Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 16:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Klebriger-hörnling.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klebriger-hörnling.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2011 at 16:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 08:43:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:10-56-41-pano-hohneck 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:10-56-41-pano-hohneck 1.jpg
Just amazing! But is there a mistakenly connection? Look at the mark nearly the center of the left half of the picture... Does that matter? --Danny (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But what else could it be? Did you see what I mean (especially at the horizon at the mark)? It's still there - and I don't think that I am the only one who could see it (at least I hope so^^). --Danny (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 14:48:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Freudenberg-014 crop.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Freudenberg-014 crop.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 17:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hafen Mgarr-CN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hafen Mgarr-CN.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 13:01:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 19:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Falco sparverius cinnamonimus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Falco sparverius cinnamonimus.jpg
Support Tail it´s a minor detail. The animal it´s ready to fly watching the camera. I think it´s a pretty much hard work and a ver good picture. --Andrea (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 03:09:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flickr - Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife - 072010 western pond turtle wray odfw.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flickr - Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife - 072010 western pond turtle wray odfw.jpg
Question To anyone: Other than the log this looks pretty good. Anyone think the levels can be switched around digitally to dim the log? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 15:13:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A sculpture at the entrance to the palace of Versailles.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A sculpture at the entrance to the palace of Versailles.jpg
CommentSorry again.errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum. I encourage you to follow the link (in french, sorry) i provided above. Do you really think you know the place better than Mrs Béatrix Saulé, General Director of the Museum and National Domaine of the Château de Versailles, which Is responsible of the website ? Here Is shown an allegory, not a goddess. There was indeed a statue of Iris in another place in Versailles, but it Is destroyed now.--Jebulon (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the link, still didn't explain the caduceus. And why would such an object, one that is only associated with the deity pantheon be included in this unless it was meant to point back to that same mythology? No, I'm afraid you're gonna have to do better than that. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can do nothing for you, because you want that it is Iris. This is your opinion. But it is "The Peace", and it is not an opinion, but a fact. This statue is part of a set with an allegory of Abundance. Peace and Abundance makes sense. Iris and Abundance is a nonsense... About the caduceus, there is an explanation you obviously didn't read, but let's go, no matter.--Jebulon (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 21:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antonius Kloster BW 15 Retouched.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antonius Kloster BW 15 Retouched.jpg
Oppose I don't find the composition attractive for the image to be FP. I don't find ie. the shadows attractive.. and I don't like the tight crop left and top-right. Ggia (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 04:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cymbium cymbium 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cymbium cymbium 01.JPG
Cymbium cymbium, Volutidae, False Elephant's Snout; Length 10,5 cm; Originating from the coast at Oued Chebeïka, Morocco; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded. Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 14:26:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kreuzberg, Rhön.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreuzberg, Rhön.jpg
(Weak) Support: very good composition, quality is good enough, lighting is very nice. I also like the perspective, just the pixelated cables are a bit disturbing --kaʁstnDisk/Cat14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 16:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican yoyos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican yoyos.jpg
Comment-- the color composition is, of course, very attractive. The spacial composition not so much. For example, there is a strong diagonal of yoyos that is cut off at the lower right. A flawless photo would have the third yoyo completely inside. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- A teaching or remainder to the photographer. There is a trick that can help in pictures like this. When there are so many bright colors (Fall pictures, carnivals, crazy parties ;) ). Use live view in black-and-white mode (and shoot RAW to get the colors in the file). This allows you to concentrate con the actual composition. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Dwonsampledbokeh, that is a good trick... let´s see if an old dog can learn it... I hate the live view, but will try it at least once, and take it from there... and btw, I do have other versions of this pic, and you may have a point, however, this is the one that was uploaded... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 16:26:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tonna sulcosa 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tonna sulcosa 01.JPG
Tonna sulcosa, Tonnidae, Banded Tun; Length 13,5 cm; Originating from the Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded. Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.
Support I'm glad you've got some shells which retained magnificent colours! I also agree that this is a well chosen background. --99of9 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 06:10:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple.jpg
Oppose I am not voting oppose because of the low quality (noise issues) but also the composition is not well balanced (a lot of sky), unnatural colors (a better lighting conditions taking this photo is possible) but also the image needs white balance. Ggia (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Bad general quality due to jpeg artifacts and a blurry image.--Snaevar (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 00:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hypsizygus ulmarius.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hypsizygus ulmarius.jpg
Comment There are some frozen water droplets on the mushroom, witch IMO technically would make the picture worse if sharpened. Also, Susulyka (the photographer of this picture) did take another one of this subject, but the brightness is even higher there.--Snaevar (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 17:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jacques-Louis David, The Coronation of Napoleon edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jacques-Louis David, The Coronation of Napoleon edit.jpg
Oppose Colors of this picture look unatural in comparision with the louvre picture above (perhaps coused by too much lightning). Also, there is a blue line at the top edge of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 13:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pseudoasaphus praecurrens MHNT.PAL.2003.439.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pseudoasaphus praecurrens MHNT.PAL.2003.439.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 17:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Neugebäude (Delsenbach).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Neugebäude (Delsenbach).jpg
I think the "noise spots" he is referring to are marks on the paper itself. That is not a fault of the file though, it's in the nature of old prints like these to have impurities. Gryffindor (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but those spots can also be triggered while scanning. Eather way, I have cut the number of annonations down, and change my vote to Neutral broken lines in the frame of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 19:08:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cassis flammea 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cassis flammea 01.JPG
Cassis flammea, Cassididae, Flame Helmet; Length 13 cm; Originating from the Caribbean; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded. Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.
Oppose Far right shell is overexposed and the bottom right shell is blurry at the area nearest to the bottom edge of the picture. --Snaevar (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 00:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Megyeri híd.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Megyeri híd.jpg
Info Those lamposts are designed to be inclined towards the road, i.e. not in 90 degree angle with the road (more details here). Also, I´d like to point out that this bridge is a 2x2 + layby lane bridge, seperated by a slight gap in the middle.--Snaevar (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ich weiß ja nicht, was du siehst, aber ich sehe eine Schrägseilbrücke mit zwei Pylonen. Komisch, dass ich das sehe, obwohl das Bild laut dir keinen Eindrucken vermittelt, wie die Brücke wirklich aussieht. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 20:31:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lycoperdon-perlatum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lycoperdon-perlatum.jpg
Info You can see in the foreground a immature foot and to second 4 mature feet, which one has a hole in the top opens to release spores in a burst when the body is compressed by raindrops, a touch, falling nuts, etc. --Citron (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it has encyclopedic value, but I don't find this picture very beautiful otherwise. As per Steven Walling. Maybe en wiki FPC is a better place also. - Benh (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would suggest nominating for Valued Image. Capturing the puff is of extremely high educational value, but the quality isn't quite there for featured status. Steven Walling01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good depth of field, educational, the lighting seems very natural and it's framed pretty well. This image might not grab everybody because few people really care about mushrooms, but I find those other things I mentioned of this image better than the majority. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do agree with Benh's assessment. Image is good value but misses the pizazz to be considered the best of the best that commons has to offer. W.S.10:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The rework (masking) is not precise enough, very visible at high resolution (puff, and right mushroom) and it is a pity. Furthermore, please consider the over-categorization of the file.--Jebulon (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 17:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Burg Taufers01archedit 2011-01-03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Burg Taufers01archedit 2011-01-03.jpg
Comment Two mistakes. One, follow the advise of amateurs. Your picture was better as it was. Two, alts (unless the original is clearly wrong) distract voters. They can catch votes that could otherwise be on your original. Follow your guts, most of the people voting here don't know a thing about photography. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 11:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gips 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gips 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 14:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hofkirche by night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hofkirche by night.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 00:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pinicola enucleator m CT3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pinicola enucleator m CT3.jpg
Oppose I'm usually am a big fan of your work, but this one is a bit short on sharpness (most of the details seem to have gone away on the feathers) and the background is a bit distracting, as mentionned. Something wrong to me with lighting as well (but can't really tell what) - Benh (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 22:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Claustro mudéjar de la Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, Aragón, España - 20090426.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Claustro mudéjar de la Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, Aragón, España - 20090426.jpg
Oppose Post-processing photos does not disqualify them from being featured. This nonsensical kind of pseudo-HDRization does. I would have supported Miguel had he FPX'd this candidate. --MAURILBERT(discuter)03:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, after reading the full exif data, I belive the image looks that way becouse of camera settnings, but not any restoration, and that the high saturation is one of them. None the less, this picture can´t possibly be featured, so I withdraw my nomination.--Snaevar (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 18:59:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose It might be a Quality Image, but I have to agree with W.S.: it is not outstanding enough to be a Featured Picture, in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow of the right column is cropped, and the picture does not IMO illustrate well how a autobhan is constructed.--Snaevar (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 20:57:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flowers-2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flowers-2.JPG
Oppose The main subject is blurry in parts, i.e. not focussed. Some of the insects on this flower look like noise spots. Also, its impossible for me to support an image that has been nominated for deletion, so please do resolve that issue.--Snaevar (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2011 at 00:38:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lewis&ClarkBridgeSP.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lewis&ClarkBridgeSP.jpg
That was Google Translate and me, but I wanted something to be there, since the image is in use in the French Wikipedia. Would you be able to clean it up?--Admrboltz (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors might be dull but the smoke from the factories make it interesting and the bridge somehow fits the whole scenery. I think it would be better to call it "mild". --Aktron (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good, but that is not enough: The lighting and colors are unimpressive. The bridge is well placed, but the cluttered bright buildings and vehicles make the composition too busy. I like the attempt to feature a more unusual motive, but IMO this is not quite among Common´s best. --Nikopol (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2011 at 10:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saarbrücken Hafenstraße.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saarbrücken Hafenstraße.jpg
The rule of thirds, the normative of thirds, the legislation of thirds, the dogma of thirds. OMG, who taught these kids photography? Rule of thirds is a guideline that enhances the composition of photos in many case. It is not a must have for a picture to be excellent. This picture is not good anyways but let's not have square heads with the rule of thirds. Mirror symmetries, patterns, ... are also, together with rule of thirds, some of the many structural displays that make a composition appealing. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2011 at 21:04:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ullal Bridge Mangalore.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ullal Bridge Mangalore.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 12:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-01-15 15-12-56-lac-longemer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-01-15 15-12-56-lac-longemer.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 01:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fête de la Concorde, arrivée des corporations au Champ-de-Mars.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fête de la Concorde, arrivée des corporations au Champ-de-Mars.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 07:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Quentin Massys 008.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quentin Massys 008.jpg
Support Good technically, and accepteble in comparision with a picture of the same painting at National Gallery of Art (where this painting is located).--Snaevar (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reviewer is entitled to his/her opinion, this is not about his/her picture, please avoid biting reviewers. --99of9 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 14:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zanzibar stone town pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zanzibar stone town pano.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2011 at 02:30:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Calaveras skulls.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Calaveras skulls.jpg
Conditional Support Powerful image, but really needs a more precise description of location. Mexico is a big country. Also the date field needs to be filled in: the exif is not sufficient, and in this case confusing: Day of the Dead is November 2, not January. --ELEKHHT11:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ELEKHH, picture was taken in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico, in the central part of the country where a lot of the old traditions remain. And yes, you are right, picture was taken in January, however, these skulls are typical of Day of the Dead as I mentioned in the description. The fact that they are still on sale in some markets is just that they never really dissapear, much like Christmas or other figures, for example, they can be found in small scale in some markets. This picture was taken in a temporary Mexican Crafts show/market at the central city plaza along with items of different celebrations. I hope this adresses your concerns. If you want additional info, I´d be happy to supply it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and I'm sorry for that. It is a good idea and an interesting picture, but I feel the technical quality is not good enough (sharpness, noise) for a modern digital photograph, and for a Featured Picture. --Jebulon (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 19:59:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:I want you for U.S. Army 3b48465u edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:I want you for U.S. Army 3b48465u edit.jpg
Good point. I change my vote to: Neutral Uneven brightness value (dark frame at the top and bottom, and bright at the centre).--Snaevar (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A digital restoration is intended to keep the features as they are. The point of a restoration is to remove the blemishes and to restore it as much as possible to its original state. The original does have this "unevenness" in the original. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviusally, you are going to argue about every single sentance that contradicts your own opinion of this picture. Unfortunatly for you, though, I have other more important things to do.--Snaevar (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that the rules do not consider something does not mean that as a consequence they apply. Also rules are not supposed to prevent you from thinking. GerardM (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSpanish (sorry) Imágenes como ésta no pueden ser imágenes de la portada de Commons por presentar, a mi parecer, ideología. No es una imagen neutral. Será mejor o peor, pero si aparece en la portada, siento vergüenza. Not 2 mp.--Miguel Bugallo22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
InfoEnglishimages like this should not be images appearing on the commons mainpage, because in my opinion they represent ideology. this is no neutral image. this might be good or bad, either way i would feel ashamed to see such image on the commons mainpage. not 2mp. regards, PETER WEISTALK14:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTo Miguel (sorry I understand a bit spanish, but I cannot wright): It is an historic picture from 1917, and it has a very high historic value. It is not "propaganda" for today, but for (almost) a century ago, the goal was to enlist US people for the WW1...--Jebulon (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- A line of the frame was removed instead of reconstructed. A restoration would either put arms to Aphrodite of Milos or leave it like that (this last the most widely used practice) but not to remove the head of it. The repeated patterns of red and white or blue and white stripes in Uncle Sam depictions is a reference to the American flag. It is not clear to me that destroying this pattern by only leaving one red stripe in the frame is a good restoration practice. It should be investigated, but in principle it could be subtracting semiotic content. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 21:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tschengla Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tschengla Panorama.jpg
(a) there is no person in the foreground, (b) the red guy does not really needs to be sharp since the image depicts the landscape, (c) the image is pretty sharp, considering the minimum standard of 2Mpix. Please look again and reconsider. --ELEKHHT04:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selbstverständlich gehört der Standort der rot gekleideten Person zum Vordergrund des Bildes. Für den Gesamteindruck des Bildes spielt die Schärfe dieses Objektes zwar keine Rolle steht aber exemplarisch für die technischen Mängel. Wenn das Bild mit dieser verhältnismäßig großen Auflösung zur Verfügung gestellt wird dann muss auch diese zur Bewertung herangezogen werden. Im Übrigen ist mir dein persönlich motivierter Kommentar aufgefallen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me this is an image with person in foreground. Regarding (b)&(c) I expressed in numerous occasions that IMO images should be judged based on the same standard, not taking into account the camera type or submitted resolution. PS. Im Übrigen, mit der "persönlich motivierter Kommentar" liegst du ganz falsch. --ELEKHHT00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Für dich mag die Person im Hintergrund des Bildes sein, für mich gehört das zum Vordergrund. Unabhängig von dieser Kaisers-Bart-Diskussion: die technischen Mängel sind unübersehbar. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support But could be improved by local adjustments (mountain background, snow in right part shadow), as suggested by Benh. I've tried something with GIMP(in the file description page)--Jebulon (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 15:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Good one and an intresting perspective, becouse turtles have a natural tenancy to retract their head into their shell, when they are pressured like that.--Snaevar (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adorable, I love it. And its such a tiny thing the overall quality seems more tolerable than if it were a full-size turtle. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 21:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tuscany landscape west of Siena.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tuscany landscape west of Siena.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by NorbertNagel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 09:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kupari - destroyed hotel Grand.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kupari - destroyed hotel Grand.jpg
Oppose Some kind of disortion in the windows near the left edge (chromatic aberration maybe?), lack of brightness near the wooden box at the left and the column at the far right....Also, cropping that far left column would give more depth to the picture (perspectively speaking).--Snaevar (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2011 at 17:03:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Scratches near his left hand, and dust over the lower back side of his jacket. Maybe exceptional if you know the subject, but to it doesn't strike me as amazing enough to ignore problems. 99of9 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 18:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:1944 NormandyLST.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:1944 NormandyLST.jpg
SupportSeems strange to promote as FP a so well-known image we can find in all books about WWII, but OK, obviously. The quality is so-so because the lack of tripod, but there were mitigating circumstances :)... Oh, by the way : thanks to those guys !--Jebulon (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something went wrong in the restoration, imo. There are weird artifacts in the black areas (they look like sort of gradients). Also, I don't like intensive "shadow and highlights" (or similar) filter applied. The original has some amount of pixelation, and this version makes it even more visible. --Lošmi (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 20:35:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aleuria-aurantia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aleuria-aurantia.jpg
Request Could you try cropping out the smidgeon of fungi that is already partially cut off? It's a great photo, but that little bit cut off drives me nuts, visually speaking. Either than or expand it perhaps? Steven Walling01:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Different camera angle and a bit warmer colors (editing RAW) would do the trick :-) I mean to make it something a bit more like the current pic on the Main Page. --Aktron (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 04:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charlotte catherine de la Trémoille de Condé Guillain Louvre LP 400.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charlotte catherine de la Trémoille de Condé Guillain Louvre LP 400.JPG
Info created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Claus
Oppose Sorry, but if we feature this, then we can go along and feature all statues out there. Execution is good for sure, but no specific skills and equipment required, and this can be repeated again and again. Maybe this is a sort of rare statue ? Since I don't know I oppose. - Benh (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment skill: pas de tripode ni de flash, pas si simple à main levée... Equipment: On ne doit donc distinguer que les photos prises avec du matériel de luxe ou professionnel ? Accessoirement: quel type d'image (à part les panos de nuit, bien sûr) doit-on distinguer ? (je suis l'auteur, mais j'ignorais cette proposition que je n'aurais pas faite) --Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pas de trépied ni flash... Et ? ça ne rend pas la prise plus difficile. Il suffit de se placer correctement, de se mettre dans un mode semi automatique, et l'appareil fait à peu près tout. Ça n'est pas comme si un appareil moderne à 200-300€ n'était pas équipé de stabilisateur et avait une très bonne qualité à hautes sensibilités de nos jours. N'importe qui peut prendre ce genre de photo et le détourage ne représente aucune difficulté particulière. Une fois maîtrisé (l'affaire de qq minutes), on peut répéter avec autant de statues que comporte le musée du Louvre. Je ne distingue pas l'équipement, mais je suis certain qu'il est beaucoup plus facile de prendre ce genre de photo qu'un panorama de nuit correctement fait (exposition, netteté de l'image, éclairage, opportunité, post traitement). Je te laisse vérifier (moi c'est fait)... Je pense qu'une FP doit représenter tout de même un certain challenge. Tu n'as pas à te justifier pour la proposition. On a fait qq propositions de photos à moi que je n'aurais pas faites non plus. Je trouve qu'on est devenu un peu trop "permissif" par ici. Les critères semblent tombés assez bas. - Benh (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Français ! ça va être plus simple. Oui j'ai un point de vu et je m'y tiens. Je trouve que j'ai la courtoisie de suffisamment argumenter (mais au bout d'un moment tu en as marre et tu abrèges un peu). Je pourrais te montrer des photos de champignons bien plus réussies d'un point de vue esthétiques, mais elles sont dans des magazines papiers. Elles sont prises avec un éclairage plus doux, peut être avec des réflecteurs sur le côté etc. Et elles font très bonne utilisation de la profondeur de champ en présentant des fonds flous, jolis, et qui détachent bien le sujet. Les photos que tout le monde peut prendre, je vote contre, sauf si ce sont des photos que tout le monde peut prendre mais qui sont jolies ou sauf si le sujet est particulièrement remarquable à mes yeux. Et j'insiste sur le fait qu'ici, la valeur encyclopédique ne prime pas, contrairement à ce que tu sembles croire. Dernière remarque, il ne faut pas se vexer pour un rien (référence à ta nomination de la photo du serpent sur FPC du wiki anglais et à toutes tes remarques en général), après tout, nous sommes là pour donner nos avis. - Benh (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Pourtant mon pseudo ne le cache pas!) Je comprends tout à fait que "mes" champignons ne te plaisent pas et qu'ils sont loin d'être parfaits. Je sais bien que le label FP se mérite, mais ces deux là ont retenu mon attention car ils restent vraiment intéressants. Je conçois que la deuxième ne soit pas parfaite techniquement et artistiquement parlant (d'ailleurs je l'ai retouché), mais la première est "jolie", alors forcément, je ne te suis plus. Je vois que tu as remarqué ma nomination foireuse, je t'avoue avoir été très surpris, je pensais qu'elle remporterait le même succès. Je ne suis pas vexé pour autant hein, mais j'aime à savoir ce qui ne va pas et si on m'avait dit que c'était la valeur encyclopédique qui primait sur En WP (je l'ignorais), j'aurais mieux compris. --Citron (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, les règles sont parfois longues et rébarbatives... Je rajouterai encore que d'après ce que j'ai compris, on nommerait plutôt ce type d'image (la statue, pas les champignons) dans les Quality Pictures. Pour moi ça correspond tout à fait à la description. Les champignons iraient plutôt dans les Valued Images (meilleure image d'un sujet donné). Et tu peux trouver qq chose de joli, mais pas d'autres... c'est un concept subjectif. - Benh (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon d'interférer, mais peut-être pourriez-vous vous étriper à propos de commentaires sur la WP anglaise, les champignons, la définition et l'usage des "QI" ou des "VI" etc etc, à des endroits plus appropriés ?... ;) --Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC) (PS Info: cette photo de statue est déjà une QI...)[reply]
Au contraire, il faut bien préciser les différences entre QI, FP et VI pour éviter de répéter ça. On fait moins de mal aux FP à débattre (quel problème au fond ?) que de promouvoir ce type d'images à mon avis. - Benh (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is basically an image repository. We are just supposed to vote on which images are highest quality, best looking the "creme of the crop".. We're supposed to judge the image, not just the subject, for which in this and many other cases the subject is not the photographer's responsibility. Nextly it's really very subjective when you start talking about which things like which statues are better or more interesting than the all the other ones in the world and everyone might have different opinions on that, which again is why it's best just to stick to stuff we all already agree on: That our judgment is supposed to be on the images themselves. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're point of view looks justified to me, but mine still stands. FP has to be special. This kind of picture is so easy to take that is has nothing special anymore. If the subject is very special, rare or whatever I would think about it, but I don't have enough knowledge to see what's so extraordinary with this one. Louvre museum has hundreds of statues like that. There's no challenge in taking a picture like that. In short, an FP has to be a challenge a little IMO. Just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You and Jebulon maybe know something about that, but I'm American and have never been to France, so most of what I know about the Louvre is that the Mona Lisa is there and I have never seen this statue before. Which, since Commons is international, is why I once again remind you about subjective points. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you are right and don't worry. On your opinion, is this picture good enough to deserve the FP status ? If yes, then support. If no, then decline, and explain shortly why... And don't follow anybody but your own taste and feeling. --Jebulon (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, hard to say. It was taken under daylight, wasn't it? Because it seems very white and a bit bluish against the black. It's a little hard to discern how sharp it is also, but it's still pretty good... Meh, Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 14:59:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Húsavík (8).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Húsavík (8).jpg
Oppose technical reasons: the clouds have only little structure and you see only white mud, further the building in the middle have strong chromatic aberation, the landscape is for sure amazing, but the composition is ordinary, nearly boring --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Poor english) I don't know. Persecution? I'm not sure. Perhaps if the user does not respond with criterion… must have administrators who punished. This is a precedent, unless Wladyslaw respond with criteria. Sorry, I am not nobody--Miguel Bugallo21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
would be interesting to know what the (unjustified) blockades have to do with my opinion concerning this candidate. I was interessted why Chmee2 critizes facts but his own pictures not approach the criteria. it's a pity that Chmee2 nominates a poor quality picture I critiszed instead of anwsering my questions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that Tlusťa gave here link to my review. Everybody can easily see in other edits, if I answered your questions or not why yours two images are not good candidates for QI. However thank you for your vote here, but I nominated this image regardless your comments on QI page. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not deny, that I realized via your link, than I do not yet try to nominate this shot from Iceland. However this was not main message from my previous comment. --Chmee2 (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like the atmosphere and the colors, but I've to agree with Taxiarchos and the image is unsharp/soft and thus the details are low. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Agree with kaʁstn, but I think that I agree with Tlusťa and there are things more important than the image, and than one image--Miguel Bugallo21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, kaʁstn. ¿What are you doing? ¿Are you trying to say that the world is good? To me, your notes are ridiculous--Miguel Bugallo23:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 18:08:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican curious monkey.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican curious monkey.jpg
Comment Mexico is a land of colors, contrasts, paradoxes, etc. Religion is a major element of Mexican culture, and so is chaos, and breaking of the rules among other things. If you study Mexican culture, you inevitably come upon the term "sincretismo", which is a term that translates into the modification and adaptation of two belief systems merged into one. This comes from the merging of two cultures, Mexican and European. In this particular case, one side of the image promotes drinking, smoking and whatever behaviour is associated with alchohol and tobacco, being carried out by a monkey, which in turn personifies among other things reckless or funny human behaviour, and the other part of the image depicts religious figures, the Virgin of Guadalupe, a powerful icon in Mexico´s religion, venerated before God! who in turn represents whatever religious values represent, but associated with opposite values of the monkey... Anyway, so we have monkey, drinking, smoking on one side, then we have the Virgin and other religious icons on the other, and then we have the consumer-like merchandising of the icon, and on top of that we have the colorful artistic expressions of the icons. If anything, this picture is just a very, very small window into cultural practices. That is the context. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2011 at 14:47:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 21:05:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Quito calle García Moreno.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quito calle García Moreno.jpg
Oppose Overall it's pretty good quality-wise and so is the background I almost want to support, but I don't like the dark alley foreground. Could you have maybe photoed when the Sun was higher in the sky? The sky seems strange, too, like darker and not white and blue where it should be. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this one beautiful, and believe the sky and dark areas are results of playing with curves to compensate for short dynamic range from camera (although a D700 !). However this was done, it was in an enough pleasant way to me. Very nice composition. - Benh (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the colours, the hill, the long street, and the architecture, but the wires upper left (and perhaps the satellite dish) spoil it for me. A shot from a few metres further down the road could have been much better IMO. --Avenue (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 19:52:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The confluence of the Sava into the Danube at Belgrade.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The confluence of the Sava into the Danube at Belgrade.jpg
Oppose Obviously a nice shot, but I think the angle of the camera makes it a bit problematic → there are large parts of the photo underexposed (forests around both rivers) and overexposed (clouds). When the sun is much lower on the horizont and Novi Beograd is already lit by some lamps, that would make a great shot! --Aktron (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the nom and the comments. I took pictures with an old camera that my friend had with him. A scene looked very good in the real life, so I tried to capture the moment. Not so successfully I guess :) And thanks for a tip. Maybe I'll try that next time. --Lošmi (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 22:15:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:UDFj-39546284, Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:UDFj-39546284, Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe.jpg
UDFj-39546284, Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe. 1-26-2011.
Astronomers have pushed NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to its limits by finding what is likely to be the most distant object ever seen in the universe. The object's light traveled 13.2 billion years to reach Hubble, roughly 150 million years longer than the previous record holder. The age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.
Hubble Finds Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe. Astronomers pushed Hubble to its limits by finding what is likely to be the most distant object ever seen in the universe. The object's light traveled 13.2 billion years, roughly 150 million years longer than the previous record holder.
The farthest and one of the very earliest galaxies ever seen in the universe appears as a faint red blob in this ultra-deep–field exposure taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. This is the deepest infrared image taken of the universe. Based on the object's color, astronomers believe it is 13.2 billion light-years away.
The most distant objects in the universe appear extremely red because their light is stretched to longer, redder wavelengths by the expansion of the universe.
The Hubble Ultra Deep Field infrared exposures were taken in 2009 and 2010, and required a total of 111 orbits or 8 days of observing. The new Wide Field Camera 3 has the sharpness and near-infrared light sensitivity that matches the Advanced Camera for Surveys' optical images and allows for such a faint object to be selected from the thousands of other galaxies in the incredibly deep images of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.
It is a grey-scale close-up of UDFj-39546284 (see [3], or around 0:32-0:34 into this video). The montage does indicate that this is a close-up view of the image above it, but I'd agree that the change from colour to grey-scale is confusing. --Avenue (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral That's very interesting trivia, this might be good for 'Did you know?'s, but this, like most astronomical imagery, isn't really amazing quality-wise. I almost want to support it because it might be a good Picture of the Day... -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Scientifically splendid, encyclopedic woithout any doubts, but it's quality and design (rather "paperish" style - like from some publication) don't make me moved. For me it just looks like one of the zillion images from scientific journals. Masur (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think inserted (or montaged) pictures are frowned upon on FP. The big picture along with an annonation would tell the whole story.--Snaevar (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 15:21:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 21:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bürstegg 2011-01-30.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bürstegg 2011-01-30.jpg
Info At the foot of Warther Karhorn 2.416m in Lechquellengebirge is the oldest and highest (1.719m) Walsersiedlung in Vorarlberg. The church, built in 1695 dedicated to St. Martin. Until the late 19th Century, the settlement was inhabited throughout the year. After most of the houses were demolished.
I still support, but isn't the pic a tad underexposed ? We're looking at snow after all... should be bit brighter than that. - Benh (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this image needs enhancement.. the color of the snow is grey, not white.. and the overall image in underexposed. Ggia (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. A bit brighter picture would make the trick. I know it is hard to make nice shots in a snow covered countryside, but FP nomination requires perfection. --Aktron (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whitest snow I can find has R:180G:183B:188, and that is definitely not white. Even the sun, which should blow out anyhow, has R:250G:252B:251. So still (much) too dark. W.S.10:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed the latter nomination to an alternative, since it didn´t have it´s own nomination page, the picture is of the same subject as the first one and without it Bohringer would have 3 active nominations. Additionally, Bohringer´s support vote hints that the latter picture should have been an alternative.--Snaevar (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the overall composition is good. But the image needs more light.. but this can be enhanced.. it is not a fatal flaw to vote oppose. Ggia (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I propose this version.. you can upload/update if you like your original file.. Look to the levers of you image and you will see a gap between toward the edges (of the histogram). I reconfigured the levels, I applied some mask in the snow.. and I think that this image is enhanced and worth for supporting it. Ggia (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it will more kind for the community to try to do it yourself. Why don't you try to edit this image yourself? Ggia15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment W.S. please do not remove my comment [4].. This image is not mine but I tried to improve it and I proposed as an alternative.. Why don't you try to upload a new version with corrected these technical flows? Here in commons and FPC we are trying also to help other photographers with kind comments.. If you find my comment as a attack please go and give a notice to the community. Thanks.. Ggia (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Sorry. Good lesson to me : Never care about things I'm not concerned. For me, rule hard to enforce, as one can see sometimes :)--Jebulon (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not polite to remove others comments. If you find it "tort", report it to the community.. do not remove it. There is a discussion [5] about that in the commons FPC talk page.I left you a message in your talk page in case you want to participate in this discussion. Ggia (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Still want to know what that strange yellow spot is, but this is the nicest-looking of the bunch. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Vote is late. W.S.08:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 23:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel - Bryce Canyon National Park.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel - Bryce Canyon National Park.jpg
Oppose Nice diagonal, but this is a bit on the soft side and I don't like neither the pose nor the fact that so much of the subject is hidden. It looks a bit like a lucky shot. - Benh (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would be proud to have taken this photo, but I don't think the animal posed quite well enough to make it to FP. I also agree with some others about the depth of field.--99of9 (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 17:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Harpago chiragra 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harpago chiragra 01.JPG
Chiragra Spider Conch; Length 19 cm; Originating from Samar, Eastern Visayas, Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded. Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.
Comment Sorry, this are the natural colours of this specimen. For colour variation in Strombidae see e.g. [6],[7], especially this species [8] and on the other hand very pale ones like [9]. It can vary from very intensive colours to very pale. --Llez (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, why not providing six views ? I'm a bit concerned with overall quality. Seems it could be more detailed. Why using f/25 ? And I don't like the direct harsh flash lighting. Subsidiarily, are we going to feature all the shells out there ? - Benh (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Six are not necessary. In the lower row, you have the back and the front view. The lateral view is identical with the lateral view in the upper row, only inclined on 90 degrees. Why do you insist on two identical pictures, only differentiating in the angle of presentation? BTW, if it is necessary to show more views, I do so, see [10]. --Llez (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe (naive thinking maybe) that six is the minimum to have a comprehensive view of the subject, which I think is the goal of such images. Thank you for the answer... but I still oppose :) (because of the other points I raised, but that won't change anything). - Benh (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your answer to Ben's question. Where is the image from the exact opposite side of the shell compared to the central image in the top row? That is not equivalent to any of the ones you've presented. --99of9 (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because you're understating that the missing view can be deduced from that central lateral view. Which is wrong because the shell doesn't show any symetry to me (unless I've really missed something...). - Benh (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This five views show all characters, which are necessary for identifying the species: The form, colour and structure of the shell, the decline of the aperture, the (possible) different structure and colour of the ventral side, the aperture itself, the apex anf the siphonal region. The sixth view you want to see, gives no further information. That’s the reason why. But please let me know, why you insist on six views only in my pictures? There are several featured pictures of shells, which show only one or two views ([11], [12] ,[13], [14], [15], and so on). Can you please explain me, why you didn't oppose in this cases? I was the first, who showed more, and you oppose. Are two better than five? And why only in shells? Are gastropods the only animals, which have several aspects? I've never seen opposing a FPC of a bird with the the argument, that one can not see the backside, the ventral side, the left and right side, the front and the anus at the same picture. Birds look somewhat different, too, regarded from a different view. I wonder, if these animals [16], which were nominated by you, look identical if seen from backside. But not only animals. What about churches [17], lakes, mountains? Do you want always have six views, before become featured? Then we will have really little candidates in future. --Llez (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at all examples, but I didn't support either I think. I'm not always wandering on FPC, some time, I'm away for a while. I may have opposed. I'm OK to feature 1, 2, 3 shells... but so many of them, I become bored. Then they must feature something a bit special. And you're kidding right ?? Animal aren't as simple to shoot as still shells... the picture is also much more beautiful IMO. Same applies to landscapes, which aren't as simple to take as one might think, and can't always be repeated. I mainly vote based on photographic skills. If you intend to be encyclopedical, do it right (or see en:FPC, de:FPC etc.). If you can't justify the missing view, I oppose. I still think u need at least 6 on most objects. And anyhow I have others reason, as already given. If you shoot still objects, you should at least do it right (better then using direct flash light, choosing better aperture... I don't think f/25 is suitable choice, but if you think the contrary, I'm open to discussion, which doesn't seem to be the case by your side since you always skip the questions). - Benh (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm meaning that if the encyclopedical value prevails here, then it seems to me that the FPC of Wikipedias (in most langs but french) should be more suitable place. - Benh (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the words, but I don't understand the assertion above . In my opinion (I read the guidelines like others...), this is wrong, or a misinterpretation, and I strongly disagree (as one can see). Commons is not a place for "only" photographical beauty contests (many other sites for that). But here is not the place for such a discussion. The question is (again): what is feature-able ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not everyone read the guidelines... as already seen on the nomination of your image below. And if you have already read the complete guideline, then I'll just recall you that high technical merit is important component of an FP, as well as wow factor. This picture has none of them. And sorry to say, but neither does yours. It's well done, but anyone could do the same. - Benh (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone could do the same", but I feel really alone sometimes with my "inside" pictures... Anyway, I give up... Some reviewers seems suffering very hard here and it is a pity. I don't understand why they stay if it is so painful to stand those poor pictures... Something funny : if they oppose, their vote is immediately followed by two or three support votes... I don't really know why and it is unfair: they are so sure to hold the Truth...--Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I get Benh's point, but not quite. I've wondered about the choice of 5 and whether a simple back and front shot combo wouldn't accomplish the same basic educational effect, but whatever. That's Llez's signature style (Benh, did you bother going to Llez's user page? Though Llez has done 6, 4, even 8 angle before). I could see a 6th angle for the side the opposes the furthermost point of the "lip," whatever the proper scientific term is, but the 5 angles I think usually works because Llez tends to arraign them nicely, but to each his own.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, but colours are a bit too harsh. Even though the shell has high saturation, try to make it a little less 'jump' towards the viewer. And no, you don't need six views in order to get a good comprehension; if comprehension is the argument, then you talk about reference, and reference books usually only use one or two views. The rest is extra. Besides that, the arguments used for featured pictures are of a totally different nature.MerlinCharon (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 12:48:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landmannalaugar in summer 2009 (13).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landmannalaugar in summer 2009 (13).jpg
Neutral I think the sharpness isn´t high enough at the grass between the mountain range and the lake. And oh, I might just as well tell that those three dimmensional-white spots are hay-rolls, just so no-one gets the impression like they are something else. Just saying.--Snaevar (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I supported its nomination to QI. I agree that the sharpness could be better, in my opinion it is in an acceptable level. I wouldn't oppose to the nomination because of this factor, it is a minor error which could be easily fixed. --Gaendalf (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is really a beautiful landscape, but Aaargh that river on foreground really kills it all to me... I'd have framed otherwise... or moved a bit around until I possibly find better spot (you probably tried...). A bit soft as well. - Benh (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 04:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Opal Pool YNP2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opal Pool YNP2.jpg
There was no color enhancement in this image; the raw image is virtually identical, with no in-camera enhancement either, and I dislike enhanced images as much as you do. The bacterial mats and water at Grand Prismatic Spring and its neighboring pools like Opal really look like this. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great shot that demonstrates the extremely bright coloration in these pools. I've been to the Yellowstone geyser basins. This isn't extreme color processing. I remember pools with brighter colors all over the color spectrum within the same pool, such as the Grand Prismatic Spring. Royalbroil01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know I can't vote, but that doesn't mean I should abstain of commenting. I really liked the image, although I agree with Carschten that the image is quite noisy. Therefore I retouched it, my noised filtered version is this one.--Gaendalf (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. I'll get in touch with you about your methods, as I'm aware that my camera has a noisy sensor and have had some difficulty in dealing with it. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The noise reduction job looks like it was done well (why wouldn't you shoot at ISO100 in the first place??). Nice scene, I think the cloud formation adds that special something to the great colours. --99of9 (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 06:56:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Raphia farinifera MHNT.BOT.2007.26.50.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raphia farinifera MHNT.BOT.2007.26.50.jpg
Oppose A QI maybe, but no wow factor at all, plus use of direct harsh flash lighting (it seems). On a personal side I'm also getting tired of all these museum or personal collection shots. They certainly are useful, but I'm not sure they are this featurable on Commons. - Benh (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I do not like panoramas, but I've never voted negatively because this argument is personal to me. We are fortunate to have museums that have opened their collections, because we get up here things that do not often see. This cluster of raffia palm fruit, it is possible that you did ever seen before, has historical value. It is particularly well preserved so that the fruits have retained their brilliance although it did over a century. There is not a flash but three with attenuators. I will continue not to vote negatively and panoramas, to make you see the interiors of museums. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Notice I don't oppose based only on the fact that I'm bored. Just this makes me more picky on my assessments. Your only justification is that the object itself has value. I never thought otherwise. But from a pure photographic point of view; I'm not impressed (I still maintain the lighting is harsh and flat despite the three attenuated light sources. And why these context removal around objects ? Cheap and easy way to hide bad looking shadow ?). I prefer lighting on the following scenes, here or here or here. Hence my opposes. I'd see FPC on the wikipedias themselves to emphasize the encyclopedic value. Let met add that contrary to some, I don't restrain myself from giving my full opinion on something. If I don't like something, I say so. Otherwise, I would consider starting political career. Is it a shame to oppose ? - Benh (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remarque facile... (quoi que vu le temps qu'elle a mis à venir, ça ne semblait pas si facile pour vous) mais fausse (au vu des autres avis, ça n'est pas si personnel) et vraiment hors contexte. Je suis peut être direct dans mes propos, mais au moins ça tourne toujours autour de la photo même. Je ne vise pas gratuitement les contributeurs mêmes. Même si je dois dénoncer certaines choses. Si seulement ça pouvait être votre cas... Si vous insistez, vous pouvez rester (dans) les musées où vous ne risquez effectivement pas de me croiser souvent. Moi je préfère prendre l'air. Dommage, en dehors de ça, vos contributions me semblent plutôt faire du bien à Wikipédia en général. - Benh (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion, such pictures increase very much the level of FPC (which was not so good some months or years ago), and "we" (is it a we ??) need more. But my reasons for support are due to the qualities of this one I think is good. It is not a shame to support neither. --Jebulon (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not turned off by the light reflections as they seem pretty minor to me and the white spots appear to me (correct me if I'm wrong) to just be part of the cones, as I notice none of them appear on the leaves. A bit skeptical of the gradient background choice, though.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2011 at 17:45:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hexaplex erythrostomus 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hexaplex erythrostomus 01.JPG
Hexaplex erythrostomus, Muricidae, Pink Mouthed Murex; Length 9,5 cm; Originating from the East Pacific. Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.
Oppose Noisy (surprisingly for a ISO 100 shot), unsharp, lighting (whom pattern reflections can be seen of top left view), and missing the sixth view. If you insist on providing 5 views, you shouldn't use 90° steps between the shots. - Benh (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 23:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment In my humble opinion, the picture's composition is according with the Rule of Thirds, what makes it special is the figure produced by the waves crashing against the rocks and the time of the day at which it was shot with the moon in the sky and a nice natural colors. --Gaendalf (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per THFSW, oil painting look, and overall very poor quality. What kind of NR or artistic filter was applied ?? Composition not to my tastes with too much room given to the sky (subjective issue, not my main raison for opposing). - Benh (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the digital filter you applied with image manipulation soft ;) The bottom part has more color blotches (sorry for the poor english) than details (Noise Reduction ?) - Benh (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I get what you are referring to. And you're right about it, this color "blotches" or posterization of the bottom section of the image was probably caused by an inappropriate tunning of both sharpness and noise reduction. Any filter was applied. I incorrectly manipulated this parameters in posprocessing. --Gaendalf (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remember the Rule of Thirds, there are almost 2/3 of sky and 1/3 of sea. IMO there's no composition problem, having 1/2 and 1/2 would make the picture boring and having more sea than land would imply to lose the moon in the composition. --Gaendalf (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The moon wouldn't appropriately fit in the picture if there wasn't so much sky. It maintains the Rule of Thirds: 1/3 of sea and 2/3 of sky. --Gaendalf (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 23:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Ruby Beach, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ruby Beach, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.JPG
This is a tide pool, not a postcard from the Caribbean. In my experience water doesn't usually look blue unless maybe it's reflecting the sky on a bright day and usually shallow or pretty deep in that case, you're underneath it or it's unusually clean. Otherwise water tends to be somewhat clear, thus a rocky, sandy environment could make the water appear brownish or takes on some colorings of minerals in it. This is the Pacific in this picture, but it looks like many beaches I've been to on the Atlantic. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I´ve been to several beaches on the Atlantic too, so I get your point. I´m going to discard my vote now, and get back to this picture later.--Snaevar (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2011 at 21:31:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mespilus flower.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mespilus flower.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 19:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Per Snaevar and JovianEye, and I also object on the grounds of the subject. I am strongly against nominating current politicians for FP, as they are seldom of enduring interest. Jon C (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the opinion above. This man is not only a politician (it is not a shame to be one), but the highest representative of one of the most important cities in Europe. Therefore his photo can be nominated IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat weak support I don't know who he is (and his English article is lacking), but he's not very photogenic for this type of shot. Still I like the background, the quality's pretty good, but my favorite detail is the droplets on his glasses that make me wonder what was going on at the moment, is it raining.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 12:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:File:Carcasssonne vieux pont.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:File:Carcasssonne vieux pont.jpg
Oppose Sry, but somehow I don't like that overexposed places... I mean not because they are overexposed, but they are grey instead of white. --Aktron (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spectacular combo of shots, but the perspective of the bridge at right is very disturbing to my eyes because it looks strongly wrong. Is the expression "parallax error" good in this case ? Could be good if the bridge were alone in the picture, but it looks unnatural and deformed, near the city at left. Then, because of this, the composition is not good between "foreground" (bridge) and "background" (city walls) in my opinion. Not a fan of the colors, exposition and contrasts. Sorry for my bad english, I'm not sure I explain very well what I feel. This picture is (was :2005) too ambitious maybe.--Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Eeerh, sigh... Could one of you actually show where the obvious stitching errors are (you mention several ones) ? I see one, but not as obvious as that, and I believe I'm a trained eye... It's not even sure you were talking about the same. To me the bridge looks like that. I've been there. No parallax issue here. Some overexposed parts but that really can't be avoided here given the circumstances... - Benh (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand "Eeerh, sigh...". I've been there too. Perspective could be good if the bridge were alone (if you isolate it, point de fuite centré au milieu du pont), and I personally didn't talk about "obvious stitching errors", that's not exactly what I mean. I just say that, if I were in this place, I couldn't see this as it is shown.--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh = soupir. No u didn't mention stitching issue directly, but mentioned parallax. Then you'll have to explain more clearly in which way the perspecive doesn't look good... Because I really don't get you here. The slopes at each end of the bridges aren't parallax, perspective or stitching issue. They are... just slopes. Please be more careful when reviewing images and look deeper into your memories. Image googling or Google street view can help... In any way, if none of you can justify, you should consider revising your opinions. - Benh (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, and not convinced. Even if the bridge is slightly curved in real (I know it is), I think the perspective is wrong. I'm very able to admit when I mistake, and I revise my opinions many times. Furthermore nobody is well founded to explain me how I have to review, or patronizing with me or trying to provide me lessons. No need to be contemptuous or giving me orders. Here is the place for public comments about pictures, not for binary controversies about comments of others. I've got a PDD for direct discussions with other reviewers if needed.--Jebulon (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this panorama is messed up. The bridge seems distorted and improbable, the perspective doesn't seem to be a smoothcurve but seems to be broken in three or four (compare with something like one ofthese). I found one ghost I noted on the image itself since the annote thing seems broken for this one. Since the bridge is the main subject with the castle the secondary, if the bridge is messed up... -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... what can I say ? Why is the bridge broken in three parts on the picture ? Oooh maybe because it is in reality ! Please check by urself. Image googling, street view or whatever, and eventually revise ur review. U may oppose, but please do so based on true facts. Your comparison has no sense at all. On the other picture, FOV is far wider, hence the pronounced distortion. The curve may also depend on the projection used. A straight line may not be curved at all on rectilinear projection. And one ghost... do you actually take night photos of touristy places ? Please try and you should realise how empty of meaning your remark is. It's already very nice there's so few ghosts. You should restrain yourself from reviewing a subject you apparently don't know much about. - Benh (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you live under this bridge then? I still don't like the ghost man and tree. I see them as subtractive of quality and as nasty, unrealistic, unfeatureable and non-artistic image screw ups that might've been more understandable a long time ago even if this bridge is lop-sided by design or then-current architectural restraints, and no panorama can do justice to such an apparently flawed structure. Such an irregular design looks so much like a messed up stitch, so maybe if you knew something about what can go wrong with panoramas you would've understood and known why two frequent Commons FPC voters could have such an opinion. Furthermore this image is not "tourist-y" in the sense that there's practically no one in it and if it were rectilinear I should expect to see some parallel lines, which I don't see in this nomination, the buildings on the right even seem slightly tilted, but since this is roughly what the actual bridge looks like I'm switching my vote to Neutral, even though I don't think this image or this type of image is best to showcase this type of structure and anything more than a thumbnail version of this image looks God-awful. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really don't get it here. But at least you recognized your error, unlike some. The fact you don't like the structure is completely different matter, but photographer can't do anything about that. And I think you really got my point here : you would've understood and known why two frequent Commons FPC voters could have such an opinion. Yes that's how far FPC has gone... such reviewers which such non sense reviews. Where did I say that the image is touristy ? didn't I mention the place ? And where in the world if it were rectilinear I should expect to see some parallel lines ??? I'd like to know more about that. Could you develop ? Being frequent reviewer doesn't automatically qualify you as good photographer it seems. You and Jebulon please try to take such pictures, just by curiosity. - Benh (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should restrain yourself from reviewing a subject you apparently don't know much about.. I think this kind of quote is very interesting (it means something like shut up), but dangerous like a boomerang...--Jebulon (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same applies to you Jebulon (restraining from reviewing)... Seeing perspective issues where there isn't. I just mention facts contrary to you (did you give me more details about why the perspective is strange ? No, hmmm curious how some of you avoid factual answers over here...). Anyone searching a little sees that the picture is faithful to reality. But oh well... - Benh (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about admitting when you're giving wrong review, and mistook architecture features when perspective issue (which you still haven't justified...) ? - Benh (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said it before and I'll say it again: I don't believe this perspective is a good idea for this bridge. A snap shot would've probably been more believable to the eye. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 15:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Toronto - ON - Schaft des CN Tower.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Toronto - ON - Schaft des CN Tower.jpg
Support Very educative demonstration of a rare optical effect, combined with an esthetic visualization. Composition could be a bit less centered, though. If only all illustrations in school-books were like that! --Nikopol (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much posterisation IMO; the concentric bands around the sun are a bit too obtrusive. The description also attributes the atmospheric effect here to w:Tyndall scattering, but I would have thought simple reflection was more likely, since I don't see any real difference in colour (just brightness). --Avenue (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it shows that the building is clearly tall and there's a circular structure on it, but IMO it's kind of hard to get a gauge for the uniqueness of the building since from this angle you can't see much. I guess that's a passive way of saying something more straight-on that shows a side of a really tall building seems better to me in most cases. It's interesting in that it shows a shadow of the building, but there's also so much dead space.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a said: the building itselfe (here: the CN Tower) is only a derivative aspect of this picture. Therefore there is no need to show the architecture in a way you would surly do if you want to show the structure. The physical phenomenon was my first intention. On the other side this interessting and non common view straigt up shows as a beautiful graduation of blue tones; and this is in my view not dead space; on the contrary: it needs space. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify although it is definitely Tyndall effect, but it is not rare. It is yet another image of a w:crepuscular rays, which all are shadows that arise through the Tyndall effect.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the shadow visible here is (the opposite of) crepuscular rays. But crepuscular rays do not have to arise through Tyndall scattering, e.g. when they are cast through steam or fog with droplets larger than the wavelength of light. Getting back to this image, it is at least not a good example of the Tyndall effect, because there is no overt colour change. And I am still not even convinced that it is due to Tyndall scattering, which by definition is caused by particles similar in size to the wavelength of light. Why do you think the responsible particles here are of this size? --Avenue (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice phenomenon but composition issue. I'd have used diagonal better, and set the top of the tower to the center of the frame, or using the rule of third thing - Benh (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 23:27:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grave of Auguste Rubin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grave of Auguste Rubin.jpg
Oppose Clearly heavily overexposed, no doubt about that. Lack of DOF is also elsewhere than on the gravestone and the angel. A canditate for FPX in my opinion.--Snaevar (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 04:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parablenius pilicornis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parablenius pilicornis.jpg
I don't quite get the comment, but I think this fish is incredibly sharp and if nothing it's either a very lucky shot that the fish didn't swim away. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 22:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.JPG
Neutral leaning to support: very nice and useful (to me: this kind of landscape is unknown in Europe, I think), but clear parts look overexposed.--Jebulon (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality so-so (but maybe good for 1992), a lot of heavy blown out and overexposed parts, composition not featured to me (e.g. tight crop at bottom, would be nice to see more at the right, top, left, ...) --kaʁstnDisk/Cat11:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Barely above requirements in size, some overexposed part and tight framing of the tree at the bottom. The footpath is a "natural environment" killer IMO. - Benh (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kinda like it, conflicted about the trail though. On one hand it makes me think this isn't natural, then I feel like it's a generic shot anyone could've taken. But I like the quality, this is framed well, the lighting is very good and it's a good tourist-y shot that kind of makes you feel like going on a hike IMO lol. I think it would be better if cropped on the left so the eye would be drawn toward the path instead of the tree, because looking at it now you look at the tree, then the path and it makes your spirit sink a little because you go from "Wow! What a wild, old tree!" to "Oh, a clearly man-made walkway. This setting must therefore be in some kind of park or botanic garden; Now I feel like the whole scenery could be imitation". At least if it were cropped my theory is that more emphasis on the trail changes the mood of this image to wonder of what is up ahead. One idea of mine (I would've liked to crop it [[::File:Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.jpg - Cropped 2.jpg|more]] but it's below 2MP then). -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) (here's the other one 'til the links get fixed.) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 14:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Erie PA Panorama c1912 LOC 6a14402u.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erie PA Panorama c1912 LOC 6a14402u.jpg
Request This image and the original at US Libary of congress do not look exactly the same. Information on the restoration is needed.--Snaevar (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not? There's one spot I'm not sure of that I'm skeptical of as it looks possibly mis-stitched, but obviously the scenery has probably changed since then so... -- IdLoveOne (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 12:37:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Muragl LCD.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Muragl LCD.jpg
Oppose Composition is lacking for me - it seems like there's too much sky, and I'd like to see more of the land down below. --99of9 (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 18:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support A modern church + the sky. Such a composition I like, it gives it a bit "religious" feel. :-) Plus excellent colors and technical quality. --Aktron (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Benh, the kids loitering severely ruins my interest in this. The angle's ok, could be better, but I don't like the parked vehicles (re-shoot on a day no one's at church maybe?). Lastly this needs white balancing. Nice church, but not this image. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image needs better composition.. I don't find balanced the cross in the right with all the cars behind.. may-be a better angle.. the church seems tilt to the left. Ggia (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above. I like it, but unfortunately the picture seems a bit "overcrowded" with the cars and the kids. Also shift a bit to the right wouldn't be bad imo. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 18:47:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wind Lift I, Emder Hafen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wind Lift I, Emder Hafen.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. The special crane ship Wind Lift I in Emden due to repairs.
Support To me, all criteria met for FP, even the "I like it" factor. Very interesting and useful with technical high quality in my poor opinion. French caption added.--Jebulon (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not saturated. It's white balanced to adjust the colors to their ideal levels that weather, environmental and camera imperfections might've distorted, hence the white clouds look white instead of grey and the sky actually is sky blue. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes it is: more than 34k pixels are blown in the blue channel, over 30k pixels in the red channel and 32k+ pixels in the green channel, clearly indicating over-saturation. The "white" nowhere reaches R:255G:255B:255. W.S.07:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 10:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20101229 Gates of the nations Persepolis Iran.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20101229 Gates of the nations Persepolis Iran.jpg
1178
1413
631
2242
2827
4268
@Behn: if you go a little more far.. the perspective change and these columns go out of the gate "frame". This is what I had in mind when I shot this image (I tried to have an enjoyable composition with the columns framed by the Gate). Ggia (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand your comment or how this image can be better. This image has been selected from many that I made there and IMO is the best with high EV (having all these elements inside the image). Ggia (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best point of view IMO. I'd have stepped back (provided this is possible) to try to parallelize as much as possible the vertical lines and left a bit more room around the subject. Hence wrong perspective issue mentioned above maybe. - Benh (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry I cannot satisfy your request.. I have some other pictures of the Gates of All nations but I think that this is a good one and illustrative.. but if you go a little far away the change the perspective and the image is not the same (positions of the columns in the middle will change). BTW even two people don't like this image.. I updated this image.. (if you see the history files I tried different edits).. the new image has better contrast and colors.. If you have some technical comments please do them. Ggia (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand Benh's comments and I agree, but I agree to Ggia's explanations and annotations too. Given the esthetic choice of the photographer, the perspective distortion was unavoidable IMO. Matter of taste at the end ? Well, I support.--Jebulon (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you show me with some notes these chromatic aberrations? There is space to the left and to the right and to the top.. in the bottom I think it is not necessary to have more space.. I don't find the image distorted.. it is a 28mm lens photo. Ggia (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it is a photography made by a not high end nikon 28mm lens (but made with Nikon D700). These chromatic abbreviations are minimal flows and I don't know how to fix them (they are due to the 28mm lens). I understand why you oppose.. Generaly for such flaws I don't opposing to other images. I find this image high quality, high EV and I propose to the others to support it. Ggia (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 08:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2011 at 22:27:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Faschina Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Faschina Panorama.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 10:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Triple Portrait of Cardinal de Richelieu probably 1642, Philippe de Champaigne.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Triple Portrait of Cardinal de Richelieu probably 1642, Philippe de Champaigne.jpg
Support Not a great friend of mine, but very good and very interesting (details) at high resolution. High historic EV. Could somebody read the sentence above the central head ? I can read au naturel, but nothing else.--Jebulon (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inscription over the central head: "Celui cy...plus / Resamblant au naturel". Inscribed over the right head:"De ces deux profilz c[elui] / cy est le meilieur" + further explanations, see [18]. --Myrabella (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As long as the colors are close enough. I really like this multiple view of a person. The description on which materials were used could be better. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have completed the description. Request The given source seems odd. What is "National Archive"? => give a link to the source, please. --Myrabella (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If the source is this as indicated, I am afraid that the colors are not faithful in the nominated image (supposing that the image on the National Gallery site is "Celui cy...plus / Resamblant au naturel" (="This one... more alike to naturalness")). --Myrabella (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 16:32:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Au Clair de la Lune children's book 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Au Clair de la Lune children's book 2.jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Resolution is below 2MegaPixels. Rescan the image in higher resolution than the current 300dpi. It will take more time, but there is nothing wrong with expecting the same amount of patience as is expected in macro photography.--Snaevar (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is not a photo and consequently the notion of resolution is not on. Also it is a really nice example of decorated music. GerardM (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Resolution is below 2MegaPixels, Contest is invalid: this is not an animation nor a vector image. W.S.07:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 11:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20110102 Kharanaq old city Iran.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20110102 Kharanaq old city Iran.jpg
Comment before voting oppose it is more polite to make a comment about the overexposed areas.. I can work with that.. Also you said it is blurry.. Sorry I don't find so burry for voting against it. Ggia (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I updated a new version of the file (new version from the NEF raw file). If it is blurry it should be in all the image.. Only in the sky a de-noise filter has been used. It is made with D700 Nikon full-frame camera.. it is not an image from stitched images.. If you have some technical comments please make them.. If you don't like the composition, it is not "a wow" subject or not enough EV etc.. please mention.. If you find blurry then please FPX it. Thanks. Ggia (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, listen. If would have thought the image was an FPX, then I would have done so. And the image wasn´t blown either. The composition is good, the wow factor is something I rarely vote pictures on, and the EV is fine too. What I thought was that the image would have been better if it was taken at a different time of day, as it had negitive effects on the details of the picture, In my opinion. I do appreciate the improvements you made, and quite frankly, they are good enough that I change my vote to Support.--Snaevar (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 17:22:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hong Kong Skyline Panorama - Dec 2008.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hong Kong Skyline Panorama - Dec 2008.jpg
Support I'd boost contrast a bit (the dark parts are a bit too bright IMO), and it the sky may showcase same blending artifacts (or I need to change my glasses), but a clear support, and a huge technical challenge (not the size, but the fact the picture was taken at dusk, with decreasing light between the successive shots). - Benh (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention it looks pixelated ;) about the CCW tilt, I had same feeling, but putting any vertical line against edge of the monitor shows that there isn't any tilt. - Benh (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is mitigated by circumstances. First, Hong Kong harbour is very busy. Second, this is made is long exposures shots, so this is hard to avoid. Third, this is taken at dusk, and therefore timing is very short. Usually, you can repeat a shot, so as to choose the one without disturbing elements, but not at dusk where you take the risk to have exposures inconsistencies because of the sun setting down. - Benh (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! The "ghost ships" are a little bit disturbing indeed, but this is only a minor and unavoidable problem IMO. -- MJJR14:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! How can you promote an image when you find it flawed. This is supposed to be the bees knees of commons W.S.08:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is called mitigating circumstances. Sometimes, it's just very hard to make it better. I believe a hard to take picture with a few flaws is better than a perfect picture of an easy to take subject. Try to take similar pictures to find out. - Benh (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty, but the color and lighting seem very unnatural to me in a way that reduces educational quality. Whether it's exposure time, editing or what, I'm not sure, but it's clearly manipulated. Steven Walling01:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 18:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Gipslöcher Lech.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Gipslöcher Lech.jpg
Question Just why not ISO 100 and a slightly larger aperture ? Noise is very noticeable and as far as I know, a too narrow aperture has some image quality penalty. But given the size, it's very minor issues. - Benh (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support burnt pixels etc comments.. are minimal flows (and easily to be corrected). It is a good image and I cannot find stitching errors. Ggia (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose it is a way to show some scorn to the reviews (and the reviewers) : turn in derision arguments by using them for an opposite (and oppose, obviously) vote. Please see the same thing in votes under the pic of Hong Kong. Very funny, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 14:50:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dubrovnik - old harbour pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dubrovnik - old harbour pano.jpg
Comment According to the title this is an image of the harbor, not that mountain. Why not crop the peak down so we're not being teased by a boxed in mountain like so (if you like it)? I think it also makes the mountain seem taller. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2011 at 22:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The rock at the edge of the left side is partly cropped. There is no ocean waves (like in Gaendalf´s nomination prior to this one) that make this picture a bit lifeless, IMO. It may have mirror symetry and sky reflection, but considering the downsides, it just doesn´t cut it.--Snaevar15:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Snaevar, please don't be so drastic, this cropped rock could easily be adjusted. The waves problem can't be solved. That's really the interesting aspect of this part of the beach, so to say it's "waveless". As you can see there's a rock formation on the background that prevents the ocean from directly collide with the shore. Therefore this "pool", where the rocks of the foreground stand, is completely calm and allows the mirror symetry. A beach with this geological characteristics is quite unusual which makes the picture interesting and unique. I've visited a lot of tropical beaches in my country and until this last trip, I haven't seen a geological formation like this one. Please consider that. Thanks --Gaendalf (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is three different ways for me to answer that comment of yours, but in the end, I´ve have to choose one. See that geolocial formation there, it´s not only in the pacific, it´s also in the Atlantic Ocean, where in the United Kingdom alone there are at least 10 of those formations. Personally, I´ve seen many of those formations, and do find it quite ordinary, becouse of that experience. The waves are a more of a matter of taste, than techicality, becouse you could go with the calm looking and perhaps soothing look (that I think you have been looking for) or focus on the waves and the forces that shaped that pool in the first place. Finally, the rock to the left shouldn´t be there, and the reasoning about how easily it can be removed can be used both ways.--Snaevar (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of geological formation might be quite ordinary in the UK and other not-tropical beaches. But for a tropical beach is extraordinary. Finding a beach like this one in Costa Rica itself is a bit difficult, you can compare that with all the beaches' images you can find in this category. The only one I find a bit similar is this one, which I've visited myself and hasn't such big pools. I agree with you the waves concept is totally subjective. As I told you in this scenario was impossible to capture the waves because they crashed behind that rock formation, while the "pool" stayed calm. As you can see the rock from the left was eliminated in the new cropped version I proposed bellow. Thanks for the comment --Gaendalf (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would like the rock in the left side to be cropped.. and I have the feeling that it is a little tilt (this can easily fixed). Ggia (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As some stated, the image wasn't approriately cropped, and I agree. This is my fixed version without the rock from the left. I also checked it and the horizon isn't tilted, as you can see in this image that corroborates that:
--Gaendalf (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 03:04:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ABUBILLA (Upupa epops).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ABUBILLA (Upupa epops).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 11:15:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:South Melbourne Townhall.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:South Melbourne Townhall.jpg
OpposeI so much was about to support... before opening the picture at full size and coming across that very noticeable stitching error (see annotation) - Benh (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2011 at 20:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spantax Beech C-45H Expeditor (18) - FIO - Cuatro Vientos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spantax Beech C-45H Expeditor (18) - FIO - Cuatro Vientos.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2011 at 13:56:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tabacica mosque in Mostar - minater.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tabacica mosque in Mostar - minater.JPG
Oppose I think this picture should be taken at a different time of day, to avoid overexposure and lack of details at the pattern of the tower.--Snaevar15:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find this image overexposed but I don't like centered composition.. If you have GPS info please add to the image description. If this minaret has high EV (history - architectural) please mentioning it and I will change my vote to support it. I would prefer a full image of the Mosque + minaret. Ggia (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I ran it through GIMP and did white balancing it looked very good but blown out in some places. The composition's fair (the only other alternatives as I see it would've been a shot that got some of the surroundings, a panorama or an unlikely bird's-eye-view) but it seems a bit hazy.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2011 at 21:43:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Drachenkopf-scorpaena-porcus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drachenkopf-scorpaena-porcus.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 00:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RMS Sagafjord in the harbor Vancouver 1992.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RMS Sagafjord in the harbor Vancouver 1992.JPG
Oppose per Help:Scanning (as this image was scanned, btw.), I would expect at least 400dpi picture from a scanner, and this does affect the overall DOF of the image. Also, I do think that the sharpness level is a little low.--Snaevar (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 20:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palomena-prasina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palomena-prasina.jpg
Neutral The straws (or whatever you wan´t to call them) could be sharper, but they are not a good enough reason alone to oppose the image, and therefore I´m undecided.--Snaevar (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2011 at 17:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paris-Rome. Beaumont le gagnant sur monoplan Bleriot, moteur Gnome, magneto Bosch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris-Rome. Beaumont le gagnant sur monoplan Bleriot, moteur Gnome, magneto Bosch.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2011 at 19:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Athens Metro Piraeus station.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Athens Metro Piraeus station.jpg
Weak oppose sharpening issues (clock in the center, train to the right) and centered wouldn't be bad, too. perhaps try another picture, the topic looks good to me. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2011 at 19:32:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
If there was some quality around it would be a lot easier. There is no scrutinizing going on here at all save from a few users. It's as if every one here is walking on eggs and is afraid to speak his/her mind. W.S.17:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I cannot fully understand your comment (english is a second language for me).. Do you find this image low quality? having an experience with black & white film photography I can say that this image is very good quality and has good restoration. Do you have a problem with some users? Go ahead and describe your problems.. better in the talk page. Ggia (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image, with considerable encyclopaedic value. Would be nice to see more from the 45,000 Tropenmuseum donation restored and nominated here. --ELEKHHT04:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 11:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cité radieuse de Marseille - Le Corbusier.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cité radieuse de Marseille - Le Corbusier.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: No appropriate license ELEKHHT04:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2011 at 01:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bubo bubo 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bubo bubo 1.jpg
Oppose It is a nice owl. I would like to see its legs and claws. Presumably, it is easier to photograph a bird in an aviary than in the wild. Zoo/aviary environment and unnatural background reduces educational value. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 02:17:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jardin du Palais-Royal 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jardin du Palais-Royal 01.jpg
Oppose Since I don´t see any reason for focus that serves a purpose in this image, I´m going to oppose because of lack of DOF. (other reasons can be found, like noise below the thigh of the statue, tight composition, and the doves IdLoveOne mentioned erlier, but I´m not opposing because any of those.) --Snaevar (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it´s not absolutely crucial, but important none the less. Statues are placed on locations with careful consideration of their environment (including the trees). Also, how easily a good DOF and focus can be executed makes this image ordinary for me. Keep in mind, that there are images on Commons of statues that do satisfy this requirement and if I wouldn´t oppose on grounds like these, then probably all statue images would get my support vote, witch would not exactly give the desired effect.--Snaevar (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2011 at 17:08:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coral Acropora 3D.OGGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coral Acropora 3D.OGG
If that, seriousally, is the case, then the name should be Featured media. Current name is too misleading, at the very least.--Snaevar (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2011 at 17:06:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coral Acropora sections.OGGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coral Acropora sections.OGG
The coral without the stone is 8 x 6 x 4 cm in size. SecretDisc 13:09, 10 February 2011 (CET)
Support This is interesting (plus I get to have the smug honor of being the first one to vote on a video file in FPC that wasn't the nominator or an FPX contest =) Nope. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tomography hasn´t envolved the the same way, quality wise, as photography. Therefore is this video, although it looks grainy, acceptable. The decision of having three wiews in seperate windows can easily be disputed, but it is a matter of opinion, rather than technicality. But since this video is only acceptable, but not outstanding among other tomography videos, I vote Oppose.--Snaevar (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 16:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-01-30-ballon-d-alsace-4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-01-30-ballon-d-alsace-4.jpg
Oppose Per Behn. Also dislike because of the shadows on the monument. A different time for taking the picture could prevent this problem. --Gaendalf (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 16:46:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-01-30-ballon-d-alsace-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-01-30-ballon-d-alsace-1.jpg
Support -- At first I thought I'd be turned off by the snow, but I like this and love the shade of blue the sky is, though the levels might need a little tinkering with. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 05:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:McKinley Prosperity.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:McKinley Prosperity.jpg
Support My first post-Durova restoration, so I didn't really have anyone to bounce it off of. There are probably some mistakes. I'll fix em, you can fix em, it's all good ^^ -- NativeForeigner토론 (talk)05:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the historical value is limited to the United States. However, the picture is good and that´s all that matters.--Snaevar (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2011 at 10:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too much noise, tilted, bad crop and distortion - Berthold Werner (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 14:41:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old Fort of Zanzibar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Fort of Zanzibar.jpg
Comment This is not QI, sure, but I note a stitching error on the horizon above the red roof. And the sea could be kept horizontal. Otherwise I feel some wow. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmm I guess I'm too picky... And I understand how you could feel about that damn out of sight part ;). That's an unusual place to me. I wouldn' be sad if this is promoted. - Benh (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 10:28:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beachy Head and Lighthouse, East Sussex, England - April 2010 crop horizon corrected.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beachy Head and Lighthouse, East Sussex, England - April 2010 crop horizon corrected.jpg
Support This is the first time I ever vote for feature image candidate. I'm glad I could pick such a good one to be my first vote. --Gaendalf (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 12:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Qingbai glazed buddha statue.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Qingbai glazed buddha statue.jpg
OpposeVery interesting object, and good candidate for a black masking job IMO. But very very noisy at high resolution, which is not surprising (ISO 1600). Therefore cannot be FP. --Jebulon (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I´m not going to stand in the way of the nomination of this image. None the less, I have two points about the quality of the image. The cones on his head look like having a bit too much saturation, and I agree with Jeublon on the black masking job, since the background isn´t that great.--Snaevar (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about noise reduction (or whatever filter used), which not only took away the noise (still some left despite this !), but all details as well. Raising contrast won't help I'm afraid. - Benh (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 10:17:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support --Oh yeah! Very impressive picture considering it was made by an amateur, even regarding the fact high-end camera was used. Very well detailed and highly colored picture imo, representing well the galaxy in its whole and its immediate surroundings. Sting (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 16:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 21:06:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 18:07:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View from Stpeters.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Stpeters.jpg
Oppose This picture so much shows what not to do... Numerous stitching errors, with many even visible on the thumbnails (oh my god the bottom part), some OOF shots, some exposures inconsistencies. It has it all (including a very impressive view ;) ). - Benh (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: is an example of what should not be nominated
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 00:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I think The High Fin Sperm Whale's issue could be corrected with a lighting difference, but I think that as-is, this featured level work. Steven Walling22:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is "meh" (i.e. not enough contrast between subject and background), that's why there is "no wow" in thumbnail view. ELEKHHT04:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2011 at 10:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dolomites and an ocean of clouds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dolomites and an ocean of clouds.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's much too noisy, sorry (interesting subject though) --kaʁstnDisk/Cat11:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 18:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gm-kolokolna-4138.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gm-kolokolna-4138.jpg
Comment I´ll have to agree with Jon C, but then again, I have never been to Russia. If I am not mistaken though, this is the same color as in the blue-screen of Windows (intended as a joke).--Snaevar (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question What time of day was this taken? Is the sun visible there this time of year? I ask because the foreground seems to be very bright. Brighter than I would think those lights could do and the lighting seems hard to figure. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Dark night, lamps prepared for Cristmas happening, long exposition used. To the left there's a well-lit avenue. The tree in the corned stays near the lamp-line.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture of the blue hour, but the f/11 number creates sun glare (or light glare, in this case) in photos and the long exposure only makes the light even more intense. The result is a few burnt pixels and the overexposure that IdLoveOne mentioned erlier.--Snaevar (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by «light glare»? (English is not perfect to catch the idea.) Long exposure intended to have a bright & vivid picture. F/11 intended to have "star effect" and fine DOF.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 21:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gyps rueppellii -Nairobi National Park, Kenya-8-4c.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gyps rueppellii -Nairobi National Park, Kenya-8-4c.jpg
Oppose - hate to be "that guy", but the composition and lighting are both unsatisfactory to me. Lack of lead room is quite noticeable, and most of the visible part of the bird is in a shadow. –Juliancolton | Talk16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I see what you mean, but I guess rather harsh shading is inevitable and with the sun overhead in Kenya. Actually, I think it is interesting that the shadow is seen directly under the bird as is only possible near the Equator. Anyway, I think that the shaded parts of the wild vulture are seen clearly enough, and I am reluctant to change the lighting levels. I thought it is interesting (with high educational value) to see the feather pattern of the top one wing and the underside of the other wing, as well as the other features of the bird. Incidentally, do you mean head room above the bird or in front of the bird? Snowmanradio (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. You bring up an interesting point about the shadow being a contributing factor to the educational value, but I think it might be a good idea to note something along those lines in the file description. I'll consider this particular concern alleviated. However, now that I look closer, it seems some of the bird's white patches are washed out, but this probably isn't the biggest issue in the world. As for the lead room, I meant ahead of the bird. Presently it feels like it's about to run off the side of the image, which, at least for me, is not a comfortable feeling on the eyes. I don't think there's much that can be done at this point, though. If I'm being too critical, just let me know and I'll retract my oppose. –Juliancolton | Talk20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In welcome your opinion of the crop, because I was thinking about giving more room in front of the bird, but I did not want to divide a tussock of grass in half with the right margin of the image. Anyway, I have done a minor edit and re-cropped it to give slightly more room in front of the vulture and brought the margin to the other side of the tussock. I was also thinking that I should write about the shadow in the image description, while replying to your first response. I would respect your opinion, if you oppose or support. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I may butt-in with my own opinion, it still looks goods but I didn't think that it needed lead room with the way it was centered and the roughly equal room around the bird. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there are pros and cons. The original image was probably better for showing on a language wiki, so I have reverted it back to the original, which several people were happy with. Snowmanradio (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2011 at 17:16:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathédrale Saint-Louis-des-Invalides.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathédrale Saint-Louis-des-Invalides.jpg
Comment needs a better description, the name of the file is only partially good. What is shown is the a part of the main altar of the "Eglise du Dôme", behind the Cathedral one can see through the glasses--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition somehow doesn't work for me. The bright altar wants to be the center of attention, yet it seems pushed aside from the visual center of the picture. Hum, maybe I just put my finger on it : we usually refer to a rule of thirds ; here, there seems to be a rule of halves, the altar being exactly in the bottom one. --MAURILBERT(discuter)16:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2011 at 04:34:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral Group GTNP1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral Group GTNP1.jpg
Support I feel like a centered composition of a mountain would be boring. Un-centered like this reminds you that it's part of a range. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2011 at 18:00:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dhow znz.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dhow znz.jpg
Comment I sort of like this, but the weather seems strange. The water is very (beautifully) bright blue, but the sky is an ugly, menacing grey. Was there about to be a thunderstorm? Was the sun shining through a hole in the clouds? Is this image saturated? Not that I'm opposed to minor digital editing. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image was slightly edited of course with minor tweaks, NR etc but the original image has a similar sky. Thin clouds were scattered all over the sky that the blue color was lost. --Muhammad (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2011 at 17:33:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support In Paris, nice and spectacular example of cistercian architecture of the 13th century. Not very far from Notre-Dame de Paris (please see geoloc), the "Collège des Bernardins" is now a conference center, specialized in religious and philosophical matters. Obviously, to keep the perspective distortion is a choice of mine.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Missing contrast. I'd play with curve a little to improve on that, and also apply some unsharp mask filter to emphasize details. More spectacular ceilings out there (but I don't oppose for that) - Benh (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for review. I've tried something with curves as suggested, and now contrast is indeed better, thanks for tip. Details are enough for my taste. One can find more spectacular everything out there :).--Jebulon (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes but is too abstract to make an image only of the vaults.. for somebody that see this image (and (s)he never been there) would like to see also the lower part. About the tourists.. probably can be a nice image also with the tourists inside. Ggia (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info: for those who are missing the whole hall, or hope to see the lower part, or are interested by the building, please have a look here, especially taken for you !--Jebulon (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 21:52:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mostar and Neretva - view from Stari Most.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mostar and Neretva - view from Stari Most.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2011 at 09:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paddlefish Polyodon spathula.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paddlefish Polyodon spathula.jpg
Support For an illustration, this image is pretty good. It would be better though, if the description would specify that it is one.--Snaevar (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 20:21:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rapperswil SG Panorama Feb 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rapperswil SG Panorama Feb 2011.jpg
InfoRapperswil is a former municipality and since January 2007 part of the municipality of Rapperswil-Jona in the Wahlkreis (constituency) of See-Gaster in the canton of St. Gallen in Switzerland, located at the east side of the Lake Zurich. All by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion, it needs an horizontal crop below, almost until the first buoy, because there is nothing interesting in the foreground, but disturbing tree shadows. The trees at extreme left could maybe be cropped out too.--Jebulon (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good resolution, but maybe slightly over exposed. Water features look good at full resolution in the foreground. Are all the verticals true? - are the building on the left leaning to the left? Snowmanradio (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. Building links is not parallel to the rest of the other buildings. Perhaps it seems so estwas inclined, I don't know. --Böhringer (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that this cropped version spoils the reflections and patterns in the water. The reflections of the buildings in the water are now incomplete. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes I agree, but I asked for the crop, and it was hard to me to say: the crop is too tight now (a very little bit). But it is (please notice I didn't support...)--Jebulon (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it isn't too bold of me, I would like to ask for a 310 pixel bottom re-crop of the original. If that is not possible, then I´ll just evaluate the picture as it is.--Snaevar (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 18:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Schindlerspitze Pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Schindlerspitze Pano.jpg
Oppose Poor composition, and not sure if the horizon is straight here. Too many tourists to my taste, and several stitching errors as well. - Benh (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting but kind of hard to guess how tall things are. Mountains in the distance appear to be the same height or shorter than that lodge or chateau. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 21:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern Gray Squirrel In Chicago.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern Gray Squirrel In Chicago.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 21:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tectus niloticus 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tectus niloticus 01.JPG
Oppose Poor quality (I think because of bad camera setting used), harsh flat front lighting, probably a missing view (90° angle between shots, and only 5 view). Unforgivable errors on repeatable shots in my opinion. I could copy and paste my other reviews on similar pics. - Benh (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather blurry and also sloppy masking. Large size does not compensate for quality in images taken in a controlled environment. W.S.07:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry W.S., I think you have not the right to vote. According to the new guidelines, only editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. I know not a single edit! --Llez (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did. That's kind of what shells look like up close - glossy yet chalky. The blotches and stripes aren't going to be totally pure from the white parts, the colors will smudge and blur together like that naturally. You can see tiny dimples and ridges. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think about the patterns when I talk about the blurriness, and I don't think Sneavar did either. The fine reliefs you mention and that we can see should be sharper than that. Nothing is as sharp as it deserves at f/32. See this [20]. We already notice that f/16 alters the image quality, so we can imagine how bad a setting f/32 is. Maybe it was for getting more DOF, but not sure this is a good compromise. - Benh (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better DOF often means better sharpness overall, the primary concern of F numbers seems to be brightness not sharpness and in the case of a scientific image meant to show off detail of an item like this one I don't see anything else that could matter besides getting the full depth. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really... DOF is the part of the image where sharpness is close enough to the best spot. If that best spot if already very bad, as in f/32, you'll be only close enough to bad. Since you seem to care about quality of a scientific image, you should be a bit more picky about that. Also please note the use of ISO 200 when this is absolutely not necessary. So, either each image could be shot a lower f number, meaning better quality and less DOF, but the OOF parts would likely be in focus on the other views anyways; or either author could use stack focusing, as per this very fine example of this (not hard at all to use) technique. Well it's a bit harder on potentially moving macro subjects. - Benh (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2011 at 23:08:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sitta carolinensis CT2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sitta carolinensis CT2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2011 at 22:35:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tamiasciurus hudsonicus CT2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tamiasciurus hudsonicus CT2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 22:08:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Threskiornis spinicollis -Bunbury, Western Australia, Australia-8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Threskiornis spinicollis -Bunbury, Western Australia, Australia-8.jpg
Comment Sorry W.S., do you have the right to vote? According to the new guidelines, only editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Where are your 50 edits? --Llez (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 07:28:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:IvanVazov National Theatre 7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:IvanVazov National Theatre 7.jpg
Oppose Some kind of distortion at the trees at the left, and the statue at the left. Also, the line at the central columns looks precarious to me.(see annotations)--Snaevar (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The objections that you specified are not so many and not so significant. The lines at the columns are just two cables. If I remove them then are you going to change your vote?--MrPanyGoff09:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2011 at 18:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 15:23:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 08:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Toronto - ON - CN Tower bei Nacht2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Toronto - ON - CN Tower bei Nacht2.jpg
Support Could be sharper and the photo absorbs the light from the signs of the buidings, but that doesn't stop me from supporting this image.--Snaevar (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 14:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kecskemet 2010 Türk Yıldızları photo 53.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kecskemet 2010 Türk Yıldızları photo 53.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 06:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Field on slopes of Cosdon Hill - geograph.org.uk - 989852.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Field on slopes of Cosdon Hill - geograph.org.uk - 989852.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is tiny.
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.
this picture is one of the best pictures of 1.8 million pictures of the British and Irish country side. Celebrating this collection and its scope and its coverage is very much in order. PS I e-mailed the photographer and asked if he has a high res version. GerardM (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I for one, like the fact that he contacted the photographer. Another solution to fix the small resolution is to stitch together several photos, but, because of their size they would need to be around seven, just to reach the required minimum for FP. But, then again, the database at Geograph, where this picture comes from is huge.--Snaevar (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's written on the FPX box itself, Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing.... Please at least read the thing... This nomination is closed now.- Benh (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2011 at 12:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-02-13-borne-3-puiss-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-02-13-borne-3-puiss-1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 22:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:C17-Vortex.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:C17-Vortex.JPG
D2x at f/4 for panorama ??? Didn't you get the wrong FP candidate ? This is more like an action shot where timing looks to matter. - Benh (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't major flaw (at least to some people here). Noise is still acceptable IMO and who care about the horizon when the main subjects are well framed ? Anyways, you'll probably show us all how to take this kind of shots perfectly. - Benh (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This had to've been taken from another aircraft and likely one or both of them were tilted, probably to make a turn. There's clearly an obtuse angle formed by the vortex to the plane in the distance and the photographer's perspective, so it probably is the case here that either the plane or the horizon would end up tilted. The person who created this image seemed to have preferred the horizon be tilted than the plane. IdLoveOne (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tilted horizon not always means a flaw.. look in example the second image with tilted horizon by famous photographer Joseph Koudelka. Here the image is well balanced even the horizon is tilted. Ggia (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that the horizon is tilted, the quality is not great, the main subject is soft, but I am one of those that think that under difficult circumstances technical rules must be flexible. This is not a photographer taking a landscape with a tripod with all the time in the world: these are fast-moving objects, either you take this shot as it is or you lose it. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 22:13:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salticidae sp. AF 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salticidae sp. AF 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 09:31:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 09:05:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anders Zorn - Naket i eldsken.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anders Zorn - Naket i eldsken.jpg
Support Since I have seen paintings with my own eyes, I can tell the colors are natural and the quality is good, aside from three points, all minor. There is a blue dot, that looks the same way as an brushstroke, and two noise spots (see annonations). And, oh, the danish/swedish word eldsken means very bright (as bright as fire), so perhaps the english word spotlight is more suitable.--Snaevar (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your black noise spots are fly droppings or color drops on the canvas like the other color drops in different colors on the canvas. This file is ok. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 15:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dutch army Pzh-2000 firing on Taliban in Chura. June 16, 2007. Photo by David Axe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dutch army Pzh-2000 firing on Taliban in Chura. June 16, 2007. Photo by David Axe.jpg
Support Would have been great to have some more space on the left, but I guess you can't get picky about composition in war. Great shot.--Murdockcrc (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 18:33:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:360º Panorama Saulakopf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:360º Panorama Saulakopf.jpg
12505
1714
9018
1022
22921
4510
Horizon doesn't look straight here. Is it really an issue ?
It isn´t an issue. There is the Lake of Constance, that´s the reason why the horizon doesn´t look straight. Location|47|04|47.14|N|9|46|05.90|E --alex.vonbun (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Checked on google earth and other pictures. It seems you might be right. With the little doubts left in me, I'll remain neutral. - Benh (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you do answer questions sometimes (you haven't on your previous noms) ! I've found similar panos with straighter horizon, but also some pics with that "depression" in the horizon line. So I'll stuck to my neutral position on that one. - Benh (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you do it ever in your life walking to get to this level, then you would feel that here is "special". From the observation and the information content of the surrounding topography apart. --Böhringer (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Walking has nothing to do with it, please keep your comments neutral. The nothing special concerns a to high vantage point capturing to much sky and to little foreground making viewers yearning for more. W.S.13:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 15:54:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2011 at 01:12:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Falco berigora taranna.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Falco berigora taranna.jpg
Support Very eye-catching. I rarely give FPC a glance but this time I did and this image greatly caught my attention. Mostly because the posture and composition are interesting, or maybe because I'm just an animal lover :). The minor cut offs are not a big deal in my opinion and the "zoo" background is not so noticeable (plus it depicts interaction with humans, why zoo background a big deal?). Interesting and featurable in my opinion. --ZooFari04:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, the image could be masked and the background substituted for a solid background, but I don´t believe it will come to that. Quality is fine, a bit of motion blur at the wings, but still acceptable.--Snaevar (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something with the lighting, the centered composition and the behaviour of the bird trying to escape a too tight grip gives an anti-wow factor to me. Should have wait for the bird to sit down and get the typical proud posture of raptors. --Cephas (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 16:52:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rock face, Ruby Beach, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rock face, Ruby Beach, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.JPG
Hugh Crandall, former director of the Yellowstone Institut, wrote in his brochure "Yellowsone. The story behind the scenery", KC publications, second printing 1978, page 23: "Algae vividly colors hot-spring runoff areas." I quoted his words above. Hugh Crandall wrote on page 46: "As hydrothermal water gets progressively cooler, it becomes a suitable habitat for, first, bacteria, then blue-green algae, true algae, mosses and, finally, higher orders of plants and animals." I think, the blue speck contains the blue-green algae. This image shows the blue-green colors of the blue-green algae. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No no, the blue-green algae are not bright blue. The algae are the greenish colors on your rock. This is hineininterpreterung. W.S.08:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your information is not up to date. The Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) has the pigment Phycocyanin. Phycocyanin in the German wikipedia reads as follows: "Phycocyanin erscheint in einer purpur bis kobaltblau Farbe." You find the reference in the footnote 2. This means: the Cyanobacteria occurs also in the color cobalt blue. This is exact the color of the blue specks on "my rock". --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cyanobacteria do not produce discernible light during daytime. The above information is irrelevant. You can not drag in unrelated articles to prove a point. Did you actually read this the article you mention? W.S.08:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wetenschatje, you are a newcomer in Wikimedia Commons. You are welcome. - You uploaded images in Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. - You oppose this image. Please explain your reasoning. It is necessary. You find the regulation "Voting" above. - In this scientific discussion I miss your own sources. Everyman must have the possibility to check it. Please say your sources. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually read the comments of 'newcomers' or are you assuming with the sheep that newbies are per definition wrong? W.S.09:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I´d like to point out the NPOV policy of Commons. WS is, as all other FP reviewers is required to explain what on the picture he dislikes enough to oppose, but, he is not required to cite where he got this information from. Remember, Commons do not have the "No original research" rules, as Wikipedia does, and please do not try to confuse those two, by trying to tell me that they are the same thing, witch they are most certainly not.--Snaevar (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my eyes, the blue specks seem like reflections from wet patches of the rock face. They seem to get brighter and whiter towards the lower left corner, and they don't look like any algae I've ever seen. --Avenue (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2011 at 18:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kairo Ibn Tulun Moschee BW 5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kairo Ibn Tulun Moschee BW 5.jpg
Neutral I remember a similar file (File:Kairo Ibn Tulun Moschee BW 4.jpg) witch was nominated a few months ago. This shot is cleaver in that way, that it removes the shadow that was on the previous picture, but that never was a factor for me. I vote neutral on the same grounds as before, Somewhat unsharp witch is apparent at the tower with the spiral staircase, since it still applies.--Snaevar (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- I don't think there's much else that could be done for a photo like this besides editing it to give it some kind of epic new perspective lol. Otherwise this photo and the subject is what it is, and a bit boring. @Berthold, how does this place look at night? Maybe a night shot would make a more interesting piece? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2011 at 04:06:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jacques Louis David - Bonaparte franchissant le Grand Saint-Bernard, 20 mai 1800.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jacques Louis David - Bonaparte franchissant le Grand Saint-Bernard, 20 mai 1800.jpg
Info created by Jacques-Louis David - uploaded by Claus - nominated by Claus
Neutral It looks ok as far as size and color, but for oil on canvas it seems very flat and 2-dimensional. I can't see any hint that this was painted on canvas, looks more like wood panel.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 17:36:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ursus arctos syriacus in Jerusalem Biblical Zoo alone.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ursus arctos syriacus in Jerusalem Biblical Zoo alone.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 01:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Container Ship.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Container Ship.jpg
It confuses the bot if you start a new nomination in the old nomination page, please start it at a new location. --99of9 (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know these kind of shots can be hard to take because you kind of have to be lucky enough to have a surface or dock where you can take a good shot from and sometime's that not the circumstance, but still it doesn't make for good composition. A better angle would've made the lighting more impressive, too. -- One, please.( Thank you.)16:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![Crystal step of Gypsum (Calcium sulfate, Ca[SO4] • 2 H2O)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Gips_01.jpg/400px-Gips_01.jpg)
Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:39, 26 --Böhringer (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)January 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutral The quality is good, but I think it needs cropping. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC).jpg)
Comment the lens flare in the sky, can be easily removed.. I suppose the Danny is commenting about this.. Ggia (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Yes, there are many errors and visible seams. Check out the roof of the building on the left, for instance. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Weak support Great, but don't like the crop. However, it isn't all that easy to get a pix like this one! –hoverFly | chat? 01:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Question To anyone: Other than the log this looks pretty good. Anyone think the levels can be switched around digitally to dim the log? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Abstain as nominator -- Snaevar (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Done Fixed Info.--Snaevar (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
chromatic aberration at the far right mushroom, and lacking space on top becouse of the puff. I agree with Steven Walling on nominating this picture as Valued picture.--Snaevar (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
![Crystal step of Gypsum (Calcium sulfate, Ca[SO4] • 2 H2O)](/wiki/File:Gips_01.jpg)
.jpg)
Request Could you try cropping out the smidgeon of fungi that is already partially cut off? It's a great photo, but that little bit cut off drives me nuts, visually speaking. Either than or expand it perhaps? Steven Walling 01:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Strong support Great photo! Thomas888b (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose Dislike the composition and the overexposed areas are intolerable. But has a big illustrative value. --Gaendalf (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
--Gaendalf (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
_-_FIO_-_Cuatro_Vientos.jpg)
Cropped and perspective if anyone cares. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_7.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_FIO_-_Cuatro_Vientos.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_7.jpg){kind=link}
_7.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_7.jpg){kind=link}
_7.jpg){kind=link}
_7.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FFile%3AB%C3%BCrstegg_2011-01-30.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=49576945&oldid=49573804){kind=link}
![[8]](http://m24digital.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/pez-6.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://foto2.m.onet.pl/_m/50e91b6ea74a43667e833e5695cab227,20,19,0.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crassostrea_gigas_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tibia_insulaechorab_.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MurexPecten.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tutufa_bufo_2010_G1.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Strombus_sinuatus_2010_G1.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bufonaria_perelegans_2010_G1.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pigs_July_2008-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narbonne_Cathedrale_Saint_Just_et_Saint_Pasteur.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_white_bg.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_FIO_-_Cuatro_Vientos.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_FIO_-_Cuatro_Vientos.jpg){kind=link}
_-_FIO_-_Cuatro_Vientos.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_FIO_-_Cuatro_Vientos.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
