so left it as it is :)
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Carschten, especially the halo. Looks underexposed to, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per Carschten. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 23:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Sculpture

File:Ardral.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2012 at 22:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I´m sorry but, Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information~~. The image size is ok, 2.6 megapixel - The Photographer 02:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 2mpx Gidip (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Very nice capture. Quality is a bit low even at 2 MP, hence the "weak." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It looks good, but I think it is a little low on "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small and not particularly sharp or interesting composition. Colin (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Something is not quite right in this composition. Béria Lima ^msg 15:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Artist’s impression of a gamma-ray burst shining through two young galaxies in the early Universe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 00:59:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO/L. Calçada - uploaded by Originalwana - nominated by Béria Lima -- Béria Lima ^msg 00:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Artist’s impression which shows two galaxies in the early Universe. The brilliant explosion on the left is a gamma-ray burst. As the light from the burst passes through the two galaxies some colours are absorbed by the cool gas in the galaxies, leaving characteristic dark lines in the spectrum. The study of these spectra allowed astronomers to discover that these two galaxies are remarkably rich in heavier chemical elements. More info and the name of the two galaxies at this article in ESO website.
Support -- Béria Lima ^msg 00:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support russavia (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not the greatest astronomy image I've seen, but still worthy of FP status, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Original image. Béria Lima ^msg 19:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

The chosen alternative is: File:Artist’s impression of a gamma-ray burst shining through two young galaxies in the early Universe.jpg

Set:Burning of McPhersonville, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 11:59:55 (UTC)

Another set, this one I think particularly valuable, as this is a very rare chance to compare the original Special Artist's illustration to how it was published: the LoC tends to only have one or the other.

Original sketch by William Waud
As published in Harper's Weekly

Info created by William Waud - restored, uploaded, and nominated by User:Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historical images! Michael Barera (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

[Handling this myself, as FPCBot has trouble with sets - Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)] [reply]

File:Holed rock at Bryce Canyon Utah.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 21:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Nicolas Perrault III
Support -- Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing special about the composition.Fotoriety (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Sorry, just too oversaturated. —Kelvinsong (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dresden 2012-05-22-6538.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 22:43:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Slick - uploaded by Slick - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as creator -- Slick (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the expression, though i cannot escape the thought she's bowling... Kleuske (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 15:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elektrokeemiliselt söövitatud vismut (111) monokristalli tahk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2012 at 08:58:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tavoromann - uploaded by Tavoromann - nominated by -- WikedKentaur (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor photographic technique, blurred areas, CA, this type of image requires a focus stacking. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor for me. Michael Barera (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giacomo Poretti, Savona, 2012.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 19:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mystère Martin - uploaded by Mystère Martin - nominated by Mystère Martin -- Mystère Martin (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mystère Martin (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but direct flash is too harsh, and the out-of-focus camera LCD on the right is distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting and distracting background and overall nothing special. No FP for me.--Lucasbosch (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It helps the creator, if you can kindly specify the reason for oppose. Just a request --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts. Michael Barera (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Random snapshot with bad lighting and composition, lacking sharpness, avoidable flash highlights. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palais de Savoie -Aix-les-Bains.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 15:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Floflo - uploaded by Floflo - nominated by Floflo -- Floflo (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Floflo (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment slightly unsharpness and chromatic aberration. See notes --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ...and it needs a perspective correction. Apart from that the composition (crop and shadow areas) and lack of sharpness are a problem that cannot be corrected, Poco a poco (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This photo needs more corrections. --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco a Poco. Michael Barera (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rock cut Cave 2, Badami.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 09:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info This photograph uses Adobe RGB color space. It is recommended that the photograph be viewed in a browser/image viewer that supports non-sRGB color space (to appreciate all the subtle color tones). Safari and Firefox include non-sRGB color space support by default
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, chromatic aberration and Overexposed. Please see the notes --The Photographer (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Exposure and minor CA adjustments on a new version uploaded. It should be acceptable now. I have also annotated the nomination image to describe various elements better --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak

Support there is still some exposure in column background, some blur on top (See Swastika). Front column has some distortion of perspective, however, for me is good enough to vote. --The Photographer (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Annotations added/modified --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sickla Udde December 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2012 at 16:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Sickla udde (a new residential area in Hammarby sjöstad), Stockholm. The picture was taken just after the season's first snowstorm, when snow is still clean and fresh. It is also a good example of a typical winter day in northern Europe, with a beautiful winter light. The high resolution and sharpness gives a detailed picture of the area. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice overall, but a bit low on "wow" factor, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special to me. --Lucasbosch (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cirque de Gavarnie - panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 16:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow for this stunning picture of a stunning place ! Great job !--Jebulon (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~support~~ Neutral I've had second thoughts. -- Colin (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks like an interesting place. Nice quality and, I would say, useful too. I'm just not sure if the lightning conditions are quite up to make it a FP. The mood of the light is somewhat harsh. Other thing, there is quite much trees and bushes in front of the Cirque. By looking at the picture it makes me wonder if the view would be more revealing on the top of the hill on the right. Good work anyway! --Ximonic (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow--Claus (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've shot a bit of cirque of gavarnie pics (yes great place), and this isn't the best point of view IMO, with all the trees in the way. - Benh (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you show your shots to us ? We are (I'm !) missing your pictures since a (too) long time, dear Benh...--Jebulon (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's nice of you Jebulon ;) I've recently uploaded a few more pics but will try to do more. As for Gavarnie itself I think I may have material here, with much more clearer view of the subject (but with the cascade in the shadow because it was taken at morning time), that I could at least submit for assessment here. - Benh (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at this whole picture zoomed out I agreed with "no wow" but then I did some cropping and made a good wallpaper out of the waterfall section in the middle. The level of detail is very impressive and the clarity is good. --Pine^✉ 20:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:City Lights of the United States 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2012 at 19:49:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stumbled across this while wandering on National Geographic website. Not the first of its kind we have here, but this one has a fairly high resolution and is more up to date than previous ones. And big wow for me (although it's a bit scary from some perspective...). -- Benh (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Красиво--Alexandronikos (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Atention (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC+1)
Support Impressive--Citron (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressively good or impressively bad, that's the question... But that's the subject (pars pro toto), not the image. Kleuske (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow ... I was actually able to find my hometown. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Peter23 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haliotis iris LC0283.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2012 at 16:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Shell of a Paua snail (Haliotis iris). As of all members of the Abalone genus the inside of the shell is lined with Nacre, but this one showed an extraordinary colorful iridiscence. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but lack of sharpness and DOF are visible already in the preview.--ArildV (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ArildV --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ArildV. Michael Barera (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heilig-Geist-Spital abends.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2012 at 17:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald (de) 17:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald (de) 17:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Visible details in the inner room of the central building are very good and nice overall mood and reflections on the water. Is it an HDR? If so, you could use the Template:Panorama and briefly describe your processing. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is no HDR. I simply took the bright parts manually from another shot with shorter expusure-time. Therefor I used the Photoshop-layers. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 02:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this kind of manipulation is also a kind of HDR/DRI --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Дом престарелых. --Alexandronikos (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sehr gut. -- MJJR (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support By the way - my aunt lived in the room just in the little tower in the middle. --Schnobby (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already on german Wikipedia a user told me, that his father worked for 20 years behind the most right window on the image. It's a small world! ;-) -- Wolf im Wald (de) 16:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 18:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hombre cantando por dinero en las cercanías del Hotel Humbodlt.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 16:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The Photographer (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop is a little tight, but I like the portrait. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I, too, like this portrait. Kleuske (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dislike the busy composition of the background. Jujutacular (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bg is part of the composition, is the Humboldt Hotel, an icon of modern architecture Venezolana. Thank for your review --The Photographer (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The background is a very good contrast to the musician. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support After many reviews. The face is not in focus (the guitar is), the people are disturbing to me (not the building), but I like it ! Especially the soda can. So, support.--Jebulon (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Michael Barera (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see the reason behind the choice of the background, which seems to distracting to me. Also, the image lacks room on the right side. --Eusebius (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Passage des Princes, Paris 2e.jpg

File:Plaza del ayuntamiento, Setúbal, Portugal, 2012-08-17, DD 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 15:51:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Town hall square, Setúbal, Portugal. All by Poco a poco (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very sunny image! Perhaps a little bit too bright? But I like it. FP for me. -- MJJR (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Technically near to perfect, very good sharpness, I like the modified crop in this version. But I see nothing special justifying FP. Neither the composition nor the motive is attractive enough for me. "Sunny image" is not sufficient for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I agree with Tuxyso, no doubt a good quality image, but I am not finding much in the overall composition. --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Tuxyso Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A very nice capture, but a little low on "wow" factor, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 03:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Street painting in guanajuato 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2012 at 20:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kleuske (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 08:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Please put your signature~~ --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! Michael Barera (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a Castelazo! B.p. 17:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral could be sharper. --Pine^✉ 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Weisskopf Seeadler haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 amk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 00:40:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by AngMoKio - uploaded by AngMoKio - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 00:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 00:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good capture, but I don't like the white building on the background. Also, the overall quality is rather average I'm afraid. - A.Savin 11:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot. --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin. Please remember we have to distinguish here the "best of the best". It is a good picture though, but technically not enough for FP, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great shot, but due to the distracting background no FP to me.--Lucasbosch (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. B.p. 12:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is very distracting --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, the background could be better. I also wish the left wing was a bit more frozen, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice, but the background is too distracting, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 11:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ademwortels van moerascipres.JPG, not featured, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2012 at 19:08:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ademwortels (pneumatoforen) van een moerascipres (Taxodium distichum) op de Famberhorst.

InfoLoosely translated: breathing roots (pneumatoforen) a cypress (Taxodium distichum) in the Famberhorst. famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor exposure & composition.Fotoriety (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed area at left, main subject unsharp at full resolution.--Cayambe (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lense flares, chromatic abberation, lacking sharpness, poor composition and lighting (have a look in Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi for good examples). Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm... This isn't a fungus but a root. Kleuske (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there's no Commons:Featured pictures/Roots. I thought the fungi would be an ideal example, given the similar setting. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Dit is geen schimmel of paddenstoel! Dit is een ademwortel Die ziet er zo uit!

Loosely translated: This is no mold or fungus! This is a breath That carrot looks like!

Category:Taxodium distichum (cultivated)

Category:Cypress knees

famberhorst

Oppose per Fotoriety --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and not enough "wow" factor for me. Michael Barera (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cementerio Argentino de Puerto Darwin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 20:40:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created/uploaded by User:Padremurphy ( - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great pic! Béria Lima ^msg 21:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So overcooked it got burnt. The image quality is awful and nowhere near FP. This was taken 5 years ago, not 100, and could be taken again anytime, so it doesn't meet any exceptions for historical images imo. While a dark sky and bright crosses is possible naturally (see this) I'm sceptical about the natural darkness of the grass surrounding front and sides of the cemetery but not behind it (see also this). That is too convenient to highlight the white crosses and fence yet still show the dark structures to the rear. It seems to me this image has, like many WLM contestants, strayed too far into manipulated artwork and away from reality. The image has been through Photoshop, so I'd be interested to know what retouching it has received. It could certainly have done with some NR. Colin (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, by this line of argument, most of Ansel Adams' images would not make it past the FPC screening. He spent a great deal of time dodging and burning and otherwise manipulating "reality" to fit his intentions. I think that shouldn't categorically exclude an image. For me this image brings to mind Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, which has been manipulated significantly to bring out the contrast of blacks and whites (a search online will show lots of different variations of the prints based on when he made them, with the more contrasty, less "real" ones fetching significantly more money from collectors). Just to say that my impression is that too much attention to technical minutia can sometimes obscure the impact of a photo. Some of the most famous (and IMO most moving) photographs in history were technically flawed. Sorry to go on, but this is what struck me about this discussion. I mean my comments in good faith and with due respect. Almonroth (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need to apologise. This is something worth considering as it affects the purpose of FP. There are three aspects here. The technical quality, manipulation and project scope. Ansel Adams's Moonrise has been printed at any size from 16 x 20 in. up to 40 x 60 in. (source). Five feet across! (1.5 m). I think his photograph is on quite a different level, quality-wise, to this one. This photo could probably be reworked if the raw is available to improve on the noise which is fairly offensive at 100%. At 50% the noise is eliminated but its lack of resolution, detail or tonal subtleties is covered up by the conversion to black and white, which forgives many sins. It becomes an "arty" picture, where we are less concerned with seeing blades of grass but more of the impression given. And it is a powerful picture from that point of view. As for manipulation, the FP criteria state "Unmentioned or misrepresented manipulations, or manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable." and "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." My guess is the grass in this field has been extensively darkened to provide a contrast with the white fence and crosses and therefore misrepresents the subject for the sake of art. If the photograph description page provided details of what manipulations had been done, then possibly the reaction would be different. Consider the 2012 Take a View Landscape Photographer of the Year Awards disqualified winner. Does WLM have guidelines on manipulation? As for project scope, I think FP is rightly biased towards educational images that are minimally manipulated and away from images that are attractive merely for being works of art. And perhaps Ansel Adams wouldn't get an FP for all his pics, and is that such a bad thing? After all, Commons is meeting a need for educational images, there are plenty other photography sites that only value the artistic. Colin (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response, Colin. I appreciate your perspective on this and it gives me lots to consider :) Almonroth (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over-processed to a great extent and quite a bit of noise. Composition is interesting. But have to say no, because it looks unreal to me --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over processed! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is interesting however it looks really overprocessed. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my little sermon above :) Almonroth (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good document. Bad technical quality. I fully agree with Colin. As a non native english speaker, it is difficult for me to detail my opinion, but I have exactly the same opinions, especially about the project scope of FP, and more generally, the scope of "Commons". Moreover and furthermore, that's why I think that the WLM contests, because of their results, focusing excessively on an "artsy" vision of photography, are actually a bad thing for "Commons", and are "out of our scope". Did you notice that a lot of WLM winners (not all) failed to pass the FP bar and even the QI bar ? It is very disturbing for me... I think the WLM contests rules should follow more strictly in the future the Commons Images Guidelines.--Jebulon (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kea in Flight MC.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 01:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chmehl - uploaded by Chmehl - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 01:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 01:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the colour in the wings! Béria Lima ^msg 02:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should see the underside; bright orange! --Avenue (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow! --Stas1995 (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support How Chmehl could take this picture?. Wow --The Photographer (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 14:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know that photographs of birds in flight deserve an extra bonus, but there are too much weaknesses for me to recognize the image as one of the "very best" of Commons. The sharpness and detail are borderline, but first of all there's a rather unfortunate background, which distracts me from the main motif. Sorry. - A.Savin 10:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality, sharpness and colors. --Lucasbosch (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bird's head is not is fully visible. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The wings are caught nicely, if not entirely sharp. The background is distracting, but the mostly missing head spoils it most for me. --Avenue (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avenue. Tomer T (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin and Avenue.--Jebulon (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avenue. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background, partially hidden head of the bird --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be better, but sheer difficulty of the shot deserves credit.—Kelvinsong (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The background is distracting, but I still think it deserves FP status. Michael Barera (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all above!Alborzagros (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khagdaev 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 16:05:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Russia: Lake Baikal, Olkhon Island, Buryat shaman Valentin Khagdaev
Info created by Аркадий Зарубин - uploaded by Аркадий Зарубин - nominated by Аркадий Зарубин -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and interesting. --Moonik (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice... and a brief explanation of place/country and implements would be nice... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support But i also would like to know where he is ;) Béria Lima ^msg 18:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition. @ Beria: It's a Buryat shaman; look at en:Shamanism in Siberia. - A.Savin 20:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kaganer (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can tell a lot of thought went into the composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Классно. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice ! --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Наш парень!--Alexandronikos (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Near to perfect. --Selbymay (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong green/red CA that needs correction Poco a poco (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poco a Poco is right, + magenta CA in the clouds, denoising a bit too strong (especially visible in the background) and overall sharpness not optimal. I like the unusual subject (even if "exotic" for western people often means "featurable", and I'm not sure to agree with that...), the light, and the composition (maybe a bit unnatural,"for the photographer", though) too.--Jebulon (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors! Michael Barera (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and colours. --Eusebius (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:M82 HST ACS 2006-14-a-large web.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 12:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Calma - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please avoid to use these kind of templates, unknown by the FPCbot. Use only the "support" and "oppose" simple templates, thank you (I've made the correction).--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 14:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:SharonStone32.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 18:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Teddyyy - uploaded by Teddyyy - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Photographers photographing photographers; always interesting. Also love the old cameras. Unfortunately the photo is way too noisy.Fotoriety (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject. When you shoot film, you're always going to get grain, but grain has an organic texture which is much more palatable than digital noise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True. But this much grain with those conditions (subject posing, abundant light) is unneccesary. Kleuske (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Алый Король (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Michael Barera (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be nice to get some metadata for this image. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, unsharp, and I think color pictures existed in 1991. (And I prefer this lady as she looks now than twenty years ago ).--Jebulon (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is just not up to it. --Ivar (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too grainy. --Pine^✉ 18:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toledo - Catedral de Santa Maria int 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2012 at 17:44:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Arrival of Santa Leocadia - Marble bas-relief in the chapel of the descent of the Virgin - Santa Maria Cathedral - Toledo, Spain - all by me -- Selbymay (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Selbymay (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be great if you could reduce some of the highlights and apply some sharpening. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support and your advice. I upload a new version trying to do so. Please tell me if you appreciate or not (you may find that I haven't reduce the highlights enough but it could flatten a bit too much the image). Regards. --Selbymay (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice job, looks like one stands right before it. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that I'd have tried a bit more of vignetting but FP anyhow Poco a poco (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, maybe you're right but I like to see the secondary characters. --Selbymay (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I like it, but I agree with Peter Weis Béria Lima ^msg 23:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 17:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially its "3D"-ish look makes the picture wow for me. --A.Savin 20:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Kelvinsong (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that's a relief! Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture-- Atention (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC+1)
Support- Peter23 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 08:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per A. Savin --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Set:NGC 300 by ESO, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2012 at 20:50:37 (UTC)

This wide field image shows the area around the spiral galaxy NGC 300, six million light-years from Earth.
This chart shows the location of the NGC 300 galaxy within the constellation of Sculptor.
The southern spiral galaxy NGC 300
The irregular galaxy NGC 55, who is slowly spinning around and towards NGC 300, in the early stages of a lengthy merging process.
This image composite shows the spiral galaxy NGC 300, as well as the position of the stellar-mass black hole in the galaxy.
This artist’s impression depicts the newly discovered stellar-mass black hole in the spiral galaxy NGC 300.

Videos
This sequence gives a close-up view of the southern spiral galaxy NGC 300
This zoom sequence starts with a view of part of the faint southern constellation of Sculptor and finish with a close-up of NGC 300 galaxy
This video zooms in NGC 300 onto the position of the system containing the stellar-mass black hole, and finishes with an artist’s impression of the system.
This artist’s impression depicts the newly discovered stellar-mass black hole in the spiral galaxy NGC 300.
This artist’s impression depicts the newly discovered stellar-mass black hole in the spiral galaxy NGC 300.

Info Originally discovered from Australia by the Scottish astronomer James Dunlop early in the nineteenth century, NGC 300 is one of the closest and most prominent spiral galaxies in the southern skies and is bright enough to be seen easily in binoculars. It lies in the inconspicuous constellation of Sculptor. NGC 300 is the home of many interesting astronomical phenomena that have been studied. NGC 300 and another galaxy, NGC 55, are slowly spinning around and towards each other, in the early stages of a lengthy merging process. ESO astronomers recently discovered the most distant and one of the most massive stellar-mass black holes yet found in this galaxy, as the partner of a hot and luminous Wolf–Rayet star in a binary system.
Info The image NGC 300 X-1 in the spiral galaxy NGC 300 (ESO 1004c) (part of set) isn't being moninated because don't fulfill the 2Mpx size threshold.
Info created by ESO et all - uploaded by Beria, Stas1995, Fabian RRRR and Luiscalcada - nominated by Beria -- Béria Lima ^msg 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Béria Lima ^msg 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting --Ezarateesteban 16:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The second image (star map) is in the wrong format. It should be SVG, or at least PNG. --99of9 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice set! Michael Barera (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:2012-11-10 10-07-19-musee-histoire-belfort.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 18:55:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The frame is distracting. The actual painting forms a small part of the image and doesn't seem to rank among our best reproductions. Colin (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Michael Barera (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurocopter EC135 D-HZSG Brownout IIII - Different Types of Rotors Brüggemann.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 15:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jan Brüggemann - uploaded by Frze - nominated by Frze -- Frze (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but very noisy. --Selbymay (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good motive, intersting light and colors. For me the problem is not the noise itself, but the oversharpening resulting in dramatically increasing noise around the helicopter. If you manager the noise better, I'll probably change to support. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice idea, composition, light and colors, but too noisy. --Slaunger (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yc06n8t (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite the noise... the image is powerful... about technology... and mood... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colours and noise --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noise is an issue, but the composition and feel of the photo convince me --Dey.sandip (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. An avoidable overprocessing issue. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop is unfortunate, but I think this is still a great photo. Michael Barera (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like the picture, but sadly there is too much noise at the helicopter. -- Achird (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love this shot (including the crop), but there's too much strange-looking noise. --El Grafo (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pico Humboldt Venezuela cut.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 19:55:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Humboldt peak, 4,940 metres above sea level, To get there, it took five days of walking in places without civilization. All by -- The Photographer (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why have you downsampled the previous version so dramatically? I think it is a pity. There is more information in the revision before this one. Although the downsampling gives you a better pixel-by-pixel quality, you also loose many pixels, and thus information. --Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not too many important data in the other version, the other version is basically a stretched version and noisy. If you think you can do better, I invite you. I consider that to be a disposable camera, she has done quite well --The Photographer (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- For me there is nothing feature-worthy in this photo. There is nothing special about the composition, it shows a very small and ambiguous portion of the subject and the file size lacks much detail.Fotoriety (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fotoriety, composition and subject do not convince me much. I'm sorry --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't agree, I find it an impressive and engaging photograph. Tomer T (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A bit unsharp, but feature-worthy to me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! Michael Barera (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I first saw the image on VIC page, it was annotated that the man in red dress is The Photographer himself and now the annotation is deleted (file history can be checked). If the original file from which this derivative work came is checked, that file is still annotated that the man in red dress is The Photographer himself. If that is the case, then The Photographer is not the author, is he? This is not QIC, so the nomination is valid, but should the author name not change (and who is the author?)? It can be taken with a tripod and self-shutter, but is it the ideal condition for doing that? I'm not attacking or hounding anyone but I noticed the file annotations and these questions came to my mind. -- JDP90 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some photographs can not be taken directly as in the case of HDR, long exposure. In this case, I took myself to set the distance between one person and another. Any camera has this feature and it is easy to find. I had to carry a small tripod and a considerably larger luggage. Thanks for your comment --The Photographer (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a tutorial on self-timer. I've already mentioned it in my previous comment.--JDP90 (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to show off self-restraint and Assume good fait --The Photographer (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per opposes above. --Pine^✉ 18:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomb of Safdarjung, New Delhi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 11:23:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pranav7 - uploaded by Pranav7 - nominated by Rsrikanth05 -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, please noise reduction and fix ca --The Photographer (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very difficult lighting conditions, but too many technical flaws (sharpness, noise, chromatic noise). Nice attempt though, and very interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as jebulon. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but sharpness and noise issues. --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This pic was the Winner of WLM 2012. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That probably points out at the deficiency of the judging process then --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - From what I can tell, QIC focuses only on technical quality (up to a point, e.g. it can't be so lacking in "wow" factor that no one bothers to review it in 8 days), while WLM focuses only on "wow" factor (up to a point, e.g. it can't look like junk at 1 MP). FPC requires both. So I don't think it's fair to criticize the judges of WLM when the criteria for WLM and FPC are different. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not really trying to criticize any one, but if I remember correctly WLM listed technical quality as one of the important parameters of judging. The image that was submitted in original form (not talking about Poco's re-work) won't pass QI evaluation I'm afraid. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Info If you want to understand how the jury worked, you can read the jury report. After the introduction, the jury explains, in a few words, the 15 first choices. --Selbymay (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never said it would pass QI. In fact, I'm making the point that a lot of WLM winners won't pass QI. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yes ! There are many reasons for that...--Jebulon (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad technical quality, slightly off-center but definitely worth a retry. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I see no objection for this image to become featured. Not becoming featured probably points out at the deficiency of the judging process for featured pictures on Commons itself. Romaine (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, the collection of many (not all) WLM winners probably points out at the deficiency of the judging process for winners of the WLM contest itself...--Jebulon (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a bit harsh isn't it? Just a curious question, did you and Dey participate in the competition? --Muhammad (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think its really relevant to ask that in this context :). But as a matter of fact, I did submit two images in WLM 2012; one of them is a FP http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cave_Temple_3,_Badami.JPG --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've no problem in answering. Because I participated very hardly in the WLM2011edition and disagreed very much with almost all the results, I boycotted the 2012 edition, and this pic makes me think that I was right... Harsh enough ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Being the winner of WLM2012 we should give it a try. I have reduced noise (both chromatic and non-chromatic), corrected the perspective (adjusting the crop), reduced the overexposed areas and increased contrast a bit Poco a poco (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work Poco. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed great work by Poco, but still sufficient blue/green fringing and lot of dark patches for me to oppose --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could reduce the saturation of the blue channel (I think that the green frinding is neglectable) but then we would get close to a B&W image Poco a poco (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would probably solve one problem, but looking at it more closely again, I see quite a loss of detail too as pointed out by Peter Weis below --Dey.sandip (talk)
Support Béria Lima ^msg 21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessing. There are very few details left. The image doesn't look like a photo any more. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite the improvement by Poco, it still looks like a CG drawing. --Selbymay (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'd like to encourage everybody to give it a try. Out of the comments I am not sure if you see room for improvements or the original picture has so many issues that we'll not be able to make it fit for FP. Poco a poco (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Good editing. But sadly, the original noise level seems to be too high to be able to correct it without getting rid of most of the detail. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I see no objection for this image to become featured. Not becoming featured probably points out at the deficiency of the judging process for featured pictures on Commons itself. Romaine (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Near-perfect sharpness and almost no noise at 2000px is good enough for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info --New post-processed version uploaded: less noise reduction and sharpening than the previous edit, reduced color patches, other corrections. Unfortunately I don't think miracles are possible in this case. Sting (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
version: edit_2
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wonderful composition and lighting, but there just isn't enough depth of field. Only the closest parts of the tomb are sharp enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is excellent and from a creative standpoint the image is near-perfect, so I can completely see why it won the WLM2012 competition. However, the criteria for Commons FPs (last time I checked) didn't explicitly include creativity. What they do include is technical quality—good lighting, colors, and little noise. Unfortunately this image doesn't fit the criteria, although again, it's an amazing picture. —Ynhockey (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it includes 'wow'. Tomer T (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition.—Bill william compton^Talk 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ynhockey.--Jebulon (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is great, but it's over-denoised now. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacks sharpness. --Pine^✉ 18:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ijazah3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2012 at 14:28:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 'Ali Ra'if Efendi - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Adam Cuerden.
Info A fine example of the calligraphic art created after representations of the prophet and, eventually, all other humans were banned in Islam. Plus, an excellent candidate for me to try out some code I added to gracefully handle renominations. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Peter23 (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Matthew Proctor (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:Catherine Palace in Tsarskoe Selo, Golden Gates.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:36:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful, maybe less sky would be even better. -- A.Savin 20:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with A.Savin regarding sky Poco a poco (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with A.Savin and Poco a poco. --Kaganer (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As with others, the sky should be cropped in my opinion too. -- JDP90 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good picture with good colors. Contrary to others, I would like a little crop from bottom (to align more with 1/3rd) and leave the blue sky as it is. The sky actually adds to the image a lot --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Peter23 (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 15:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Too much empty space. I would support a cropped version (on top and bottom as well as on the sides). Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - nice photo, but agree with Alvesgaspar and others about the crop. Jonathunder (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dresden 2012-09-06-0555.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 11:29:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Slick - uploaded by Slick - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as creator -- Slick (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeLacking sharpness, chromatic abberation and rather close framing. Reminds me of "let it breathe". Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin, Schillerdenkmal, Geschichte.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 17:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info One of the figures of the "Schillerdenkmal" (Schiller-memorial) at Gendarmenmarkt in Berlin. Created and uploaded by Ailura, nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support imo, great composition, sharpness and depth of field. -- Kadellar (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support agreed. Kleuske (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extraordinary in the composition. The cathedral in the background is distracting. Parts of the sculpture itself lack sharpness (no wonder with F/2.8). Sorry. --A.Savin 13:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The focus is where it needs to be, the unsharpness adds a spatial feeling, which i particularly like, the structure in the background completes the composition without drawing too much attention (since it's out of focus) and beats a boring blue sky by a long shot. F/2.8 can be a good choice at times, and this is one of them. Overall sharpness isn't the alpha and omega of photography. Kleuske (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the depth of field—Kelvinsong (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the building on the left and the dome at the top are cropped at awkward positions. Either show them entirely, remove them entirely, or crop farther in. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not ideal per King of Hearts, but I doubt I could be convinced by a different crop either. --99of9 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts. --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop isn't the best, but I do really like the depth of field. Michael Barera (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful composition, great depth of field with F/2.8 --Stepro (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good subject for a photo, but the lower part of the subject is out of focus. --Pine^✉ 19:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree, the photographer wants to draw your attention to the face of the statue, and the book in front of her is a bit out of focus but sharp enough to read it clearly, that's why I think it's a superb DOF, do you really care about the knee of a reader? --Kadellar (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidip (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acueducto de Segovia 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 22:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Aqueduct of Segovia, Spain. Created and uploaded by David Corral Gadea, Atention - nominated by me, Poco a poco (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Note: this images ranked 2 in the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 contest
Info Conseguir esos colores, esa definición de los ladrillos y ese cielo fue muy difícil y más teniendo en cuenta la hora del día en la que está hecha la foto. Faltaba poco para el anochecer y la luz del cielo era muy tenue. El motivo principal estaba iluminado con luz artificial. Atention (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC+1)
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular colors. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise in the sky, + I dislike the composition very much, which does not show (to me) how beautiful and spectacular is this Roman monument. Furthermore, my personal (not politically correct) opinion is that the fact that this pic won a prize in the WLM could be another argument for a "contra" vote...(You know what? Shame on me, but I prefer some of mine of the same place, sorry ) --Jebulon (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it deserve an oppose for winning? --Muhammad (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon, the reason why I proposed this picture to FP is that I was part of the WLM12 Spanish Jury and this picture was my favourite. I didn't just went the list of WLM12 winners through and picked out the next one in the ranking. Poco a poco (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can tell. I Support too. Jebulon, this year you have made very good pictures of Spain, it would have been great if they had participated. --Kadellar (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I participated hardly to WLM2011, and was at the same level hardly disapointed by the french and international results for many reasons (not regarding my own pictures). So I deliberately boycotted the 2012 WLM edition, and I'm stil not sure I was entirely wrong, no offense to juries, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've added a link to the french article, btw.--Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo quality looks fine and the colors. --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely picture! --Llorenzi (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support One among a lot of good pics of the place, but still a good one. --Selbymay (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Como he añadido en las notas, la imagen fue difícil de conseguir con las condiciones que se daban.--Atention (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC+1)
- We all experience difficult conditions when taking our pictures...Nobody says it is easy...--Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lo que quiero decir es que las limitaciones del objetivo y de la cámara en esa situación condicional la calidad final de la imagen en cuanto a ruido y aberraciones cromáticas, no lo justifico, lo explico. Es cierto que tiene fallos pero yo no he podido evitarlos, quizá alguien con más experiencia o con mejor equipo o con más suerte.--Atention (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC+1)
Support Kleuske (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is weird, sky is too dark, just looks wrong. Neutral Still looks funny to me, but I guess it's a good photo. —Kelvinsong (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see in the registered camera data the picture was taken at dusk with a relatively long exposure (1/20 s). At that time the illumination of the monument was already on. Poco a poco (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- El monumento está iluminado por las noches con una luz amarilla-anaranjada. La exposición de 1/20 sec (0.05) y una focal f/3.5 consiguió que el cielo apareciera un poco más claro pero ya era casi de noche por eso el cielo está mucho más oscuro. Atention (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC+1)
Neutral I dislike the hyper-real effect, which is common to many WLM entrants and winners. In this case, much of the effect is due to the floodlighting of the aqueduct at dusk, rather than (I trust) excessive fiddling in Photoshop or HDR. Regardless, the effect certainly isn't subtle and not to may taste. Sorry. Colin (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced noise level on the sky. --Ivar (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help. Atention (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC+1)
Support A decent WLM image. Who knew?! Acceptable technical quality, interesting lightning and composition. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have uploaded a new version addressing the noise in the sky and the CA around the arches. Poco a poco thanks for your help, Atention (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC+1)
Thank you, the quality of this version is flawless! Poco a poco (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Peter23 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Colin. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the stones are grainy when viewed full size. --Pine^✉ 19:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition and Q is ok taking into account the large resolution. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bahnhof-MH-Vorhof-2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2012 at 23:32:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Station building Mülheim an der Ruhr central station at "Blue Hour"

Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing light sources at the sides, dust spot (both correctible through crop/cleaning). Otherwise I cannot see anything particular in this good picture to call it featured, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- partially done Thanks for the review. Nothing escapes the watchful eyes of Poco :) I've corrected the dust spot and two minor flares. The "distubing light sources" at the sides belong to the composition, I will not crop them. I can also not correct your missing "Wow" with this photo. I like this photo, but "Wow" is always a matter in the eye of the viewer. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty ordinary subject and lacks "wow". --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A nice capture, but per Dey.sandip, not enough "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 11:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2012 at 05:54:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Llez - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one! --Lucasbosch (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine to me --Cyrfaw (Talk) 07:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would like to have one in my German pond, but... --Schnobby (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JDP90 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose -- I like the slightly creepy atmosphere created by the frog and the colour contrasts. However, the lower body is obscured and the frog lacks depth; it almost looks like a flat lotus leaf.Fotoriety (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - A great motive, sharp photo but I personally do not like the harsh "flash look". On the skin of the frog and around the frog on the floor are remarkable flash reflections. Did you use the build-in camera flash or an external one? I think a macro ring flash or a diffuser (for softer light) for your flash had done a better job. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the photographer. Tomer T (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some photographic imperfections but WOW effect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very unfortunate lighting conditions. B.p. 17:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support interesting work, technically adequate although not spectacular. --Pine^✉ 19:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hong Kong Night Skyline non-HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 12:08:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Base64 - uploaded by Base64 - nominated by V0nNemizez -- V0nNemizez (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V0nNemizez (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alborzagros (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llorenzi (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info There are (at least) two versions of this photo, which went head to head in this FPC from 2008. Back then the other one was preferred. I do not think we should have two versions of the same photo as FP.
Oppose This HDR version is already FP and has been reviewed against this nomination. Moreover, we also have this quite similar FP. No need for more. --Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination due to other version already futured V0nNemizez (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Numpha in Bouches du Rhône, France.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 09:35:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alexandronikos (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cj.samson (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Peter23 (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good composition, excellent quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent detail.Fotoriety (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Photo Portrait of Monsieur Bicep.JPG, not featured , not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2012 at 12:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joelle Dollé - uploaded by Panyd - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, a Hasselblad! --Lucasbosch (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clean work. --Selbymay (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring. A man in a grey suit against a gray background. The image fails to tell me who or what he is and does. Even armed with that knowledge, after reading the description, i fail to find the image engaging or compelling. Kleuske (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you tell me what kind of portrait would suit a serious politician who, as far as I can tell, is responsible for transport in his party? This is a portrait, not a newspaper shot of him giving a speech at a conference (which is a clichéd image of a politician). I think there are sometimes unrealistic expectations of portraits, or there's a desire that a portrait tells you something about the person (when in fact it may do no such thing, and just reinforce the impression the photographer wants to give, or the viewer thinks they see). Colin (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he's responsable for transport, i would like some reference to transport in the image. So take the guy out of the studio and take him to a subway/railway station, a bridge, a road... Something. If a portrait is limited to "here's a guy looking earnestly into the lens", portaits are boring, no matter what the technical quality. It leaves nothing in the image to seriously look at, except the pimples on his nose. Kleuske (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to write-off an entire class of images, because you find them boring, then I suggest you refrain from voting on them. He's currently responsible for transport. Next month he could be responsible for justice and the next year media regulation. To suggest that his current portfolio should be represented in any featured-quality image is naive. Should this lady and this couple be wearing crowns? -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not writing of an entire class of anything. I objected on specific grounds to this portrait and supported another, more interesting portrait quite recently. Crowned heads or otherwise, I don't give a [bleep] about who's depicted, as long as the portrait really tells me something about them. This image doesn't. It's a bland, generic image. Boring. Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you are writing off the formal portrait, which is a class of image and doesn't resort to ridiculous gimmicks like shooting the transport politician on the bus. Colin (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you're fiercely attacking a strawman. Kleuske (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I wasn't the one that suggested taking the transport politician to the railway station in order "to tell me who or what he is and does". That's such a basic error I'd strongly oppose such an image. Colin (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... Next time wait for the image before opposing it. Strongly. Kleuske (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support interesting --Алый Король (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely FP. Compared to the other people photos in FP this one is of superior quality. A bit clinical but nonetheless well done. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Their are strong and disturbing Moire artifacts everywhere on the fabric. To be honest, I already see them in the preview already. Even if I like the impression of this pic, I cannot support it. --LC-de (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose opposing this one as the edited one is better. --LC-de (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moire effect everywhere on the suit, visible even on thumbnail.--Jebulon (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LC-de/Jebulon. --A.Savin 23:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative with colour moire fix[edit]

Support This version uses Lightroom's moire adjustment brush to remove the false colour moire produced by the interaction between the fabric pattern and the Bayer filter on the sensor. At 100% there is not a huge amount of pattern moire, considering the problems faced by the very fine pattern on the suit and shirt. The moire you see in the preview window is an artefact of the resizing algorithm, and not a fault in the image. This is a very difficult image to view properly on a screen and perversely is best judged at 100%. As for the portrait, I think this is a fine portrait of a serious subject. -- Colin (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree, this version is better. --A.Savin 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work of Colin, well done! I didn't mind the moire that much but I must admit it's better like this. --Selbymay (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far much better indeed, but still strong moire on the shirt, chromatic noise on the tie and on the suit, and... I don't find this kind of professional portrait interesting. I'm not sure the poor notoriety (no offense) his man deserves a "featured" picture.--Jebulon (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LC-de (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This version is though clearly better, but, per Jebulon, too many quality flaws, missing wow and missing a "celebrity plus". Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Composition and lighting are worthy to be featured. But given the amount of technical flaws, I oppose. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 17:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frühlingsallee Tulpenblüte 2010 (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 18:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Harke - uploaded by Harke - nominated by Harke -- Harke (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Harke (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Not technically perfect, but the beautiful scene and composition more than make up for it. Wish there were more tulips in the bottom right of the frame and no dandelion there.Fotoriety (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very beautiful photo --Dey.sandip (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alexandronikos (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JDP90 (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 11:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Morning ☼ (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me want to cavort through it barefoot. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grey Pansy Nagothane.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 18:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cj.samson - uploaded by Cj.samson - nominated by Cj.samson -- Cj.samson (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is what FP is about: magic. Not the best lighting for illustrative purposes but the mood is worth the star. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —brightness could be better, but I like it.—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Dey.sandip (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JDP90 (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral backlight is a real minus for this. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would have preferred a slightly off-center crop --Muhammad (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Son Yeon Jae.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 16:13:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by LGEPR - uploaded by Tabercil - nominated by Teemeah -- Teemeah (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a valuable photo, depicting a lesser known sport. Beautifully shot. -- Teemeah (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The girl is beautiful as well as the pose. But I don't like the background, the barely minimum size and the autograph. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I love the expression, but the background and the autograph are detracting quite a bit, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Georges Chakra - Haute Couture Spring-Summer 2010.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2012 at 00:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Beyrouth (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Suchet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2012 at 22:21:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Running - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It lacks Poirot's moustache...--Jebulon (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the shadow at the right is disturbing for me. --A.Savin 20:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Peter23 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medieval Multiculturalism.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 19:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The National Archives UK - uploaded by Dzlinker - nominated by Dzlinker -- Dzlinker (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dzlinker (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is well below the required 2 megapixels, the crop is rather inartistic - the focus of the image is the crease between pages - and the colours appear a bit off - white and pink are not expected colours for mediaeval manuscripts. Thanks, though! --Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2012 (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:Devon Kershaw Sprint Quebec 2012.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 00:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Devon Kershaw in Quebec City event of the sprint cross-country skiing world cup in 2012. Created by me - uploaded by me - nominated by me -- Letartean (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As nominator, Letartean (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good clear shot but there no sense of action. The tight vertical framing doesn't help. Colin (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A nice capture, but I'm not crazy about the crop. Michael Barera (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Colin. INeverCry 07:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, good shot, but would be better without other skiers. --Stryn (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Homelessness in Venezuela.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 03:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This is a common Wayuu family in a matriarchy society, women go out to beg for money or food in the city of Maracaibo, Venezuela. A city marked by racism where the first indigenous people have no access to resources and basic food stall. all by -- The Photographer (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Failed to see anything beyond a snapshot of a family. The photo itself doesn't say much about the story. --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As per Dey.sandip.Fotoriety (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not wow. --Stryn (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea, but I agree that there isn't enough "wow" factor here. Michael Barera (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iguana II.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2012 at 16:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rjcastillo - uploaded by Rjcastillo - nominated by Rjcastillo -- Rjcastillo (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rjcastillo (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Head is not in focus, I think focus is on feet. It lacks detail, sorry. -- Joydeep _Talk 17:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus issues, lack of details --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others (focus). Michael Barera (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mourning the departed.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 03:23:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not finding anything special here, feature-worthy or composition-wise. Sorry. --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Dey.sandip: sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lille ND Treille Ste Chapelle.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 08:58:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Velvet - uploaded by Velvet - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive.--ArildV (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 06:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. A little on the small side, but not ridiculously so. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small but beautiful. --Selbymay (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Adam Cuerden.--Jebulon (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomás66 (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Courtyard of the Süleymaniye Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2012 at 08:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moonik - uploaded by Moonik - nominated by Moonik -- Moonik (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moonik (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good symmetric composition and technical quality. But to me, the subject seems pretty uninteresting and not having enough "wow" to be feature-worthy --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Dey.sandip. Michael Barera (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose slightly off-center, otherwise a featured picture. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Symmetry improved --Moonik (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like this but it's off-center. There is more space to the left side of the structure infront of the mosque than to the right --Muhammad (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I'm afraid, but I think that it's a rebel part of my brain that not allow me to do fully center shots :-) ...always a little bit off-center.... --Moonik (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, and my rebel brain will not allow me to support ;-). Really good image though :) --Muhammad (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Set:Chloroplast and Mitochondrion, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2012 at 22:16:06 (UTC)

Diagram of a Chloroplast. Other versions(Spanish, numbered, borderless) can be found on the file page.
Diagram of a Mitochondrion. Other versions(Spanish, numbered, borderless) can be found on the file page.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Kelvinsong —Kelvinsong (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! So much better than the old figures. This looks like it could have come out of a textbook, but even better since it's SVG. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --The Photographer (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason for a set. B.p. 00:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds like a rather unconvincing reason for an oppose. They are both cell organelles, both involved in the capture and release of energy: Mitochondria—Respiration, Chloroplast—Photosynthesis. —Kelvinsong (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just offer them separate: there is no extra value in the set. You're mixing quite different things here. B.p. 16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job!-- Atention (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice set indeed. Any possibility to have all the cell organelles diagrams? Béria Lima ^msg 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long term goal, I'm working on it—Kelvinsong (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 08:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Museo del Bicentenario - Urna electoral de 1916.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 21:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Carlos San Martín - uploaded by B1mbo - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 21:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A description in English on the file page would be helpful. --Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ezarateesteban 22:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kleuske (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --Llorenzi (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support though it does have a couple focus issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture of a historical object! Michael Barera (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support But per Adam Cuerden.--Jebulon (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, quite clean and nice history. -- Cirt (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Section of Taj Mahal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 09:38:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Dey.sandip (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info A section of Taj Mahal in morning light and how people feel in front of it.
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I was going to support the nomintion because of the excellent minimalist composition. But then I saw the tourist seated and realized that image quality is not good enough either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please take a look at the alternate version as well ? --Dey.sandip (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info This is the original version, straight from the camera and before I attempted some perspective correction. This should be technically better as only one JPG conversion happened. Request reviewers to review this version as well. --Dey.sandip (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did take a look, but no significant differences exist. The tourist is still seated there (at first I thought it was a local person) and image quality is on the poor side. A pity indeed! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have versions without the tourist, may be I can think about posting that version for review and withdraw this nomination. But appreciate the review. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Not much chance of success !

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alligator mississippiensis, Florida.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 17:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Hans Stieglitz - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A bit low on "wow" factor, but I still like it. Michael Barera (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aiguilles du Dru.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2012 at 16:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by SteGrifo27 -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 16:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 16:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose File size too small + poor composition. -- Fotoriety (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- Matthew Proctor (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea, but not enough "wow" factor for me. Sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:B-Tempelhof 10-2012 - Teltowkanal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 20:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The autumn has gone, this HDRI shows an indian summer impression from Berlin-Tempelhof, with the Teltow Canal and the Ullstein Tower in the background. All by A.Savin -- 20:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Support -- A.Savin 20:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I have nothing against hdr oy any other way of improving the pictures and/or interpreting reality. But there is nothing extraordinat in this interpretation and I find the choice of colors a bit kitschy. Image quality is on the poor side as well. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for me, colors are washed out, less details (s. notes), boring motive, IMHO no FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the colors. Michael Barera (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 17:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A picture should be painted or photographed. This is a (for me) not useful mixture of both. Not reality, and not art. So I can't see any benefit in this pic. --Stepro (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to start a DR --A.Savin 21:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see no reason for it. Between having an image on commons and vote for it as a featured picture is a wide range I think. It's marked as a QI, so at least one other user likes that pic, too. But having QI status doesn't mean for me it must be necessary a FP, too. --Stepro (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you can't see any benefit in this pic, I said then that you're free to nominate this pic for deletion. Is there something wrong? No. That's all. What you think on featurability of this pic doesn't interest me. --A.Savin 23:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
»What you think on featurability of this pic doesn't interest me.« - This is a nomination page for featured pictures. If you're not interested in the opinion of other users regarding the featurability of this pic maybe you're wrong here. --Stepro (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your opinion doesn't bother me, because you're lacking QI/FP competency so far. --A.Savin 13:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and hard to find such a corner in a place like Berlin. Regarding usability, this is FPC, not VIC Poco a poco (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NSB Class 73 near Dombås.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 14:32:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kabelleger - uploaded by Arsenikk - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced noise level on the sky and fixed minor CA. Nice composition! --Ivar (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ach, I wanted to write exactly the same comment for my new version and just realized that Ivar was quicker with the upload :) (I reverted myself). Very nice shot! Poco a poco (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ivar and Poco a poco. Tomer T (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like it. Good lighting and mood --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it.--Llorenzi (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice frame! --Cj.samson (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Peter23 (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 15:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Good --Rjcastillo (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Far from other similar creations of Kabelleger. The picture is underexposed imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Achird (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have uploaded a slightly brighter version (because I agree with Alves, the previous version was rather underexposed). However I didn't increase the brightness very much because I didn't want to destroy the mood. Apart from that: I would not have nominated this image myself because as a "picture of a train" it isn't very good. However, I kind of like the light situation. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, as a picture of a train it is not very good, but as a picture of what a train has to overcome to get from point A to point B it is excellent. --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~- --V0nNemizez (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have enough edits to vote. 50 edits are needed. -- Joydeep _Talk 18:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality and good contrast. -- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Set:Buryat wrestling, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 21:44:11 (UTC)

(#1) Buryat national wrestling Buhe Barildan.
(#2) Buryat national wrestling Buhe Barildan.
(#3) Buryat national wrestling Buhe Barildan.
(#4) Buryat national wrestling Buhe Barildan.
(#5) Eagle dance - victory dance of Buryat fighters.

Info Buryat national wrestling Buhe Barildan. Photoset was created at the Buryat culture festival "Altargana". Transbaikalia territory, settlement Aginskoye (Republic of Buryatia, Russia) by Аркадий Зарубин - uploaded by Аркадий Зарубин - nominated by kaganer -- Kaganer (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kaganer (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why a set ? --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why a not? This a really photoset. If this set is not elected, I will promote a separate files. --Kaganer (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do appreciate the set, since it shows the match from start to finish. ~~#3 would be featurable in it's own right.~~ Sharpness is an issue. Kleuske (talk)
Oppose Again, why a set of picture? One picture at time has to be evaluate. And enyway, no one of them are featurable in my personal opinion. --Llorenzi (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Llorenzi --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like it as a set. Michael Barera (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Right now, the set criteria are not very well-defined. But in any case, if the criteria require the set to be cohesive at the expense of slight loss of "wow" factor, it's not cohesive enough. If a set is allowed to be loosely associated, then every individual image in the set ought to be featurable in its own right, which is not the case IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like these photos. Thank you! What about a short video about this sport? :) -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonny Bill Williams 2011.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 23:31:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Geoff Trotter - uploaded by Arvedui89 - nominated by Suid-Afrikaanse -- Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2012 (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: minimum resolution is 2 MP.

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.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

File:ALMA and a Starry Night.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 13:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This panoramic view of Chajnantor shows the antennas of the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) against a breathtaking starry night sky.
Info created by ESO/B. Tafreshi - uploaded by Jmencisom - nominated by Beria -- Béria Lima ^msg 13:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Béria Lima ^msg 13:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- nice Peter23 (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—B-E-A-UTIFUL—Kelvinsong (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The image quality is, unfortunately, far from perfect. The chromatic aberration effects are clearly visible on the edges of the telescopes, and the noise is very obvious. CA affects also the stars - each gets different colours on the left and right sides. It would be nice to develop the RAW file again and mitigate these problems. I think, that the noise can be reduced. Correction of the CA could make the stars appear more bright and clear. It would also be nice to have the EXIF data... Regarding the subject - it is brilliant! I always dreamed to shoot a photo like this, but... This is REALLY HARD, since you must have good lens and camera, prevent them from getting wet, control battery charge, use manual focusing and long exposure; stars are moving on the sky, so you should use high ISO setting. And it is usually terribly cold at night, especially at such altitude. I really would like to say, that the photo is great, but it should be improved. --Ximeg (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Photo could be used now. But what programs are use Curiosity opetation command for resample their realy focal distorted multi photos? --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but image quality is just not enough. In some areas one cannot say what is noise and what is a star. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it is the unavoidable doom of every dark sky image...--93.144.68.161 07:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WOW! --93.144.68.161 22:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Update levels, contrast and gamma. Now image could be used. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality looks fine to me. Looks visually interesting. Compeition looks nice. --LauraHale (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great to me russavia (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 15:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Albania - Lin and Ohrid Lake.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 21:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Morning ☼ (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the road in the foreground and the water in the background! Michael Barera (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The matter of taste is something very funny ! Good picture, but I find the road very disturbing !--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I like the composition. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent focus and presentation. -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canal Grande Chiesa della Salute e Dogana dal ponte dell Accademia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 13:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition, colours and technical quality.--ArildV (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! --Moonik (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent composition --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A secret: not made by Moroder, but by Giovanni Antonio Canal !!--Jebulon (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info French translation of the description added--Jebulon (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks but you make me blush ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Алый Король (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 19:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Parts of the image seem a bit shady to me. Maybe some level adjustment could improve it. --A.Savin 23:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats a matter of taste or composition, if you like. IMO this is the best balance (I've worked on it) and it reflects the atmosphere and light of that exhilarating 12-12-12 morning --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A marvelous picture with a marvelous light. Believe it or not, at first I though it was a painting! @Moroder: this camera makes indeed a difference (a pity that I didn't have the chance yet to really test mine...)! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - I see now that I was not the first to link this view to Canaletto... Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Selbymay (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Captures everything about Venice somehow better without including the San Marco tower. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great quality and contrast. -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A picture is well done when it transmits the atmosphere of the place, and this here is a good example Poco a poco (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Idyllic scene. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support La città più bella del mondo! :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 07:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Non, c'est Paris, désolé ! :-)--Jebulon (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eurocopter EC135 D-HZSG Brownout III Brüggemann.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2012 at 07:21:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jan Brüggemann - uploaded by Frze - nominated by Frze -- Frze (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! Michael Barera (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's terrific! --Ximeg (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Tended to support, but what's about the noise in high resolution? --Llez (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo of a helicopter. What I like here, is that we see the helicopter from the side, and not from the bottom as in usual life. Was it taken from a hill? --Ximeg (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Yc06n8t (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have enough edits to vote. 50 edits are needed. -- Joydeep _Talk 05:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, excellent use of focus and also contrast. -- Cirt (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice moment and composition (that's a plus), although I cannot distinguish between vignetting and smoke, but the noise is remarkable (that's a minus) Poco a poco (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JuergenKlueser (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael32710 07:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iguana V.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 10:48:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rjcastillo - uploaded by Rjcastillo - nominated by Rjcastillo -- Rjcastillo (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rjcastillo (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice animal and very good photo. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. A tiny bit of camera movement blur, but resolution more than makes up for it.—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the expression! Michael Barera (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. But it has misleading name of file. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks almost like it's posing deliberately for the camera ;) A.Savin 23:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Far better than previous nomination below. -- Joydeep _Talk 05:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, tending to oppose. The "portrait part" is very nice and stunning, per supporters above. But some other parts are really blurry, I miss the tail, and there is a lot of magenta CA.--Jebulon (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great image, it almost comes out at you realistically. -- Cirt (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree with Jebulon, the quality of the left side and the expression are FP, the loss of quality on the right side is remarkable, though Poco a poco (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kanyakumari as seen from Tiruvalluvar Statue.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 16:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Kanyakumari town as seen from Tiruvalluvar Statue. The ferries which transport tourists from mainland to the islands can be seen with one returning to the mainland and the other one about to stop at the Tiruvalluvar statue after carrying over tourists from Vivekananda Rock

created by Nikhilb239 - uploaded by Nikhilb239 - nominated by Nikhilb239 -- Nikhilb239 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Nikhilb239 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Counter-cockwise rotation needed. Also, neither the composition nor the quality seem special to me. --Julian H. (talk/files) 22:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor for me, sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michael Barera --Stas1995 (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiental entre Herrsching y Andechs, Alemania 2012-05-01, DD 12.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2012 at 20:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Kiental between Herrsching and Andechs, Germany. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The greens look a bit oversaturated. I like the composition, though. Kleuske (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Looks over-saturated. Centered composition. The choice of subject is interesting but the overall photo is low on the "wow" factor --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a new version with new color and luminosity balances, crop is the same, Poco a poco (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for the new version --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I rather like it, but it is a bit low on "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info. Very good composition but too bright for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New uploaded version is a bit darker (I wasn't sure and needed 20 minutes to decide, and asked 3 people), Poco a poco (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Shame of the trash bin, but~~ the "wow" factor works.--Jebulon (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of the bin in the new version, I think that actually it didn't really match (nature <-> trash bin) Poco a poco (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for crop, but I think a cloning out should have been better...Anyway, still FP to me.--Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support but agree with Jebulon, the trash bin is not matching with the surrounding environment. -- Joydeep _Talk 17:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support famberhorst (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Put a geotag and have my vote!~~ --Ximeg (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the geodata. I agree with you, in cases like this it is really usefull, Poco a poco (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scenery of a fairy tale --Llez (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with Llez (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 14:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK! The darker version seems very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moschus moschiferus in Plzen zoo (12.02.2011).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2012 at 05:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Support Выразительный портрет.--Alexandronikos (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice capture but far too low resolution to become FP. The picture is below 0,2 MP! Poco a poco (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The picture is 1,65 MP.--Alexandronikos (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info French description added.--Jebulon (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support All in focus. Expressive fangs are visible. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly pixellated, very bad overall quality IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The overall image quality is not sufficient for FP standards. --A.Savin 23:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 17:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Jebulon. –Makele-90 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norrström December 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 09:16:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Norrström (connects Lake Mälaren with the Baltic Sea) in central Stockholm. Exposure Fusion from two exposures. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well. --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A black day can also provide a nice athmosphere. --A.Savin 11:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well done, nice composition --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lights --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per other laudatory comments.--Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic --Алый Король (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work. --Selbymay (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A magic picture! Excellent light, composition and image quality, great mood! The good camera doesn't explain it all! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, wonderful vista and good focus. -- Cirt (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aleuria aurantia fungus orange peel (second view).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 10:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't like the composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice example of an interesting fungus. Could have a little more DoF. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, I find the composition rather unbalanced. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 17:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Park of 300 Years Spb - Baltic Beach 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 20:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Minimalistic Northern Russian landscape, all by User:A.Savin 20:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A.Savin 20:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted horizon --Dey.sandip (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch it in PS with rasters, and you'll see it's not tilted. --A.Savin 09:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does look tilted to the eye. Why would I need confirmation from a tool ? I should be able to perceive as it is --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah... native northern landscape. Nothing superfluous. --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 18:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just boring -- Frze (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the foreground! Michael Barera (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The right crop is unfortunately a little too tight, but overall great image! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be a painting. Great composition, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, beautiful vista. -- Cirt (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pendulum clock by Jacob Kock, antique furniture photography, IMG 0931 edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2012 at 05:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Peter Weis (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slight Tilt --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Fixed. Thanks for the hint. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple subject, aptly portrayed. --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture of a beautiful object! Michael Barera (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and very useful. I did not know what was the swedish "Gustavian style", it remembers me the french Louis XVI style, same period.--Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:RQ-170 Sentinel in Iran.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 23:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Germán Vogel - uploaded by Orijentolog - nominated by Orijentolog -- Orijentolog (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orijentolog (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose~~Unclear copyright. All rights reserved from Flickr.~~ Also "GFDL combined with NC license".--ArildV (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's nothing "unclear" because author personally allowed it for Wikimedia Commons, he's also chosed licence below and sent me larger version ("original" size on Flickr is 964 x 725, and this one is 2,000 × 1,504). --Orijentolog (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification (for more information see User_talk:ArildV#File:RQ-170_Sentinel_in_Iran.jpg). I appreciate your efforts to contact the photographer and upload the image to the Commons. However, I am not convinced about the image quality and "GFDL combined with NC license" is no longer accepted here.--ArildV (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Assuming for now that the license os OK, I don't see anything featurable here. The whole craft is not shown and image quality is on the poor side. As for the subject and it alleged rarity, maybe it will be appreciated in en:WP for illustrating some article on the incident (if such article exists). Anyway, the translation of the text in the photo should be in the image file. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition, cut-off craft --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as whole craft is not shown. -- Matthew Proctor (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop here is really unfortunate: the wings of the UAV are completely cut off, sadly. Michael Barera (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sehit Ilker Karter ferry on the Bosphorus in Istanbul, Turkey 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 04:28:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ships on the Bosphorus in Istanbul in the late afternoon.
- created, uploaded and nominated by Moonik -- Moonik (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moonik (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- There's no real context of this photo; just boats on water.Fotoriety (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Some people like cars others flowers or ships... I think that the boats are also part of our environment. --Moonik (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like boats, ships and ferries, but this isn't an optimal image of one. First of I would crop it slightly to get rid of the freighter on the left, secondly i would try to either show the bow or the broadside of the ship instead of the stern, which usually isn't that attractive. Kleuske (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Moonik (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise in Kanyakumari.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 16:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This picture was specifically taken to capture the sunrise, Vivekananda Rock and the Tiruvalluvar Statue in one frame

created by Nikhilb239 - uploaded by Nikhilb239 - nominated by Nikhilb239 -- Nikhilb239 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Nikhilb239 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Noisy, interpolation smudges—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea, but it is a bit too noisy for me. Michael Barera (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy --Stas1995 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

File:Vakil Iwan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 14:28:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ؟ - uploaded by Marmoulak - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- wow Peter23 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite symmetric.--Kürbis (✔) 15:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry to go against the flood but I don't like the crop and sharpness could be much better. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not straight.Fotoriety (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Overall technical quality is poor (lacking sharpness, no distinct focal point, washed out details). Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Dey.sandip (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop isn't the best, but I still like it overall. Michael Barera (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Very nice place, very interesting, high educational and encyclopedic value, but the place deserves a better technical quality image, IMO. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 17:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enée & Anchise Lepautre Louvre M.R.2028 noir.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 15:44:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pierre Lepautre (1659–1744) - uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aeneas, supporting his old father Anchises, escapes from burning Troy. Anchises carries the palladium, image of Athena Pallas, wich will become the sacred emblem of the Romans. This marble group (ca.1697), nice example of the 17th-century french sculpture, suffered from more than 250 years of erosion, as it stayed outside, in the park of the Tuileries castle. It is now protected inside of the Louvre museum since 1989. Please read the caption for further informations. -- Jebulon (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not gonna oppose on that... You'll correct it. Kleuske (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, Thanks a lot. I'm not sure if it was a spot (the wall behind, or another part of the sculpture ?) I'm lucky enough to live very close from the original, so I'll check this soon !--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good work, it has a professional touch Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. --Selbymay (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with analysis by Alvesgaspar (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 18:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Sculpture

File:Grens, Enschede, Coulissenlandschap.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2012 at 22:06:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kleuske (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Kleuske (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A nice image, but just not enough "wow" for a Featured Picture, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good composition and very atmospheric. I don't miss „wow“. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User:Famberhorst
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 14:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 00:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rocks El Torcal de Antequera karst Andalusia Spain.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 19:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Nature and me -- Jebulon (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The strange karst rocks erosion at El Torcal de Antequera, Andalusia, Spain.-- Jebulon (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely landscape. It's desirable to find a usage for this pic somewhere. --A.Savin 23:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. "Lovely", I don't know. "Stunning", for sure ! Usage (a beginning) is Done. To be continued...--Jebulon (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful nature --Ximeg (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Every detail perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image, Mr. Jebulon :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Mister Dey.sandip.--Jebulon (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice details, composition and color. -- Joydeep _Talk 13:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great landscape and beautiful image capture of nature scene. -- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I am not sure whether it is tilted? Poco a poco (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 00:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Winterberg in het Sauerland.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 19:04:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info IJspegels aan het dak van de Hessenhof in het centrum van Winterberg in het Sauerland.

Loosely translated: Icicles on the roof of the Hessenhof in the center of Winterberg in the Sauerland. famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea with the icicles, but the image quality at 100% obviously fails to meet FP requirements. --A.Savin 23:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No FP for me, sorry --Stas1995 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Set:Buryat wrestling, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2012 at 21:44:11 (UTC)

(#1) Buryat national wrestling Buhe Barildan.
(#2) Buryat national wrestling Buhe Barildan.
(#3) Buryat national wrestling Buhe Barildan.
(#4) Buryat national wrestling Buhe Barildan.
(#5) Eagle dance - victory dance of Buryat fighters.

Info Buryat national wrestling Buhe Barildan. Photoset was created at the Buryat culture festival "Altargana". Transbaikalia territory, settlement Aginskoye (Republic of Buryatia, Russia) by Аркадий Зарубин - uploaded by Аркадий Зарубин - nominated by kaganer -- Kaganer (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kaganer (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why a set ? --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why a not? This a really photoset. If this set is not elected, I will promote a separate files. --Kaganer (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do appreciate the set, since it shows the match from start to finish. ~~#3 would be featurable in it's own right.~~ Sharpness is an issue. Kleuske (talk)
Oppose Again, why a set of picture? One picture at time has to be evaluate. And enyway, no one of them are featurable in my personal opinion. --Llorenzi (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Llorenzi --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like it as a set. Michael Barera (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Right now, the set criteria are not very well-defined. But in any case, if the criteria require the set to be cohesive at the expense of slight loss of "wow" factor, it's not cohesive enough. If a set is allowed to be loosely associated, then every individual image in the set ought to be featurable in its own right, which is not the case IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like these photos. Thank you! What about a short video about this sport? :) -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guadalupe Peak from Bowl Trail.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2012 at 01:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Fredlyfish4 Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this photo because its previous nomination failed by a vote of 6-1, with an unconvincing opposing vote. I was hoping to get more votes in either direction to have a more convincing result.

Support -- Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice view, but the lighting looks washed out to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as per King of.Fotoriety (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Sharpness could be better. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh lighting, and some washed out details --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Pine^✉ 19:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:DowntownMiamiPanorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 03:18:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by UpstateNYer - uploaded by UpstateNYer - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Big panorama, but nothing particularly striking. May be alignment problems as well. --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The right part leaning toward outside should be fixed at least - Benh (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I rather like it. Michael Barera (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose + color issue in the central part of the sky.--Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jesus malverde shrine in culiacan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 03:06:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dedicated to my friend Jebulon! -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the photo overall, but composition needed to be better. Crop is very tight at the bottom and on the left hand side --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crop? very little head room, very little floor, very little side walls, very little room... This is a very tight place and very tight crop showing almost the entire altar with its most important elements. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Okay, I think I understand the difficulty. Going for a support as this is a good photo overall --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Michael Barera (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bad technical quality, but mitigating circumstances. Read the articles is very interesting, I did not know this "saint" !--Jebulon (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now used in the french WP.--Jebulon (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, most intriguing stuff. -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Original and interesting composition but the quality level (no surprise at ISO6400) are just not enough for FP. In addition the picture needs some perspective correction (obvious at left side). Taking this picture again with a tripod would be a great FP Poco a poco (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 14:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cawker City, Kansas downtown and water tower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2012 at 23:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dan Brown - uploaded by Ks0stm - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition, lot of unused foreground --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is really beautiful, in a distinctively empty, rough sort of way. Michael Barera (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The picture needs perspective correction and should be cut below. Further the buildings on the right side are too dark. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parcae.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 23:21:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Selbymay (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and good photo. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Ximeg (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support so cute. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Cayambe (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support So nice ! Who is the taxidermist ? --Jebulon (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm getting hooked. Can't resist the damned birds of Mr. Dalous. Kleuske (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alexandronikos (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though supporting at this point has no meaning, I'll still put in one :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 13:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Tomás66 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have enough edits to vote. 50 edits are needed. -- Joydeep _Talk 17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support –Makele-90 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both cute and pretty at the same time. -- Cirt (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 07:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mercat de Sant Josep 02.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 20:29:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info There's a few blown highlights, but it's free-standing stained glass, which I think mitigates this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Don't think this is going to pass, given Christmas approaches. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-11-30 23-50-03-paysage-au-clair-de-lune.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 12:39:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The photo lacks any real point of focus and the lake itself is barely in view.Fotoriety (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Boring picture, sorry.—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunningly beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fotoriety --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Laconic picture. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Kelvinsong. B.p. 18:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-12-10 22-25-52-Alcea-rosea-graines-46f.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 12:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting, but I don't like the crop. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think the crop is okay, it shows a smattering of them. -- Cirt (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am not fond of the crop either and the borders of the shadows looks strange to me, otherwise good quality Poco a poco (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anjarle Bridge and Cows.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 06:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cows are probably the subjects and the surrounding setting is the environment or I don't know
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual and very interesting. Personally I prefer this to the alt. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info This alternative work, removes the water spot (which I personally like though since it's a realistic thing that if you shoot in rain, you may have some water spots on your lens). But since this is a derivative work (by user Atention) from the original JPG file, there seems to be slight loss of quality from the original version. Reviewers are encouraged to review both though. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both are good, but I prefer the alternative. Michael Barera (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Request you to re-review both the versions, as the original is a QI and the alternative is of slightly less quality from the original. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New version. Low Jpg compression (quality 11), improved correction. David Corral Gadea (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Me too. Both are good, but I prefer the alternative. David Corral Gadea (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality, and I'm really liking the perspective lines on this one. -- Cirt (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Anjarle Bridge and Cows-fix.jpg

File:Aveiro March 2012-12.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 11:54:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The lighthouse of Aveiro, west coast of Portugal, at the end of the day. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Calm and pretty landscape, at the same time filled of with the movement of waves, fishers and birds above. --Ximeg (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is good stuff. Very nice lightning, especially on the lighthouse. I don't even have to get paid to support this one. --Slaunger (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice detail and atmosphere.Fotoriety (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clean composition and nice, technically good --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Main subject a bit off-centered maybe ? . Seriously: very impressive to me, I like it very much. The poor thing needs maybe to breathe a bit at left and above ? FP anyway--Jebulon (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 13:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful atmosphere, nice composition. --Phyrexian ɸ 07:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Phyrexian.--ArildV (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: A little too close to the edge of the image for me (the antenna, mainly), but no reason to oppose. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Centrosome Cycle.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 22:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Diagram of the centrosome cycle. Created uploaded and nominated by Kelvinsong— Kelvinsong (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too easy, nothing complex to do, simply copy and paste --The Photographer (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's as easy as implied above (and it's definitely not "simply copy and paste"), and even though, that would not be the point. Now, I see little typography issue: you should at least increase the space between main captions and the accompanying details. If possible, I would enlarge canvas to give more room around captions. - Benh (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Move to oppose. You converted texts to path, reducing usefulness of SVG. The font you use doesn't seem "standard (and I was surprised it rendered so well on my browser). So either you switch to standard one or you could incorporate it (apparently, there are some tricks for doing so in SVG, but I've never tried). - Benh (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a version with editable text available that is linked to from the main file. I do not use the default Deja Vu font, as it renders extremely poorly (probably due to overly aggressive hinting).

The reason it rendered so well on your browser is precisely because the text is paths, and therefore unhinted. Hinting in moderation makes the text more readable at small sizes, at the cost of æsthetics, and on windows machines, can result in visible jaggedness and deformities. There are also issues with multiple font weights and kerning(which causes the text to collide with the graphics or get cut off).—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentionned, it seems possible to embed the font into the SVG (the way you'd do to embed a PNG) by using base64 encoding, but this seems to require some hack. Otherwise, I think it's better to assess the editable version instead. I'm not fan of the deja vu font either, but I think it's OK. Maybe it's also possible to specify Helvetica and, as a substitute, Arial, which is sure to work on most computer (it's also possible to specify URW Nimbus Sans, an Helvetica clone, which is included in most Linux as far as I know). I think Helvetica renders quite nicely, and Arial is also fine although despised by some people. My other comment about typography issues still stands. - Benh (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to embed fonts, and I'm not sure if its legal either. I've heard that it doesn't work with Mediawiki too. I think it's fine to have the text as paths and provide an editable text file alongside it—if you need to make substantial changes(such as a translation) to the text, it will probably radically alter the shape of the text regardless of the font, and if it's just a typo fix, it should not be too difficult to just copy and paste a letter. Most computers also don't have the variety of fontweights like the light versions that I make liberal use of(yes, they are necessary to form a sort of "hierarchy"—to demote less important stuff like alternative names and footnotes).

Again, remember that there is an editable text version that already exists—it's not the prettiest, but I thought the purpose of editable text versions was the textual content, not the typographical setting.—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you bought your font, but if it's from adobe, you can embed it in anything. Now I did mention Arial/Helvetica because if you make them render fine, it will render fine on most computer. For instance, I don't have Deja vu on my Mac, and it renders with Times instead, which gives something pretty ugly. SVG allows you to specify a set of font and the order of preference. I don't know how to do it in Inkscape, but it should be possible from a text editor. I will try on your editable version maybe. It is not compulsory that we have the fonts on our machines if we're fine with the PNG generated by Wikimedia servers. And they have all the fonts we mention above (but not the Frutiger one of course ;) ). - Benh (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which font did you use by the way ? - Benh (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is called Frutiger. One of those fonts you probably see everywhere(airports, state tests, posters, flyers, textbooks, commercials, signs) but never really recognized. If you don't have it, you can use alternatives called Myriad, CartoGothic, or Segoe UI which are nearly the same. All Windows users already have Segoe, CartoGothic is free to download, and Linux users probably know how to get Myriad and Frutiger. ;)—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too much to ask a user to get a font to see a drawing the way it was intended to be ;) that's why I recommend going with ubiquitous ones (if cannot embed). - Benh (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all one wants to do is view the picture, then path-text should be fine, and is the best—most browsers do not allow you to select SVG text anyways. If one wants to edit the picture, that's what the editable text version is for.—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but since the editable version is easier to handle, it's going to be more useful. What do we do if you leave the project? Are we stuck with the editable version which renders very bad because Inkscape produces dirty SVG with plenty of parameters we don't need? So it's better we start using the editable version now and make it clean from scratch. Otherwise it's as good you provide bitmap. By the way, I just successfully embed a font in SVG file. If you are interested and have a UNIX (this includes Mac OS X) and base64 utility, I can let you know how (if you have Windows or other, I don't know...). - Benh (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm unfortunately, Inkscape doesn't seem to read embedded font well, and I'm pretty much sure Wikimedia servers use it to render the PNG (it's callable from command line) (or have they already switched to librsvg2?). So if the SVG would render fine in a decent browser, the generated thumbnails won't look as good. Anyways, I've said enough on that. In short, SVG a more pig to handle than anything as of now :). - Benh (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support While ease of editing is nice, people can easily just go with the non-text-to-path version for that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a bit busy, but overall I still really like it. Michael Barera (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great quality. Also, SCIENCE! -- Cirt (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Science!! :D Béria Lima ^msg 05:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chuck Kennedy - The Official White House Photostream - P060409CK-0199 (pd).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 01:33:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Matthew Proctor -- Matthew Proctor (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Matthew Proctor (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but for god's sake get it renamed to something that actually includes the subject of the photo in the filename. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soft. Tomer T (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very impressive. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a great expression! Michael Barera (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not a good lighting. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I think it's pretty good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the eyes (the focus area) must be always sharp at portraits --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cirque de Gavarnie - panorama - crop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 19:20:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eusebius and cropped by User:Pine - cropped version uploaded by Pine - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 19:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 19:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the most appropriate lighting of background; needs more contrast.Fotoriety (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop at the top is awkward. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've been there, and I haven't been able to make a satisfactory panoramic. It's just too big... Having said that, I'm sorry to vote "oppose", but this pic just shows a part of the Cirque de Gavarnie. Why have you cropped it? -- MartinD (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because a previous nomination of the whole picture failed to succeed for the lack of only one vote. (I guess). And it was a pity !--Jebulon (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting --Stas1995 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, no real subject is framed or focused --Ricordisamoa (talk but not stalk) 23:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Citroën DS 21 27 Quai Anatole France license plate blanked 2012-06-02 cropped.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2012 at 13:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A particularly nice example of an iconic French car model in an iconic Parisian setting. All by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator -- Slaunger (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Matthew Proctor (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful car and beautiful photo. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful car, beautiful setting, beautiful photo. What's not to love? Michael Barera (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good technical quality and iconic indeed, but "Stationnement gênant, infraction prévue et réprimée par l'article 417-10 du code de la route". 35 to 150 € penalty...--Jebulon (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed, if the nomination falls out positive, I think the owner will appreciate that I have blanked the license plate, before it ends up as POTD. --Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will look the other way and (maybe) consider the possibility of supporting the nomination for a small attention of, say, 150 euros... Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question Do you take Visa? --Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only cash, please! Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nice try, Alves, but Danes are not keen on bribes. --Slaunger (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice icons. --Selbymay (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree it is quite iconic. -- Cirt (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems impossible that such an exzellent photo should not bee featured! There must be something wrong with the conditions of the contest. Obviously everybody is touched when seeing little animals or is impressed when seeing big landscape but cars are not interesting for most of them. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, Lothar. I appreciate your passionate support to my photo, and I also really love it myself, and would of course have liked to see it featured. You know, it could have been promoted if I had not abstained but supported instead, but I prefer if featured pictures of mine are promoted with a good margin, so I think it is OK. Only about 1 in 3000 images on Commons gets featured, so better one too few than one too many. That said, I agree with you that sometimes what reviewers favor seems a little one-sided. There are certain kinds of "cute" subjects, which just naturally attract more attention and support. As a consequence we do not have quite the diversity of subject in our gallery that I could could wish for. --Slaunger (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jay Pritzker Pavilion, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 08.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 10:00:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Jay Pritzker Pavilion, Downtown Chicago, Illinois, USA. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view. I doubt though that it was taken at 1:23 am. Looks rather like Blue hour to me? --A.Savin 10:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the blue hour. I forgot to change the camera clock. The difference between Europe and Chicago was 7 hours, so the time was 6:23 pm. Official sunset that day was 5:59 pm. I have categorized the file accordingly. Poco a poco (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view and quality.--ArildV (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well done --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very interesting photo. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and nice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 07:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Stas1995 (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition --Cj.samson (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course.--Jebulon (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW, of course too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Sharpening and noise reduction too strong, a lot of texture is lost in some areas. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice, one of my favourite pictures of FPC 2012 – even if Julian is right. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment Carschten, it is really encouraging Poco a poco (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --The Photographer (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jehangir Mahal inside Agra Fort.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2012 at 05:27:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of Jahangiri Mahal, situated inside the Agra Fort in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India. The building is made up of red sandstones. All by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors! Michael Barera (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great use of perspective lines. -- Cirt (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Men river Louvre MAO690.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2012 at 10:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Framing is a tiny bit crooked at the bottom, but not enough to be disturbing. Kleuske (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ace! Peter23 (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 15:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A beautiful panel and a very good picture, thus an obvious QI. But there is little magic (at least for me). Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness IMO. I think this 2006 picture needs a re-shot.--Jebulon (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 17:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Neues Rathaus Hannover abends.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 22:07:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald (de) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald (de) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice ! shame of the three persons on the stairs in front, one of them is moving ("ghost"), do you think you could clone them out ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^[Message] 13:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A postcard view. --A.Savin 10:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Phyrexian ɸ 06:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Outstanding quality. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Noyabaad Mosque (5).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2012 at 18:04:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Naisr Khan Saikat - uploaded by Naisr Khan Saikat - nominated by Naisr Khan Saikat -- -- Nasir Khan Saikat ^{(Talk|Contributions)} 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Nasir Khan Saikat ^{(Talk|Contributions)} 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's good to see the historic place in the pictures of the day. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At full resolution, there are some sharpness (plus noise) and DoF issues which are bothering me just enough to oppose. Quality is probably a bit on the lower side for a FP, IMHO. The composition is okay (could have been better -- by that I mean I like to see at least 2 sides of a 3-Dimensional building, if possible :) ) and light has been used properly though. --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Though low on "wow" factor for me, I still like it overall. Michael Barera (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Persepolis stairs of the Apadana relief.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2012 at 13:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nikopol - uploaded by Nikopol - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a good reason for the crop? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great educational and historical value, also high quality. -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really sharp, and I don't understand the crop per Adam Cuerden.--Jebulon (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Persicaria perfoliata 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 23:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dalgial - uploaded by Dalgial - nominated by Eggmoon -- Eggmoon (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eggmoon (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too noise, unsharpness --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praktica MTL-3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 16:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uberprutser - uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Uberprutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It's fineAtention (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice capture! Michael Barera (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --ArildV (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the note. Otherwise, very good !--Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stacking artefact, see note --Llez (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I lost an image because of data corruption. I think I need a new memory card since this wasn't the first time :( --Uberprutser (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 08:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per technical flaws mentioned above, and agreement of the author itself. Here it is the FP page... but sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously per Jebulon. B.p. 18:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Schwedenfeuer Detail 04.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 14:54:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Schwedenfeuer c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—A bit difficult to tell what is being burned though.—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The flame looks great in this capture! Michael Barera (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture warms me. --A.Savin 11:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality, makes me want to grab a glass of whiskey and sit by the fire. -- Cirt (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Simon's 1888 Gothenburg map.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 08:33:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A high resolution, well preserved and very detailed map of Gothenburg from 1888. The map indicates street numbers, property numbers and boundaries, administrative boundaries, train lines and tram lines. Created by Ludvid Simone (1849-1911) and digitized 2008 by Uno Lindström/Göteborgs Fotostudio and re-published jointly by Riksarkivet, Landsarkivet i Göteborg, and Regionarkivet för Västra Götalandsregionen och Göteborgs Stad. Uploaded by Historiker in cooperation with Regionarkivet för Västra Götalandsregionen and Wikimedia Sweden.-- ArildV (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely excellent! But slow upload, due to the heavy file. -- MJJR (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Wow. --Julian H. (talk/files) 22:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning! Michael Barera (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Uploaded another version to fix thumbnail generation issue. TIFF should be reuploaded as well, and author should specify color profile. - Benh (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed and aesthetic map. Looks accurate for the parts I could compare to a more recent map. I'm not so sure about what I read as reliefs though. How big was the source should be indicated (if resolution from tiff is correct, it's 1m large, but I think it's safer original uploader confirms). - Benh (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! --PierreSelim (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top quality, very interesting, high historical, educational and encyclopedic value.--Jebulon (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality and most educational. -- Cirt (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Starburst in NGC 4449 (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2012 at 10:05:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Winiar - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Awesome Alborzagros (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, quite striking. -- Cirt (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow Béria Lima ^msg 05:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special to me, just another "space" Nasaesahubbleeso picture, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Xerxes Cuneiform Van.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2012 at 15:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uspn - uploaded by Uspn - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Chromatic abberation—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Влезна порта на Саат-кулата во Скопје.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 02:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kiril Simeonovski - uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shot but too simplistic to be a FP, IMO --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with simple compositions, in fact i rather like it simple, but they need to be even more perfect than more complex ones, since every tiny flaw stands out. Kleuske (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park Heremastate, grote vijver.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 19:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral—Good picture, but a lot of noise and compression artifacts.—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but not enough "wow" for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow" effect (per King of Hearts) --Stas1995 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Very nice photo and „wow“ enough for me. But sharpness should be better und CAs must be deleted. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
( Question: wat bedoelt u met CAs? User:Famberhorst

It means chromatic abberation. Or see I wrong? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hartelijk dank voor uw informatie. --Famberhorst (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not enough "wow" for me either. Michael Barera (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lotus 87B (2007-06-15 Sp).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2012 at 22:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Lotus 87B in the practice of DAMC Oldtimer Festival at Nürburgring 2007, created by Lothar Spurzem - uploaded by Lothar Spurzem - nominated by Lothar Spurzem -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice image, but I'm not crazy about how busy the background is. I'm not sure how this would be avoided, though. Michael Barera (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall composition does not really convince. The bridge at the top I find distracting. There are some technical flaws as well (perspective distortion at the right, some CA's). --A.Savin 23:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! Does exist a short video (at commons) about changing (old to new) of wheels of automobile?.. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs a slight rotation counterclockwise, so the spoiler of the car is straight. Some perspective correction would help, too. Kleuske (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Better now? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the captured moment but the ellbow in the left side is spoling the moment IMO. Although the tyres would be also partially cut off, I'd crop the left side to get rid of the ellbow and maybe also of the guy in red Poco a poco (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the ellbow of the photographer is a welcome foreground which gives some depth to the scene and the red jacket is an enlivening dot. But of course it is a matter of taste. I would be glad if you nevertheless could find my photo good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per A.Savin. B.p. 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK! Perhaps there is a gnat on the car which is distructing very much too. But the bridge belongs to the scene. And where you will see perspective lacks I can't understand. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. Yann (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clevedon Pier at dusk.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 18:08:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by NotFromUtrecht - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the perfert light and composition, however the left end of the pier looks blurred --Ximeg (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd love to support, but the sharpness just isn't there. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very beautiful though sharpness could be a little bit better. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment great view. Please remove dust spot left. see note --Rjcastillo (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. I already asked for the removal of the dust spot in the Graphic Lab of Hebrew Wikipedia, and I'm currently waiting for someone to do it. Tomer T (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KOH. And I urgently request the supporters not to forget that FP's should represent the "very best" of Commons. The technical quality here, however, certainly isn't the best. --A.Savin 10:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And I support strongly A.Savin's comment...--Jebulon (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaded a new version, dustspot removed+adjustments include sharpness, noise reduction, highlight, shadows.--ArildV (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Tomer T (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not very interesting, image quality is far from special. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly per Jebulon. It has been a sad story over here lately :-(. B.p. 17:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garden on the roof near Lindenhof.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 18:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Ximeg -- Ximeg (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximeg (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Someones, nay, anyones backyard in autumn. I may just be I'm spoiled by my mothers gardening, but i do not think it's very lovely nor do i think the image is featurable. I don't like the crop and there's no "wow". Kleuske (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kleuske. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The motif is too profane for FI. Try QI nomination instead. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Ximeg (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Humlegården December 2012 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2012 at 14:40:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Humlegården, Stockholm in December 2012. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- ArildV (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Technically fine, but don't find much in the scene and composition.Fotoriety (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review. It may not be a spectacular composition, but I like the winter sun and the woman with the children in the sun. Many photos of allées plays with shadows, here is the sun instead. I took a second image at the same time, Humlegården December 2012 02.jpg (need a small left crop), do you think it's more interesting? Best regards --ArildV (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The centred composition is definitely more appropriate for this scene. I think the 2nd photo is definitely more interesting. But the lighting just doesn't do it for me in either photo. Sorry.Fotoriety (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--ArildV (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--This is not an "alternative", but another picture, isn't it ?...--Jebulon (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the second image a lot more than the first one, but is it appropriate to use an entirely different photo as an "alternative"? Michael Barera (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry if I made a mistake (I'm still new to FP). Should I withdraw the nomination, and nominate the second image?--ArildV (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

' I withdraw my nomination--ArildV (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Set: Protein biosynthesis[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 23:15:08 (UTC)

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The processes of transcription and translation.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kelvinsong. Editable text versions can be found on the respective file pages.—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think, you should write "RNA" in capital letters, since it is an acronym. Moreover, my initial feeling was: "ma transcription... What?!" --Ximeg (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean—I've fixed the titles.—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Again, it's very nice work and aesthetic and my vote won't change anything, but i'd promote the editable version instead . It's already there after all... Also a bit cluttered (though certainly informative) and agree with the above. - Benh (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, leaving it as text means no multiple weights—as you can see, it strips out all of the light and demi text, and most of the bold text. Also issues with italicized words italicizing up the whole line(See step 1 on the translation one). Browsers also seem to ignore the letter kerning in addition.

As for it being cluttered, I am always confused by textbooks which label complex diagrams with numbers and put a paragraph key somewhere off to the side—for me anyway, it saves me a great deal of confusion if the pictures are just put with the text instead forcing you to imagine invisible arrows.—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For cluttered, I can understand ur point. That's not my reason for oppose. But what happens below is precisely what I'm pointing at: we need you for any translation. Many diagrams on wikipedia are translated by someone else than author. As for the weight we have regular and bold for many typefaces and even the fancy extralight semibold and others for some. Maybe wikimedia servers now have the Source Sans Pro which has been open sourced by adobe. It's very very nice and has most weights you could dream off ;) Same for Google's Open Sans. I'll give it a try with one of your editable diagram when I have time. - Benh (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this seems to be a promising alternative (import fonts from google web font, see last answer, much easier than the base 64 embedding I mentioned before), it should work on most computers (but not on Inkscape) ! And if someone really wants to edit the svg itself, we could tell her/him to install the fonts. But I still think the simplest is to use common fonts. - Benh (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into creating an alternative with Open Sans(there are many things I like about the font, several I don't), maybe merge the two files by having the editable Open sans text invisible(zero alpha, or white for the simpler pictures) and the original Frutiger underneath—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A problem I've realized—the way I work with fonts is I rename them in fontforge, so each weight is its own font instead of being part of a larger family, because Inkscape will not recognize any weights other than regular and bold. Example—Source Sans Regular (Family—Source Sans) I rename to Source Sans 55 Regular (Family—Source Sans 55), Source Sans Light (Family—Source Sans)→Source Sans 35 (Family—Source Sans 35), etc, so they show up in the font menu like

Source Sans 15

Source Sans 25

Source Sans 35

Source Sans 45

Source Sans 55

Source Sans 65

Source Sans 75, etc.

These are bound to be missed by the mediawiki renderer, and anyone else trying to edit them...—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use the notepad and DjVu Sans fonts. DjVu Sans fonts are recomended by Kaidor. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per the two comments above.+ For english speaking people only, then not encyclopedic enough. Needs an internationalzation of the captions, I can't understand.--Jebulon (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide me with the French translations, I would be happy to typeset them into the posters for you. (Per above comment, editability of text is irrelevant for this, translation(linguistic) means just delete the paragraph and write a new one).—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above --Stas1995 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For this kind of illustrations it is customary (compulsory?) to cite your sources. B.p. 17:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Set Images released under the CC BY 3.0 license by Statens Museum for Kunst, not featured[edit]

This is a complete set of images released under the CC BY 3.0 license by Statens Museum for Kunst.

While there's no actual templates for a set nomination, so feel free to tweak this page. Here is a selection of the 158 images: Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2012 at 17:02:10 (UTC)

Queen Dowager Juliane Marie
Asiatisk Compagnis bygninger, set fra St. Annæ Gade
Dansk landskab
Bortførelse på en enhjørning
En jysk fårehyrde på heden
Et selskab af danske kunstnere i Rom
Hoved af en armbrøstskytte
Kain dræber Abel
Kristus som den lidende frelser
Lige børn leger bedst (Gelyck By Gelyck)
Paris' dom
Salomons dom
Santa Corona
Susanna and the Elders
Trompe l'oeil. Bagsiden af et indrammet maleri
Tulipa gesneriana (Gottorfer Codex)

Info created by different people - mustly uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing to do with the quality of the pictures, I just don't find that the link connecting these images (a license from a museum) justifies the constitution of a FPC set. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Undermining of PD-Art. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, PD-Art isn't actually law in most countries. Wikipedia is arguably acting as an agent provocateur, using the fact it cannot be sued due to America's laws to encourage other places to come up with similar rules. The CC-licence protects the reusers far more than Wikipedia's usual policy of encouraging people to risk getting sued. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This set consists of carefully selected highlights from a major European museum, and the quality of both the artworks and the images speaks for itself. --Urbandweller (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please read the section of the guidelines at the top of this page, dealing with set nominations and starting with the phrase: If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set (the bold is mine). That is obvioulsy not the case of this group. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think we can feature an entire category of images at once, though I do think that they'd be great to nominate. Also, there is a template for set nominations (though it's probably only available in English at the moment - it's quite new. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't like featuring an entire category, either: can (at least some of) these images be nominated individually instead? Michael Barera (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar -- Joydeep _Talk 05:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Not a good way for the new "FPC sets" (a good idea), IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-wildebeest-fight.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2012 at 02:33:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fighting blue wildebeest in Etosha National Park.

Info created by Yathin_sk - uploaded by Yathin_sk - nominated by Nossob -- Nossob (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 07:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Love the action in this image. Kleuske (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Good emotional and dynamic photo. --14:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Invalid. Sorry: No name, no support! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 05:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shot! --Phyrexian ɸ 06:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent photo with great illustrative quality. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 09:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Angaria poppei 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 10:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.--ArildV (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The images are good, but I really don't like the black background --Uberprutser (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support...and seven. I noticed it was a good candidate for FP when I saw it in QIC page...--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great detail and contrasting black background helps to bring-out all the colours of the subject.Fotoriety (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, educational and high quality both. -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 09:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:BBG - Carissa macrocarpa var. Horizontalis - Cascade by Frank Okamura.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 07:35:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by PierreSelim. A cascade style bonzai (Carissa macrocarpa var. Horizontalis) in the Brooklyn Botanic Garden -- PierreSelim (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PierreSelim (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like bonsais. - Benh (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support...~~And we do not have any bonsaï in our featured plants collection~~. This nomination is a very good idea , and I think this picture is almost perfect and a very good representative.--Jebulon (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BonsaiTridentMaple.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. I did not know this picture, thank you Tomer T.--Jebulon (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon. Nice one! Incidentally, the tripod base is a contemporary Mexican en:metate. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 09:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Eyjafjallajökull 17-4-2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2012 at 09:09:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bjarki S - uploaded by Bjarki S - nominated by Bjarki S -- Bjarki S (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bjarki S (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an image with a large encyclopedic value I think, but unfortunately the technical quality doesn't meet QI/FP standards. --A.Savin 10:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a very nice and valued image, but not ok for an FP image: it is too soft with a lot of unsharp areas. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the last couple reviewers: not enough quality to be an FP, but this should really try for VI. Michael Barera (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above --Z 06:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 09:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grande Galerie Louvre by Thomas Allom.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 19:20:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Thomas Allom - photograph by Jastrow - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive engraving --PierreSelim (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support indeed. The "Raft of the Medusa" by Géricault was already interesting in 1844 !--Jebulon (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As others. --Selbymay (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mostly, although I think engravings should never be cropped this tight - they were meant to have paper surrounding them, and almost inevitably had a title below them which was part of the printing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 07:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 14:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 09:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grande salle ENC n1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2012 at 15:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support love it --Алый Король (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like it. Kleuske (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors and composition. --Selbymay (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support idem --Gloumouth1 (d) 21:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just a little noisy but alright. I like the colors and the design. Nicely captured and well exposed. --Ximonic (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with analyses by both Ximonic (talk · contribs) and by Selbymay (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't see the "featured" aspect of this photo. The composition is OK but not great (in particular, the lines don't really draw you into the center of the composition), and there are quality issues around highlight areas (CA, softness). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High educational and encyclopedic value (in France...), but otherwise I agree with King of Hearts. It is an old classroom with an historical plaque... There are some magenta flares around the lamps, the left part is noisy, the picture is very soft, and the composition is not really appealing to me. Not that sharp, I'm afraid. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Tomer T (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above B.p. 18:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Dey.sandip (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 09:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A bit low on "wow" factor, but still deserving to be an FP, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 09:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polder molen de Goliath.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2012 at 01:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uberprutser - uploaded by Uberprutse - nominated by Uberprutse -- Uberprutser (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't really like the tight crop.--ArildV (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Less crop would only have shown rather a lot of wind turbines... -- MartinD (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Goliath Poldermolen.jpg for a picture from the same series with essentially the same subject. I think your nomination should have mentioned this. Colin (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop. Sky oddly dark (polarising filter?). Colin (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor for me, and I'm not crazy about the tight crop. Michael Barera (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 09:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zanzibar Red Colobus Monkey.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2013 at 13:13:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hasin Shakur - uploaded by Hasin Shakur - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem licenses. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Peter23 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry at full size, noisy, poor crop, sad license,... ...and a flower growing out of the poor creature's head. B.p. 22:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! Michael Barera (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding? Did you look at the 100%? B.p. 22:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please read the guidelines of FP about licensing, just here above. Quote: Licensing - Images licensed with solely "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.--Jebulon (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I like the facial emotion very much; but photo lacks sharpness and i dislike the distracting placement of the leaf/flower on top of the head.Fotoriety (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsuitable license. Yann (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2012 (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: GFDL-1.2 is not an acceptable license.

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.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

File:Alcazaba Antequera.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2012 at 11:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me-- Jebulon (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Alcazaba (arab word meaning "Fortress"), 13th-century, of the andalusian city of Antequera, Spain. One can see in background the strange mountain called La Peña de los Enamorados ("the Lover's Rock", please read the article for the legend), also named La Cabeza del Indio ("the head of the Indian")-- Jebulon (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Love the composition (minus the foreground foliage) and the atmosphere it evokes.Fotoriety (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 07:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support How is it that I don't know this place? Shame on me! --Kadellar (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral de Santa María de Segovia - 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2012 at 13:32:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cathedral of Segovia, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovely picture for a lovely city, very fashionable for the moment on "Commons" indeed. High quality winter light. Very pure architecture and very sharp image. Snowy mountains in background are really "top", "THE" good detail IMO. FP with no doubt for this QI, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments, Jebulon!! --Kadellar (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Maybe you could remove by cloning out the green crane at left ? --Jebulon (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Kadellar (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness is improvable imo but the lighting and atmosphere hardly Poco a poco (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 07:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning! Michael Barera (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coat of Arms of Trinidad and Tobago.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2012 at 11:31:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Turn685 -- Turn685 (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Turn685 (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Wonderful!—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice draw --The Photographer (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The motto seems especially relevant for this FPC page ! ;) another time, a high quality heraldic work, somewhere less classical than the previous austrian one, but still very good--Jebulon (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Coats of arms, which you create, are simply terrific!! That's really amazing how you use Inkscape --Ximeg (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Together We Aspire, Together We Achieve." Wow!!! J Kadavoor J e e 11:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coimbra November 2012-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 12:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of the city of Coimbra (Portugal), from near the University to north. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing particularly interesting in the composition.Fotoriety (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Average composition, no focal points to hold attention. --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light, compo --Muhammad (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chaotic composition --Moonik (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cj.samson (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 09:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coracias caudata-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2012 at 16:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Hans Stieglitz - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Exzellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Prachtig! -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I find it a bit noisy, and it definitely can be corrected. Also, the image appears a bit dark; histogram has almost nothing on the right side, so the white clipping and/or exposure should be increased. --Ximeg (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not good. The branch on the foreground is disturbing. And also I would crop out the cut-off branch on the right site. --–Makele-90 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautifull. that's one good looking bird --Uberprutser (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info edit by Uberprutser. Tomer T (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great detail.Fotoriety (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Very nice shot but quality at lower FP level (see noise in the tail), still good enough for FP to me Poco a poco (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much better composition than the previous one. However, now there are several visible cloning marks. –Makele-90 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Makele-90 --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened, tail OOF, unconvincing central composition. The pretty flashy colours of the roller are not only thing one should look at here! B.p. 17:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I left annotations. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both are nice, but I prefer the alternative. Michael Barera (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 14:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Coracias caudata-01-2.jpg

File:FTTR RTT56B Telephone 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 21:10:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uberprutser - uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Uberprutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prutswerk. Kleuske (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inderdaad, vooral de achtergrond. B.p. 07:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought the voting period ends on 25 December. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture of a historic object. Michael Barera (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 14:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustavian mirror, antique furniture photography, IMG 0941 edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2012 at 16:16:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Peter Weis (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not much in it to be a FP. There are not many interesting features of the object --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, I like it. (Interesting though, how you managed it without reflection?) --A.Savin 10:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I placed one Elinchrom BXRi 500 on each side of the mirror and placed a linen sheet in front of the mirror. The linen sheet was stretched between floor and ceiling to minimize creases. I placed my tripod behind the linen sheet and cut a hole in it - just big enough for the lense - and took the picture. The camera reflection was removed with Photoshop. Regards, Peter Weis (talk)
Support Good work. Yann (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture! Michael Barera (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 14:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hall in the main building of the University of Zürich.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 08:21:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ximeg - uploaded by Ximeg - nominated by Ximeg -- Ximeg (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I was going to support for the amazing composition and the beauty of the building. Unfortunately the spell was broken when the image was opened in full size... You have to re-take it, this time paying more attention to focus and sharpness! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info Actually I forgot to apply the sharpeness during the post-processing at all, and now I have corrected it. Yes, the image was taken using autofocus, which is not precise, I regret for it. Also I have broken the tripod that day, so the image was taken from hands (not a good choice for the panorama of interior). Unfortunately, I cannot retake it, since I live far away from Zürich. --Ximeg (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Despite some sharpness and focus issues, I'm going to support it for the excellent composition --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this hall, and I have done a lot of efforts stitching this panorama --Ximeg (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, I like the result Poco a poco (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition is very successul and well done --Moonik (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kahler Asten (841,9 meter) nabij Winterberg in het Sauerland.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2012 at 13:40:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info

Nederlands: Na langdurige sneeuwval breken de wolken boven de kille en winderige Kahler Asten (841,9 meter) nabij Winterberg in het Sauerland (13 december 2012).

English: Loosely translated: After prolonged snowfall breaking the clouds above the chilly and windy Kahler Asten (841.9 meters) near Winterberg in the Sauerland (13 December 2012).

Abstain -- Famberhorst (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite nice! Michael Barera (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking technical quality, and no wow. B.p. 22:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No visible motif and absolutely no wow. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info: Ik heb geprobeerd de kille eenzaamheid van het landschap en de stuifsneeuw boven de berg in beeld te brengen.

Loosely translated: I tried the cold loneliness of the landscape and drifting snow over the mountain into view.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing special. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khoroy-Shuluun.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2012 at 03:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horoy-Shuluun - a stone fortress in Marakta Valley. On the stone - Buddhist mantras. Ervaninsky district, Buryatia, Transbaikalia, Russia

Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Arkady Zarubin -- Arkady Zarubin (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Horoy-Shuluun - a stone fortress in Marakta Valley. On the stone - Buddhist mantras. Ervaninsky district, Buryatia, Transbaikalia, Russia -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Looks underexposed.Fotoriety (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded a lighter file -- Arkady Zarubin (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Too low on "wow" factor, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The crop is unfortunate in my opinion. I think it needs more space around --Ximeg (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Limbecker-Platz-Ausgang-Berliner-Platz-Hoch-2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 08:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral From the one hand, not bad, but from the other... I don't like the horizontally-stretched people near the edges, but if you correct them, we will loose the straight lines. --Ximeg ( talk) 18:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For me the interior design is impressive enough to neglect stretched people at the edges. Straight lines are much more important here. One title of the image could also be: "Shopping centers - cathedrals of the 21th century." --Tuxyso (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 09:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mercado Central, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2012 at 10:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Central Market hall, Riga, Latvia. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A bit low on "wow" factor, but overall I still like it. Michael Barera (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oksneset and Ersfjorden from Tungeneset in low sunlight, Senja, 2012 October.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2012 at 20:18:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The wild cape called Oksneset with its Okshornan summits in low evening sunlight in Senja island, Northern Norway in 2012 October. Maybe the view reminds me of some romantic era paintings. The Okshornan spires are also known as Djevelens tanngard by which they refer to Devil's teeth. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Ximonic (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely --Llorenzi (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view, but the foreground is a bit darkish to me, sorry. --A.Savin 10:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info One preferred this another which I'm not sure. Dark and wet rocks are little difficult in evening. --Ximonic (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this one I find the composition far more harmonic than in the previous. --A.Savin 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Being the one in question, I still agree with me. :-) --Selbymay (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like this one! MartinD (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The alternative seems to be a completely different picture (and not really an alternative of the first one that you nominated). Can you clarify ? If its a different picture, then I think you should nominate that separately and not an alternative version of the first picture. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's unnecessary bureaucracy imo. --A.Savin 08:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that's unnecessary. The only change is a repositioning of the tripod a little further to the left. As the foreground is only supporting and not subject here, I don't see why we need an extra nomination for that. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are different pictures, true. But in my opinion it would be unnecessary to make another nomination for the second. If in a hypothetical situation both pictures had all the required support votes they would both become Featured pictures. The result would be a bit silly because the subject is quite much the same in both pictures. Now it's either-or situation as the other is an alternative. It sounds good enough for me if one (not both) becomes featured. Either one or neither. --Ximonic (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Oksneset and Ersfjorden from Tungeneset in low sunlight, Senja, 2012 October - 2.jpg

File:Saxtor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2012 at 15:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maybe lacking a bit of sharpness and headroom, but in this case they are only small deficiencies compared to the overall positives.Fotoriety (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. B.p. 17:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 07:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --Z 06:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sheikh-Lotf-Allah mosque wall and ceiling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 11:34:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nikopol - uploaded by Nikopol - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The photo is showing calligraphy, architecture, tile-work and drawing all together and geometric shapes are really dancing! Alborzagros (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and impressive --Ximeg (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eyecatching, valuable and nice with an Iranian FPC. --Slaunger (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the best composition of an architectural photo and foreground lacks focus.Fotoriety (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Damn the foreground focus. Are we after beautiful photos or photos of beautiful subjects? Kleuske (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice point-of-view, don't mind the foreground being slightly less in focus --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a slight rotation cw for symmetry IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I agree it is both eyecatching and impressive. -- Cirt (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Two 7 year old newsies, profane and smart, selling Sunday. Nashville, Tenn. - NARA - 523340 (Restored).tif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2012 at 17:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lewis Hine - uploaded by US National Archives bot - restored and nominated me -- Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I've been wanting to nominate this one for a long time, but the original is rather dusty. So i've spent some time removing the dust and scratches, resisted the urge to crop it and hope you think my efforts suffice. Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful picture, well done! --Selbymay (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely featured picture! Amazing quality for 1910 year! --Ximeg (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be more useful an image if the restoration went further (as an alternative file). The fingerprint, the crack at the top, the crease in the bottom right, the mark in the bottom left, the overall rotation and, yes, to crop. I don't think those defects add to the image. Colin (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To each his own. I do think retouching too much damages the image, like polishing old brass to shine destroys the patina and can turn a valuable antique virtually worthless. You expect a century's worth of defects in a 1910 image that's been in the archive all the time. Compliments for noticing the fingerprint, b.t.w. I have surmised it might be that of the photographer, but there's no way to verify that. Probably just some lab or archive guy, anyway. Consider it an image of an antique photo of two newsies instead of an image of two newsies. History matters in this case, hence I tend to respect the defects incurred over the course of a century. I do not try to make it a 21st century image. Kleuske (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've got your nostalgia hat on. The photographer didn't deliberately crease and tear the photograph, or mount it at an angle in the scanner. There are two pictures here: the one the photographer took and the one in an album 100 years later. I prefer the former, and I'm sure the photographer would too. Colin (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Just remembered all those awful camera-phone apps that deliberately ruin your photos so their as bad as your big brother's polaroid from the '70s. Hmm. -- Colin (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Trying to make a 1910 image look like a fresh, modern picture is much the same as taking a modern picture and trying to make it look like a 70's polaroid image. Both are kitsch, trying to be what they are not. Trying to recruit the (deceased) photographer on anyones side is not a debating technique I find laudable or acceptable, b.t.w. Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well nostalgia may be the wrong word, but your comparison is not the one I am making. Nobody is suggesting a "modern picture" and picture restoration is not "kitsch". Your decision to do a halfway job merely reflects your taste preference for "looking a bit old and worn". There's no objective reason to prefer a damaged picture: nobody, upon finding a well archived old photograph, cries with despair at its mint condition. As for your last comment, I prefer to comment on pictures than get worked up about "debating technique" whatever that may be. I haven't voted, so if you find my thoughts on the matter unacceptable the just ignore them rather than get all grumpy. Colin (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no objective reason to prefer anything. There's no objective reason to prefer a fully restored image, there are no objective reasons to feature any picture, only subjective ones. That's fine by me. Preferences are notoriously subjective and they should be. You chose to give your opinion, to which you are entitled, i gave my reasons to have a different one. That's not "grumpy", that does not make my work "a halfway job", that's having a different opinion than you do. If you do not like people having different opinions, do not provide yours, since people are bound to disagree. Kleuske (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm. I have no problem with us having different opinions. In fact I am interested in your opinion and rather hoped you might be in mine. Why might any two people discuss their opinions? Internet debate tends to think that the discussion of opinions must always be adversarial: one side wishes to change the other person's view and this leads to folk getting defensive or to attack someone's "debating technique" or point out logical falacies. These things bore me. Avoiding conflict was why I didn't vote over something that is just my taste. I'm absolutely not debating, and there's no reason for you to be defensive as there's no vote resting on any outcome (which I don't seek anyway). The question over whether the picture as taken and developed by the photographer is "objectively" preferential is probably best left to some student essay. I find it interesting that all efforts at archival aim to maintain the original state and yet we all at times express a preference for something deteriorated. Cheers, Colin (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If I weren't interested in your opinions, i would not have taken the time to read and digest them and motivate my decision to leave the imperfections as they are. I would have ignored you. The last sentence, again, arouses my interest, but i won't drag on. You say "deteriorated", i say "used and handled for a century". I like history. Kleuske (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Apropos "looking a bit old and worn"... I have never expressed such a preference and i usually don't like my images like that. I positively loath it if it's done artificially. When, however, an image is a bit old and worn, that should be visible. Kleuske (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 07:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support tilted, just kidding, great picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting image, but 1) I like more restoration, 2) the JPEG should be nominated, 3) it needs a crop. Yann (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to have a go at it and nominate an alternative. The image is worth the effort, i should think. Kleuske (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be right about the format, though... Tiff may not be the right choice. Kleuske (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A more sophisticated restoration would have been nice. Sadly most NARA scans, like this one, don't provide a suitable quality for sincere digital restorations. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment Perhaps this can create some middle ground. The crop was off, so i gave the image some room to breathe and changed the format to jpeg. This is as much about photography in 1910 as it is about the two newsies. Back when it was not digital, but chemical and an archive meant rows and rows of filingcabinets instead of a database. All very much hands on. The imperfectections (crack, fold, fingerprint, somewhat shifty framing, the white border, somewhat damaged) stem from that. Removing them would lessen the value of the image, as it removes a layer of history. Kleuske (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs a crop and more editing. Yann (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See my statement above. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2[edit]

Support JPEG version, cropped, with more restoration. Yann (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I'd prefer if the tear at the top and the fingerprint in the middle were also fixed. Colin (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See above. Kleuske (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 14:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See my statement above. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Utsikt fra Fløyfjellet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2012 at 15:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gulosten - uploaded by Gulosten - nominated by Gulosten -- Gulosten (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gulosten (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Very good quality photo. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition and the landscape. But the dynamic range was not held correctly. Mountains and lake are important here, but I hardly distiguish them in the darkness. The street lights are overexposed. The image lacks sharpness in the top upper corner, since you used cheap kit lens with f/3.5 aperture. You definitely used tripod, so it would be much better to make 30s exposure and close aperture to f/8, where it has the maximum performance. Also the purple fringes around lights are visible, which can be reduced by means of small aperture and post-processing. It would be very nice to retake this photo, may be with HDR technique or right after the sunset, when the mountains are still visible, or may be under the full moon. --Ximeg (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per Ximeg, plus strong geometric distortion near the edges. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ximeg said it all, you should go for HDR (Tone-mapping or exposure blending) for this kind of shot. The aperture should be close to f/8 or f/10. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ximeg. Needs really a new attempt. French description added.--Jebulon (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting for me --Stas1995 (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 09:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Michael Barera (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anoplogaster cornuta skeletal.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 11:21:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 12:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I like this image, always glad to see more diagrams here. However, two things that really detract for me is 1) the typesetting, and 2) the arrow bubbles. You also have some anti-aliasing problems on the teeth. I can help if you want.

BTW, also fixed nomination page—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed something, aliasing is only related to the renderer (if you look at the thumbnail, it's the SVG to PNG converter which is likely to be librsvg2, and if you look at the SVG directly, your web browser). Nothing one could do here. -- Benh (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's true we don't have many diagrams. Although not as aesthetic as the below one, it's clear and easy to read. Since designed in greyscale, it could find many uses outside a website. I sort of agree with the typeface being used, but would only switch it for something more common (Arial, Helvetica). Verdana is Microsoft font (not included in Mac nor in Linuxes*). - Benh (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should check before talking...en:Verdana "According to one long-running survey, the availability of Verdana is 99.70% on Windows, 98.05% on computers running Mac OS, and 67.91% on free operating systems like Linux.[6]". So it's only matter of tastes. - Benh (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Detroit Publishing Co. - A Yeoman of the Guard (N.B. actually a Yeoman Warder), full restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2012 at 10:50:50 (UTC) (forgot to link this on FPC, so updated time - Adam)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Detroit Publishing Co. - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is a photochrom, a sort of colourised photograph lithographic thingie (that's a technical term, that is). It's a pretty good one, although the technique does not produce completely natural colours.
Info I've gone with the slightly-lower-quality (due to being a lossy file format) JPEG version instead of the PNG version due to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18014
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice old beefeater.--Jebulon (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 04:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 06:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Guachimontones Jalisco - Esteban Tucci.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2012 at 01:44:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Esteban Tucci - uploaded by Esteban Tucci - nominated by Salvador_alc -- Salvador alc (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Salvador alc (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Very beautiful, but I find the saturation slightly overdone. Sharpness could also be better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is in the bottom part of the picture? They seem two "cutted" rocks... --Llorenzi (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The saturation is not "slightly" overdone, it IS overdone (even for my tastes). The sharpness just isn't enough even for a QI. On the clouds, there are strange blueish haloes. Over-process is pretty obvious here. --A.Savin 10:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose image looks over saturated --Cj.samson (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralVery nice and interesting. Will have my support when 1)-desaturated a bit and 2)-cropped out below per Llorenzi.--Jebulon (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Over-saturated and other problems (per above). --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others and the clouds seem to have an echo/ghost and overall not very sharp. Colin (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Colour saturation seems too high. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea, but the over-saturation really bothers me. Michael Barera (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom of the image is problematic and this over-saturation... Kruusamägi (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 06:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Museo del Bicentenario - "Retrato de Juan Domingo Perón y Eva Duarte", Numa Ayrinhac.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 14:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Numa Ayrinhac - uploaded by B1mbo - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 14:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 14:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rare and nice subject, interesting, very high encyclopedic and educational value. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the technical quality of the photograph is not good enough, especially sharpness.--Jebulon (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Isn't that great technically, but still worth FP status to me. Béria Lima ^msg 14:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Beria: not great technically, but still probably worthy of FP status in my mind. Michael Barera (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Worth picture. I didn't get one thing. It is stated "Date - circa 1920", and in the text "It was done in 1948". Does it mean that the image has been painting over 28 years?! --Ximeg (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoSomething is wrong somewhere, indeed. J.Perón was President of the Argentinian Nation for the first time since 1946 (he wears the presidential sash on the picture). He married Eva Duarte in 1945. Born in 1919, she died in 1952. So this painting, maybe made in 1948, represents a period between 1946 ( beginning of the first Perón's presidency), and 1952, (death of Evita). The date of 1920 is senseless. Don't cry for me Argentina.--Jebulon (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the info, thanks for the advise Ezarateesteban 23:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Technical quality (especially sharpness) is not good. May be an apt candidate for VI Nomnations. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 06:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:US Navy 040120-N-0879R-009 Pearl Harbor survivor Bill Johnson stares at the list of names inscribed in the USS Arizona Memorial.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2012 at 14:20:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David Rush - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 14:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 14:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but the file size is far too small.Fotoriety (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small, not sharp enough. Yann (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressive subject, but overall technical quality is not good--Jebulon (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A great idea, but per the last few reviewers, the overall technical quality just isn't good enough. Michael Barera (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cabo Espichel, Portugal, 2012-08-18, DD 08.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2013 at 16:35:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cape Espichel and its lighthouse in the fog, Portugal. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice view. I like the clouds and the mist. Could you add location please? --Kadellar (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Poco a poco (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and colours. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing location --Cj.samson (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Amazing picture and I really want to see this as a FP. The distortion (I assume) makes the right part lean to the right quite strongly, though. The Lighthouse seems to be only slightly right-leaning. Could this be fixed (ideally with original file)? --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improved (always directly from RAW) Poco a poco (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, Support then. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had the same impression as Julian. Perfect now. Yann (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and great picture. Excellent. --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I supported this for QIC, I knew a FPC nom was due. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your "Wow" then was a motivation to do so :) Poco a poco (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 08:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not that sharp everywhere, but what a mood !--Jebulon (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support What an atmosphere! --Ximeg (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Selbymay (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good mood --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 00:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harnai Bullock cart.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2012 at 15:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Bullock carts and fishermen at Harnai port in Konkan,India.All by me, -- Cj.samson (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely mood and lighting. I'd prefer if it were brightened just a touch. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't like the crop, especially on the right side. --Llorenzi (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Muhammad (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 05:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too bussy background, too tight crop, cut off reflexion of the first carriage. A picture with the reflexions of both carriages in the water and less "stuff" in the background would have done it to me Poco a poco (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop, weak composition. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut off reflections, ordinary composition -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 00:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Women Handball-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2013 at 11:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Kuebi - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chapeau for the result with a 1600 ISO Poco a poco (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had cropped out the blue player at extreme left, it could make the pic more dynamic in my opinion. Thoughts about ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those crop would be better. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version or a crop as suggested by Jebulon, it's an impressive action shot. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support...and seven.--Jebulon (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice action! Just the right moment. Kleuske (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Athanasius Soter (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 00:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Édouard Baldus, Paris. Colonne de Juillet, ca. 1851-70.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2013 at 03:51:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Édouard Baldus - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tübinger Neckarinsel in Winter.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2013 at 12:09:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Miha (talk)
Oppose -- Nice composition but poor image quality. Most of the picture is unsharp (unfocused?) and the buildings at right are leaning. The exposure choice is not the best for the scene and suggests that the automatic mode was used. A more generous depth of fiels would be achieved with a smaller aperture (larger f number). Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, f/9 on a crop sensor is perfectly fine for this kind of shot, and it's also not too small that diffraction kicks in. I think this is just general unsharpness for some reason or another. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I only noticed it now; all of my pictures lost on sharpness - probably that has something to do with the usage of older lens (in lieu of the kit ones which got in touch with water... and therefore doesn't function anymore). Btw; I take nearly all pictures using manual mode so F/9 was a conscious decision. --Miha (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:EPROM AM27C256DC.jpg