Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2012

File:Coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 11:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tlusťa - uploaded by Tlusťa - nominated by Tlusťa -- Tlusťa (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tlusťa (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chmee2 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now wow, nothing oustanding for FP --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info French caption (blasonnement) added.--Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I'm interested to find a primary source showing a golden crown on the head of the black silesian eagle. I'm not sure about this specific ornament...--Jebulon (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC) But it is good, according to the czech text (...zlatou koronou...)--Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macaca mulatta, Puerto Rico.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 12:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was going to support, but the extrem compression kills it all. Yann (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basel - Wasserturm Bruderholz2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 15:50:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor white balance, crop and POV. พ.s. 16:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please concretise your arguments - if you can. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support bin ja kein Fan von strahlendem Sonnenschein mit harten Schatten, aber die Schattenwürfe der Bäume auf den Turm gefallen mir. Passt. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Solid work, wb is not so good imho, good QI but I don't see why it should be FP --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture, with a crop a bit tight however, no opinion about the wb, but as Berthold Werner about the FP status.--Jebulon (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Don-kun (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hawaiian Stilt Hawaiian Duck RWD1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 21:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:DickDaniels - uploaded by User:DickDaniels - nominated by User:DickDaniels -- DickDaniels (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DickDaniels (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Both the Hawaiian Duck and the Hawaiian Stilt are endemic to Hawaii. It is rare to see them together. DickDaniels (talk)
Support very nice--David საქართველო 21:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tlusťa (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very blurry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality Cathy Richards (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. –Makele-90 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map Berlin Brandenburg Airport.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 19:58:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by CellarDoor85 - Support
Oppose too many inscriptions--David საქართველო 21:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly arranged map, for me the absolutely appropriate inscriptions, we have a complex topic, commendable solved --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, PNG- map. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it less kreativ, or less worth to invest hours of creating a well-arranged graphic, then a successful photoshot? - Just to think about. --CellarDoord85 (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be vector-based. พ.s. 12:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A svg-version would be nice, I know (I prefer it too) - but it's extremly difficult with graphics of this complexity to convert it to a error-free svg-file. --CellarDoord85 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have created a vector version of this file. Please check it if I did wrong or you can fix it. Regards, --Katarighe (Talk) 17:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a vector version, that is a bitmap with an SVG coat. พ.s. 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bret Cox L-39 - Reno Race -58 .jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 04:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Scott D Colbath - uploaded by Bbbcox - nominated by Sammyday -- Sammyday (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sammyday (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{FPD}}|—Bruce1ee^talk 05:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support FPD removed. Let this is my nomination. I give my limit of nominations to this candidate and support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Sammyday (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Uniform background, good crop, and high resolution (8,846418 megapixels). –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altensteinia virescens.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 00:56:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hans Stieglitz - uploaded by Hans Stieglitz - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Kannatan Good photo, high resolution (6,8256 megapixels). –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, unsharp impo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Background is very disturbing, with shadows and highlights. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cattleya iricolor - Flickr 003.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 01:00:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Claire H. - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Background is very different the left and right, and it interferes. Otherwise good. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same here: noisy, and unsharp in one zooms in. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bad crop: the lower flower is disturbing. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grandtetonnational park59887215.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 10:45:02(UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sylfred1977 - uploaded by Sylfred1977 - nominated by Andrea Coppola --Andrea Coppola (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small at 0.6 megapixels. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:View of the Rabí Castle (2) 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 21:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - modified by Ximonic - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know that this image was already nominated, however this improve version was active only for last 3 days with 5 positive votes and no oppose one. I'd be thankful give one more chance to it see if in normal voting period will be more successful. Thank you for this opportunity! :) -- Chmee2 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think for FP, one should get better sky conditions. Not mandatory but, the lighting here could be improved a lot. Some areas are very dark. Another photo from the same place in other conditions would be totally featurable though, imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I rather like the somber mood, it's fitting for a fortress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianare (talk • contribs)
Support The cloudy sky is fine. Yann (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sky conditions are super, also the light and composition, but the image is oversharpened --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Carschten, and I fight against the dictatorship of blue skies. But the castle itself looks bad (oversharpening ?), enough for a "decline" vote, sorry. I like the light and the composition very much though.--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Палач,-Петропавловская-крепость.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 20:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The executioner, Peter & Paul Fortress, St.-Petersburg, Russia

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine. Uniform background ang high resolution (7,265496 megapixels). –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. I think the colors are very good (the nuances of the dress). Nit picking: a very little red CA at the top of head, and the sharpness of the block not perfect.--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Did I miss something, or the info about the end of the voting period (29 jan.) is wrong ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Concerning date an error. It is corrected. ;) --Aleks G (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice :) --Pudelek (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Amanohashidate view from Kasamatsu Park01s3s4410.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 00:47:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- 663h (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful view, but there're Chromatic aberrations, blown parts, black areas, noise, chroma noise... too many details for FP status in my opinion. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loeb 2011 WRC Portugal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 02:57:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tiago Fernandes, uploaded and nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop, I would see the car lower in the frame; the dust would be more interesting than empty road. --ianaré (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ianaré. I have the same feeling that framing is not the best. --Chmee2 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Ianaré, but still good picture. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I upload alternative crop version. Sasha Krotov (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support Good action shot, technically good, has wow, EV... --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot --Katarighe (Talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conrado (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haematopus unicolor LC0239.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 17:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A couple of the Variable Oystercatcher (Haematopus unicolor), created, uploaded and- nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conrado (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC). Because is IUCN Endangered specie.[reply]
- Thanks for the vote, but they are Least Concern --LC-de (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:Golubac.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 08:34:56

Info Chromatic aberration, unsharp, hazy colors (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delist Very interesting place. Nice mood, quality not terrible. I would have liked trying to fix this picture rather than delist it... but then, the blur is really too bad. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist poor quality and colours, bad composition and light --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist does not meet current standards. --Jovian Eye _storm 13:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist 2004 quality...--Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per Carschten (kaʁstn). –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as per nominator --LC-de (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 17:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== Hamza Issa Farid est un Djiboutiens,et il est un etudiant .Il a commence L'etude de 1 er année jusqu'a second;ecole Champion et Lycée Mandela.Et Mantenant,il passe L'anticipe blanc.Il à une belle Famille,les noms des freres: Mahomed,Ibrahim,Abdi,Idriss,Sadik,Hamza,Bilal,Youssouf;et les noms des soeurs:Moumina,Rahma,Zamzam;les noms des parents:Issa Farid Adaweh,Fardoussa Sayed Idriss.Et aussi son couleur préferée est: Rouge;son matieré est:Arabe.Il est Muslumans; il decteste les menteurs et les voleurs;il aime ses familles et ses amis; et il aime trop voyage comme Dubai;Turkey...

REDIRECT Nom de la page de destination

File:Israeli West Bank Barrier.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 13:33:08

Info Full of chromatic aberration, especially in the sky (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ I like the composition and there are no CA, but the image is full of (colour) noise, sharpness and details are on an low level; also poor colours --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The new version is much better. Very good work, Wetenschatje! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the historical value of the subject. A FP is not only a super Quality Image. We have to be very careful in the delisting process IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the rationale "because of the historical value" lacking in NPOV? What makes the subject of high historical value? Tomer T (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any point of view, neutral or not, here. Opinions about this barrier is not important here. But this barrier exists, and it is an historical fact.--Jebulon (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Cathy Richards (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jebulon.. the image quality is not so bad..and the subject has high encyclopedic value and aesthetically is nice. do we have another featured image, like that, of the isreali barrier? Ggia (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good picture of historical value. Achird (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others. Yann (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No noticeable chromatic aberration, no reason to delist --Tony Wills (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have voted to delist the original version, per Carschten, but Wetenschatje's subsequent edit has improved it a lot. Still not that sharp, but good enough IMO. --Avenue (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Katarighe (Talk) 17:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 8 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aepyceros melampus petersi female 8014.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 01:17:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- The out-of-focus impala in the background is a little distracting, but otherwise I like it. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate composition with the the edge of the waterhole being aligned with the underside of the heads of the two rightmost impalas and the back of the leftmost. พ.s. 10:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Wetenschatje, also no "wow" for me. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an image taken in the wild, so yes! Yann (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann and Brucelee. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 14:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is enough "wow" for me due to the water droplets falling of the snout of the specimen in the middle. Grand-Duc (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per Grand-Duc. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Wetenschatje, but the positive elements dominate. --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support "in the wild" shot IMHO negates the minor issues Gnan garra 00:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anton Raphael Mengs, The Triumph of History over Time (Allegory of the Museum Clementinum), ceiling fresco in the Camera dei Papiri, Vatican Library, 1772 - M0tty.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 12:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by M0tty -- M0tty (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- M0tty (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bahía Onelli Parque Nacional Los Glaciares Patagonia Argentina Luca Galuzzi 2005.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 17:24:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Lucag - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kelidimari (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I think this is very beautiful, and the colors and peaceful feel of this photo is nice.[reply]
Support Per Kelidimari. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Nice impression of the park. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting light and composition with rocks and ice. --ELEKHH^T 21:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Definite wow factor --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shots like this too often wind up being the ones that you think "But it looked like it was going to be cool!" when you finally look at them. But this one has the composition and colors just right. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Belfry Panormitis monastery.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 13:44:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support View of the colorful belfry of the Monastery of Archangel Michael in Panormitis, in the little island of Symi, Dodecanese, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oversaturated --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose yes. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow ! What a friendly behaviour ! --Jebulon (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - ?!? :-/ --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - File:Belfry Panormitis monastery-CN.jpg --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Undersaturated under greek sun.:-/--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In-camera processing or post-processing has removed lots of fine details. Colours (saturation) could be OK, I can't judge that. Composition is a bit random and there might be a slight CCW tilt. พ.s. 08:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for serious, even if negative, review. I don't think lots of details are lost, and don't see any obvious tilt. Composition is matter of taste and was maybe wrong in your opinion, but not random. I need other opinions, please.--Jebulon (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I don't see problems with this picture besides the crop. Don't think it is random but it is not optimal either. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated --Llorenzi (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No.--Jebulon (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:North America from low orbiting satellite Suomi NPP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 04:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring, uploaded by and nominated by -- Hellbus (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hellbus (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Very high resolution (64 megapixels) and sharp focus throughout.[reply]
~~Support~~ Wow! A great image of our small planet. Yann (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote. Nice but wrong proportions. Yann (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Support wow it's my favourite picture. our blue planet :)--David საქართველო 09:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great --Paolo Costa (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Chmee2 (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral Not bad. Yet another NASA picture of the earth... I prefer pictures made by wikimedians.--Jebulon (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The size of landforms is not the normal one and gives a false impression. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Erick-^Talk 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Awesome high-res photo of Earth! --versageek (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot Mamad ^TALK
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I can see my house. --AlphaEta (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ouch!! per Thierry Caro พ.s. 09:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I change my vote, Per Thierry Caro and ws. Is the Gulf of Mexico so bright ?--Jebulon (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Brightness in the Gulf could be due to algal blooms. พ.s. 13:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Misunderstanding, my mistake, due to poor english. I meant "large", "wide", about the visual distortion. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just read Thierry Caro's comment, then noticed inmediately the wrong proportions. It's weird how one doesn't notice such an important detail at first sight. This is really misrepresentative of the earth. Not really encyclopedic, au contraire. That planet looks like Americaland, not the earth. I heard on the radio about this pic from NASA. Why would (on purpose??) NASA make this unrealistic representation? As if they could not do a perfect job... --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose confusing and unexplained distortion, as remarked above. --ELEKHH^T 15:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Thierry Caro is right. I compared it with this image, and with a globe on Google Earth. North America is definitely oversized. I can't believe they said it's "most detailed picture of Earth ever seen", and it has wrong proportions?! o.O --Lošmi (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't oppose due to explanation about satellite position. --Lošmi (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--David საქართველო 20:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hadn't really paid that much attention to the proportions before, but now I see it too. It looks a bit like fisheye-distorted view, but I can only guess. Hellbus (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The picture has probably been taken so close to the Earth that it got a fish eye like effect which, in this case, makes the USA look quite enormous compared to the apparent "diameter" of the Earth seen here. This is an important matter which should be mentioned about this picture! Otherwise the picture would really mislead less attentive people. What comes to the picture itself, it is really beautiful and detailed... But..! --Ximonic (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the satellite seems to be named as Suomi which means Finland (even though it was named after Verner E. Suomi) they should take this kind of fish eye picture where Finland fills the entire half of globe. :-) Let's talk about false impression after that... --Ximonic (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as above. -- -donald- (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. -- Achird (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Ximonic is right, the picture has probably been taken so close to the Earth that a substancial part of the visible hemisphere is "behind the horizon". Take the Earth representation in Google Earth and imagine cropping the image with a smaller circle. The result is similar to the present picture. This is not a distortion, in the sense people is using here, just a close-up. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those concerned about the fisheye/cropped aspect of the picture, would amending the description to reflect that fact help? Hellbus (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely should be explained, as is very different from common perspectives and projections. --ELEKHH^T 04:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added the following text to the beginning of the image description. Hellbus (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC) "A view of most of North America taken from a low orbit. This vantage point results in a view that is distorted much like that of a fisheye camera lens, making the land mass appear disproportionately large. NASA description follows."[reply]
Oppose per fisheye effect. -- Kaldari (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm even considering to propose this "image" for deletion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Support -- I can't understand the animosity against this image. This is not a fisheye effect at all! When looking at a sphere you only see (almost) a full hemisphere when you are very, very far from it. The closer you are the less you see. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what is meant by "fish-eye effect" and "distortion" is not that is "artificial" use of a special lens, but that is a very particular perspective, in contrast to the ones we are used to, taken from further away and which are closer to the projections used in mapping. The problem I see is that it does not provide any significant advantage in terms of major additional detail in the centre, while reducing the overview. Furthermore, the distinction from the "standard" perspectives is here ambiguous as some of the usual conventions are kept (i.e. north upwards), and thus the viewers are confused, as well demonstrated above. --ELEKHH^T 20:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let them be confused, they will undestand and maybe learn something then - isn't this a purpose of the project? Of course the description of file should explain this. --sfu (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe a good image should be self-explanatory. For instance here is clear for anybody that the image is from close-distance (while the description is also more precise). My other argument illustrated, is that I find a good overview more educational. --ELEKHH^T 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe so. I think description is needed sometimes. --sfu (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Alves you are right with the distance, but it suggests that you see the whole (half) globe, but it isn't so. -- -donald- (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jes. People. It really looks that way if you are close to the surface. You can only see full hemisphere if you are far enough from the surface. Being very strictl you can only see full hemisphere while being in infinite distance from the sphere. Plese read the: en:Horizon, please. --sfu (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A shot from the moon is far less than infinite. It would be good enough, no need to go to infinity. It gives a perfectly precise enough idea of what the continents and landmasses sizes are, compared to the total size of the earth. We are not arguing technical facts, fisheye distortions and crazy calculation stuff here, as I've understood. We are just opposing because when a person opens the file gets a wrong proportion of the landmasses, which is not very helpful for an encyclopedia. If I were a learning kid and looked at this picture I'd get confused (what the heck, is the north pole in the grand canyon?? Is California the opposite of Ushuaia? Are Asia plus Europe smaller than America????). Problem here is, that this stitched pano's contour is round, coinciding with the earth roundness. Had it been a circular sector, there would have been no problem. But the file, as it is, is misleading, no matter what we say. It is an extremely cool panoramic image, but it gives more wrong information than it gives right. --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, bacause I have a slight impression that you are trying too suggest it's arifficial: if you where on this height above Mexico as the satellite you would see exacly the same. The fact that it looks that way is a very strage indeed, and that is why it's worth to show it to the people. Of course the decription have to be changed, as now it doesn't mention the word horizon, nor the height of the satellite above the ground. Give people something confusing, and explain to then. Are you really stucked in showing people nice but not surprising views and animals? If look at the picture more carefully you will see that the atmosphere is very thick in it. That's because the satellite was close to the surface. Everything fits, it looks that way. What have to be changed is the description, which should mention the approximate height of the satellite and the link to horizon. It's disturbing, it's true, Great! Then that's what we want (with a good description)! Ok, I'll try to make the description today. --sfu (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also the file name have to be changed. --sfu (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --sfu (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per many above on proportions. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 12 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mt Cook LC0247.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 22:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Aoraki/Mount Cook as seen from Hooker Valley. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lot of wow to me. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good quality and composition, breathtaking view --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful landscape--David საქართველო 09:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As above. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 14:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much boring sky at top; blown snow on the mountain, looks posterized --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Wladyslaw.--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Excellent weather, and beautiful, but it's just the standard shot of Mt Cook up the Hooker Valley, so no great wow to me. Agree with Carschten about the composition. --Avenue (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 00:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reflet-tour-Eifel-Paris-Luc-Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 17:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice picture! Sadly, it will get deleted due to copyright restrictions. --Jovian Eye _storm 20:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NON, jusement c'est pour cela que je poste cette image après autant de temps. Voir ici l'explication française et Ici la restauration sur common des images retirées en 2011! (machine translation) No, just that's why I post this picture after so long. See the explanation here and here French restoration of common images removed in 2011--Luc Viatour (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Check Category:France FOP cases/kept the Eiffel tower by night has been restored. Eiffel tower is in public domain, the SETE claims to have registred copyright which is impossible in France (you only register patents and industrial properties stuff), copyrights exists just by the creation. PierreSelim (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no copyright on ordinary light. Yann (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow for me, I like the composition which is the not usual picture of Eiffel Tower by night. PierreSelim (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty cool. But I think it is a little too dark isn't it? --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose superb idea, but the image is noisy and I would prefer more space at top and less at bottom --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting concept, including WOW, but insufficient image quality (e.g. noise). พ.s. 13:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very interesting and fantastic shot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, noisy. But...Did somebody ever see such a view of this monument ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a reservation. This is not a picture of the Eiffel tower, but of the reflection of the Eiffel tower in a sheet of water. I'm sure French lawyers will appreciate the difference. I'm equally sure they will take this completely nonsensical and idiotic matter seriously. MartinD (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mergus octosetaceus, por Sávio Freire Bruno.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 15:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A male specimen of Mergus octosetaceus, Brazilian bird considered critically endangered. It is estimated that only 250 individuals remaining in the wild; created by Sávio Freire Bruno, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado. Conrado (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conrado (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image size is less than 2MPx

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Full Moon Luc Viatour.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 21:14:50

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination)

Name and description of file purports to show a full moon. In fact, the moon shown is not a full moon, so should not be a featured picture illustrating a full moon. Suggest another picture showing an actual full moon would be a better candidate for a featured picture.

Keep -- Victor Engel (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if there is a way to withdraw my nomination, but I've changed my vote. Meanwhile, I've also emailed the author, who has a much better camera now and possibly could simply replace the picture with a better one, which would satisfy some of the criticisms when originally featured.Victor Engel (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It says "nearly full moon". The name can be changed. I didn't understand why it should be delisted though. Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delist. Yann (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason to delist, and I wish people would get over filenames - a filename is not a description! --Tony Wills (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It says nearly full moon because I made that edit. It says full moon in other languages, and it's referenced by a number of pages as a full moon picture. It's wrong for it to be used as an example of a full moon picture. That's what I would like to correct, but I'm not sure how to accomplish that. Delisting it is one step toward that direction.Victor Engel (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note: this is not just a featured picture. It is a picture featured as a full moon picture. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy Victor Engel (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a Featured Picture because of the quality of the image, it wasn't featured because it was of a full moon, that is irrelevant to its featured status. You are quite welcome to correct the descriptions and captions wherever they occur, and even request a rename of the file. But your reason for delisting appears to be that you think it is easier to delist than bother to correct what you see as a problem. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt would be nice if I could receive some constructive comments. Did you follow the link posted to the comment you replied to? Did you see that the picture is listed there as a featured full moon picture? Note that this is the first time I've dealt with modifying the status of an existing wikimedia commons entry, so this is new ground for me. Rather than criticize what I'm doing, instructing me what I SHOULD do would be more helpful. I have not followed all the links to this picture, but I suspect there are a number of pages that use this picture to illustrate a full moon. If those pages are to be corrected to reference another picture (there are plenty out there), what is the best way to do that?Victor Engel (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 0 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malta Gozo Ta Pinu BW 2011-10-08 10-18-54.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 14:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Loved this the moment I saw you first post it. In checking the WWW I don't think there is one that is better. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Beautiful church, good quality. I don't like the environment though, with all the dry vegetation. Lacking some sharpness too. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dry vegetation is typical for the region. --Mbdortmund (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good perspective. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mihael Grmek {talk) 14:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schlammspringer Periophthalmus sp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 23:08:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support gorgeous --P0lyzoarium (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tachar Persepolis Iran.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 19:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mamad - uploaded by Mamad - nominated by Mamad -- Mamad ^TALK 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mamad ^TALK 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support--Aarash (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight cropp, perspective should be corrected. --Berthold Werner (talk)
Oppose bad angle--David საქართველო 09:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too tight framing on the sides. --ELEKHH^T 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Berthold Werner. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Berthold Werner. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 10:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --Katarighe (Talk) 17:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weißeritztalbruecke-pano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 19:59:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

en:Bundesautobahn 17 crossing the Weißeritz valley near Dresden, Germany

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kolossos -- Kolossos (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kolossos (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Aleks G (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info The bridge is very distorted. Take a look to Google-Maps. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problem with the distortion, we have a very wide viewing angle, well done sitching and a very interesting view of the bridge --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think geometric distortions are sometimes needed in order to give a wider view. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. + bad crop IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor distortion and crop at bottom. Panoramics are not always useful... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Yann (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010-02-20-kickboxen-by-RalfR-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 10:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

German Open Kickboxing 2010 in Eberswalde

Info created by Ralf Roletschek - uploaded by Ralf Roletschek - nominated by Ralf Roletschek -- Ralf Roleček 10:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good action shot, but motion blur is a bit strong, and composition seems indecisive. For instance, legs are cut off, top and right crop very tight, busy background. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alofok * 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Maurilbert, composition is way below FP quality. Legs seem to be important in this sport so shouldn't be cut off. The relationship to the spectators might be interesting but was mostly missed here. And the file description doesn't say very much about the image either. Instead there is an endless list of licenses, including many NC. --ELEKHH^T 20:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lower crop, framing. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Paolo Costa. Additional, partially over-sharpened and strong noise. --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Commercial stopped badly, poor crop, and an uneven background. Not featured. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per ElmA. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Too much motion blur, poor composition, poor crop, disturbing background. / Achird (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gyps fulvus LC0202.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 08:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Light is not good, with shade on the face of the animal. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find that the shade in the face and the drop of blood increase the dramatic expression, which match the bird's reputation. Yann (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not a drop of blood, IMO, but a piece of flesh/meat.--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very bad light: shady face and strong blown parts on the plumage --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann / Achird (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann Cathy Richards (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As kaʁstn--Miguel Bugallo 20:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown parts. พ.s. 11:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MG PA 6 Race, 1300 cm³, Bj. 1936 (2008-06-28 Sp).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 16:42:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Spurzem - Lothar Spurzem (edited by Alchemist-hp) - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nor the sharpness (at high resolution) neither the background look optimum (backgrounds are always difficult for cars...), but it is a very good picture, "featurable" IMO. I support.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per Jebulon. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
very closely cut, but nevertheless Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really a very unappealing background, just as in focus as the car. The resolution isn't great and the crop is too tight right and left. It's a decent illustration of the car, but not featurable. I've seen much better pictures of vehicles fail, such as this one: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yellow Lamborghini Gallardo edit2.jpg. Julia\^talk 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --byggxx (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background, a box in the historic paddock of the Nürburgring, is authentic and marvelous. I like the silence of this moment between the competitions. --Pitlane02 _talk 21:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M 93 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I like the picture including the Nürburgring background (and I like the car).--Genossegerd (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful car. The background shows that it was photographed in its element - the paddock/pits at a race track. Royalbroil 23:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Molière Mignard Chantilly.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 16:05:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Painting by Pierre Mignard - photo, upload and nomination by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this rare and pretty little portrait of Molière by Mignard, 55cm X 48.5cm. On display at Château de Chantilly, France. Photo not made by Mr.Google.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support just an observation it could even go main page on the 17th Feb the date Molière died 339 years ago Gnan garra 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Narasimha oil colour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 18:01:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown 18th century Indian artist from Karnataka - uploaded by TheMandarin - nominated by Redtigerxyz -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Seems to be a good reproduction, fwiw. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 00:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shinisaurus crocodilurus krokodilschwanz höckerechse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 19:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I wouldn't support it on en because it shows only part of the animal, but gladly do here. Nice for showing semi-aquatic lifestyle. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light and background (too similar like the animal) IMHO --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the principle of camouflage... If the environment was yellow, I don't think the lizard survive long.--Citron (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Camouflage. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. I particularly like the position of the head and the eye, directly pointing at the viewer. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too hard to see the animal, not enough of the animal to see. Royalbroil 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Šmarjetna gora 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 15:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Meho29 - uploaded by Meho29 - nominated by Meho29 -- Mihael Grmek (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Waouww beautiful light --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautifully, good color. --Aleks G (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic view! But is WB ok?? seems too yellow, also considering the blown parts in the clouds. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! ■ MMXX ^talk 23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Very nice, but the picture is a little bit tilted. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sfu (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sometimes the world really does look like a painting. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful lighting - Benh (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a bit worried about the white balance. It seems very yellow or green. In such weather condition as it seems to be I would expect a little more reddish tones too. --Ximonic (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Arcade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 11:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Martin Linsey - uploaded by EurekaLott - edited by Martin H. - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 11:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 11:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 07:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but, I see it more as a valued hystorical picture, not as a FP, because it is 'almost symmetric', and I don't like the lower crop, nor the vert/horizontal ratio (top could be cropped a bit imo). --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trongphu (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Delphine, Madame de Staël, Paris, 1803 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 04:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Coyau (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coyau (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop on the bottom is very tight it should be fixed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The depth of field is very short, volume 3 is unsharp...--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mumiae, Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte IMG 1897 edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 12:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mummia in a box, pharmacists collection of the hamburgmuseum - created, edited, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 12:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment da fehlt für meinen Geschmack eindeutig (irgend)ein Größenvergleich. Ich kann mir gerade überhaupt nicht vorstellen wie groß diese Box ist ( a size comparison is sadly missed here IMO) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Die korrekte Beschreibungen und Metadaten werden aus dem Museum nachgeliefert. Ein Datenexport erfolgt demnächst und war bei Erstellung technisch nicht möglich. So viel vorab: die Box ist etwa so groß wie eine Hand. Oben auf kannst du den Inhalt der Schachtel sehen. Das ist etwa so feinkörnig wie feiner Sand. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - entire object should be sharp for FP. --Claritas (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --LC-de (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is good to show detail through the whole image in an encyclopedic picture. Blur is good for artistic pics, but sharpness is necessary here. It depends on the use of the image. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not at all. It depends on the photographer's decision. It's hard for me to understand what makes you believe that the whole object should be in focus. Using that shallow depth of field and having this bokeh was created intentionally. Using a larger aperture would provide insufficient optical resolution and therefore less sharpness. The faded label does not provide a distinct sharpness. Yet one can estimate the focal point when looking at the Mummia atop of the box. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - what Details do you expect on the rear of this box? --LC-de (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was answering to a question in general terms, of why people usually gives a negative vote on this page, with shallow depth of field as the reason for it. I did not oppose, even if I must say I would have liked it more focused on this white background, through the whole image even if there's nothing to see - a matter of personal taste. --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playful girl on a False Bay beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 11:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Julia W
Support — Julia\^talk 11:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice. But what would the encyclopedic use of the pic be? Also chromatic aberrations present, and looks like noise reduction was too strongly applied. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noise reduction was applied to the sky only. I think you may be seeing haze in the distance? Julia\^talk 09:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow, nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to illustrate quite a few things about this locality - presence of sandy beach, presence of haze, water apparently too cold or too dangerous to swim, rocks that pose problems to navigation, human attempt to address this problem (lighthouse). And is that the other side of the bay in the distance there, or an island? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Other side of the bay. No islands that big in the bay. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice, but nothing special. --PAULOGARCIA2005 (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per PAULOGARCIA2005 –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Expressive--Miguel Bugallo 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Pudelek (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose water, only water--Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good --Katarighe (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not special --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Avenue Belfast2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 11:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Detroit Publishing Co. - uploaded and edited by Durova - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 11:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 11:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the sky.--Claus (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice illustration, and although the "wow" not that strong, it helps the topic balance given the very low number of streetlife FPCs. --ELEKHH^T 12:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine photo. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Elekhh. --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Speculative color correction removed all of the characteristic tones of the photochrom process. Also the attribution is incorrect, this is an image by Photochrom Zürich, not the Detroit Publishing Co. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a reference and if yes, correct the attribution? --ELEKHH^T 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trongphu (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Roquemartine 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 21:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Corbelle - uploaded by Sarang - nominated by Sarang -- sarang사랑 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- sarang사랑 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The resolution ist to small, minimum 2MP - Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

,

File:Adi Holzer Werksverzeichnis 899 Satchmo (Louis Armstrong).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 01:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created: Original work: Adi Holzer 2002, Photograph: Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler-- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have so few recent art works, and this one is nice, and the file is of good quality. Yann (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, but we have already two featured pictures from this artist, and frankly, I think we could maybe try to find another one, kind enough to upload reproductions of his pictures in Commons... --Jebulon (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 09:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -With respect, Лиза Безушко (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trongphu (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fleur de givre.tif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 17:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Annick MONNIER| - uploaded by Annick MONNIER| - nominated by Annick MONNIER| -- Cquoi 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cquoi 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Nice photo, but wrong format. Please renominate it with a JPEG format. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TIFF is used by a variety of institutions over PNG for obvious reasons, despite our current policy. Given this image was taken in RAW mode, a TIFF is suitable. In addition a JPG can be helpful for people who are not technically able to handle TIFF. Both formats are helpful with respect to future possible reusers. Afaik there is no statement on formats in our FPC guideline. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other version featured now. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fleur de givre L.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 21:07:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Annick MONNIER - uploaded by Annick MONNIER - nominated by Annick MONNIER -- Cquoi 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cquoi 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp where it needs to be and subtle where it doesn't. Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 13:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Perfect DOF for the subject NJR_ZA (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conrado (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Nekredebla![reply]
Support --LC-de (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WB was better in the other picture imo. This one looks too magentish. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Sasha Krotov (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool :)--David საქართველო 08:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Royalbroil 22:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW!Trongphu (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chepry (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Haetera piera - Ptari tepuy - Gran Sabana.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 01:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PAULOGARCIA2005 (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The fact it is in a natural setting is a major plus for me.Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 19:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, imo the image quality is far below the actual macro bar and I also don't like the "messy" background — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leviathan1983 (talk • contribs) 20:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
- It could be helpful to show the BF transparency in this case, maybe it mitigates. --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But a more blurry background would show the transparency the same way. --mathias K 23:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Too much leaf. Would support the cropped version. --WikedKentaur (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --WikedKentaur (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Done, image also has less distractions now. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the background and would love the id of the Melastomaceae it's sitting on. พ.s. 11:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trongphu (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Leviathan1983 --Citron (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conrado (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Question ¿Cuál es la subespecie? Conrado (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- La sub-especie es piera también (es decir Haetera piera piera), que es la única sub-especie que se encuentra en Venezuela, y primera Haetera identificada de todas, alrededor del año 1750. Existen otras 5 sub-especies entre las cuales la Haetera piera negra o Haetera piera diaphana, pero se encuentran en países como Perú, Colombia y Brasil. Espero te haya servido, saludos. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 03:30:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Helix Nebula (also known as The Helix, NGC 7293, or Caldwell 63) is a large planetary nebula (PN) located in the constellation Aquarius. The Helix has often been referred to as the Eye of God on the Internet, since about 2003.
With a resolution 16,000 × 16,000 and a filesize ~~37.15~~ 246.9 MB this is one of the best (if not the best) images of the Helix nebula.
Image was nominated before but I do feel it deserves another go given the upload of improved version by Tryphon since the nominaiton.

Info created by NASA/ESA - uploaded by とある白い猫 & Tryphon (improved version)& Ready (largest version) - nominated by とある白い猫 -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 03:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although there is another featured version of this file, I feel this one is superior. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 03:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Wahhhh. Amazing! But wait, I can see HUGE pixels... so what are those 37 Mb for if resolution is not that good in the end? Takes hours to open, but I could open in 10 sec a similar file with almost the same res I think, am I wrong? --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same image. Compared to the 2004 version (the other image) way more effort was given to the creation of this image due to a meteor storm so it is more accurate I believe. You'll notice old image has more "red" and colors are actually off in other ways as well.

Story: "Valuable Hubble observing time became available during the November 2002 Leonid meteor storm. To protect the spacecraft, including HST's precise mirror, controllers turned the aft end into the direction of the meteor stream for about half a day. Fortunately, the Helix Nebula was almost exactly in the opposite direction of the meteor stream, so Hubble used nine orbits to photograph the nebula while it waited out the storm. To capture the sprawling nebula, Hubble had to take nine separate snapshots."

Mind that the source image is a 285.99 MB TIFF file which unfortunately isn't as easy to carry to Wikipedia. I will try to upload a better copy though as I am downloading this TIFF. The pixels are the detail Hubble is capable of. Aside from looking good the pixel color differences gives us better clue on how the material is distributed in the planetary nebula (back when I first uploaded it, my computer had less ram than the size of the TIFF file). So it is supposed to be pixelated when zoomed in too much I believe.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the massive pixels are a product of low quality JPG. I'll be working on this right away. The better quality version is at 4shared.com, though I am not sure if devs will agree to upload it here yet. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 13:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File is now 246.9 MB and I hope the huge pixel problem is resolved now. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I still see huge pixels, but now the image is way higher in size, which requires even more time to open. That's probably not the way to solve the issue, it's not a matter of compression of the tiff, nor the fact that the file was made out of 9 separate images. If I have a photo of 2 by 2 px of information and make it larger I can now have a lot more pixels, but the information is gonna be only 4 pixels, in 4 squares, repeating themselves. I'm not adding quality/information to the file, only weight. That's what appears to be happening here. As for the second upload, I think 250 Mb is really too much, you probably want to revert the picture to its previous size of 37 Mbs. Just an opinion. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced size is reduced quality in this case though. I do not believe there are giant squares anymore. There are subtle differences in pixels, the difference is small due to the increased resolution. Are you sure it isn't a setting issue? I am not sure if I understand your concern completely. I thought I did which is why I went to great lengths to upgrade quality. :/ -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 12:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I still see them, even refreshing the file. I don't know, could be a setting issue... it never happened to me before, even on large panos of approx. 100 Mbs. But I'm not sure, it could be a problem on my computer, that's why I'm not opposing. Maybe we can get an opinion from another user. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file is using what came from NASA/ESA/Hubble. I have not increased the resolution artificially by stretching the image. :) Mind you we do not really expect the viewer to view the file full. I am unaware of any computer that can display in 16k by 16k resolution. :) When you downscale the file down to screen size or printable size it should not show pixelization of any kind. If the person wants to print this image into a poster the size of the ones in times square, it should still not show pixels. High resoluition allows this. What it also allows is if someone wants to zoom to a specific point and crop that detail as the very center could be of great importance like here. If the file is downscaled down to 3k by 3k pixels it would loose that kind of detail.
By the way the individual stars you see may be pixelated as they are out of focus. The stars and the nebula are light years apart (literally). The object (nebula) you see is about 2.87 lightyears wide (~2,715,171,650,000 kilometers or ~1,687,129,450,000 miles) so it would take you 2.87 years to get to one side to the other if you are traveling at the speed of light!

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome stuff :) Crazy numbers. --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give you a better idea, the nearest star to the Sun is Alpha Centauri C which is 4.24 light years away making the nebula's radius ~0.677/10ths the distance to there. Indeed the numbers are crazy. :) -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support WOW! Yann (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conrado (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC). For the glory of G-d![reply]
Support I love astronomy.Trongphu (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problems, and beautiful and educational image. --Claritas (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:JFK library Stitch Crop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 03:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fcb981 - derivative by MickStephenson - nominated by Elekhh -- ELEKHH^T 03:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ELEKHH^T 03:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that «designed by the studio of the architect I. M. Pei» should be added in the description.--MrPanyGoff 07:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added architect. Please always feel free to improve descriptions, or add other languages. --ELEKHH^T 07:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and added french description.--Jebulon (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, large dark foreground, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Half of image are empty, just blue sky. Sasha Krotov (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No wow or speciality. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nathan Phillips square - Toronto.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 05:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment strong brown cast, also a stitching problem. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But they were twins!! I saw them... - joking of course - I'm working on it. The brown cast though... I wouldn't know how to fix it. I'll try some WB and local desat. Let's get to work. Thanks. --Paolo Costa (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I uploaded an alternative version with adjusted colours, see File:Nathan Phillips square - Toronto - CN.jpg. Maybe it's better? And, yeah, the twins :-) I know that stitching issue very well (e.g. File:Landesmuseum, Rathaus Emden-3.jpg with triplets)... In this image it isn't so bad, but if you can fix it... Good luck! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I fixed the stitching error and reduced a bit of brown tint. ~~But I think it can still be improved~~. I tried more WB variations but the outcome is just too blueish or greenish. This is the version I like the most. --Paolo Costa (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything ok, a nice work. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Despite being born there I am not a fan of TO but this is still a rather nice capture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--P0lyzoarium (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Toronto-rama!! Daniel Case (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trongphu (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rhinogobius flumineus(Hamamatsu,Shizuoka,Japan).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 19:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Seotaro - uploaded by Seotaro - nominated by p0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Citron (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Sasha Krotov (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would have preferred a little extra lead room, but otherwise good. --99of9 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 09:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trongphu (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint-Petersburg-Mosque,-dome.jpg[edit]

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

Dome of the St.-Petersburg cathedral mosque. The mosque was erected per 1909-1920 under the project of architect N. V.Vasileva with the assistance of engineer S.S.Krichinsky and the architect A. I. fon Gauguin's background.

Info created & uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just enough Support The crop could be better. --Ritchyblack (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Crop, angle, assymmetry, WB too blue. --201.208.169.81 14:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not signed in. Tomer T (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proponuję przyciąć do samej kopuły, ponieważ "żabia perspektywa" deformuje. Poaz tym bardzo mi się podoba. Albertus teolog (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Tomer T (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - He suggested cropping to show only dome Bulwersator (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antalya Side Apollo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 20:28:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Saffron Blaze - uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Saffron Blaze -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful, comparative size. --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light. I really like the composition (esp. with the woman), but there are too many unpleasant shadows.

--kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you don't like my photgraphy as evidence by the long history of negative votes but there is nothing bad about the light. Some might say the shadows add a bit of drama. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Harsh shadows because taken at the wrong time of the day. It would be better if taken with the sun at your back. Royalbroil 22:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Brilliant advice...wish I thought of that.Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I see nothing wrong in shadows + per Ritchyblack Bulwersator (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calocochlia festiva 02.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 11:22:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work, as usual. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Like the arrangement. Royalbroil 22:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Sasha Krotov (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfectly --Ritchyblack (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Can't believe my eyes.Trongphu (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, but no wow factor...--Citron (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors !--Jebulon (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chepry (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Durham Ranger salmon fly.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 12:07:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if the motive has several black / dark parts, it's not good and useful to choose a black background IMO. So not a featured picture to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Strking image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the black backgound make the wow-effect --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The difference from the hook to the background is too little. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please provide a reference that can be used to verify and reproduce the pattern. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This do? http://www.bestclassicsalmonflies.com/differences_durham_ranger.html

Support--Jebulon (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad background --P0lyzoarium (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the black background, it is key to making the colors pop out at the viewer. Royalbroil 22:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support พ.s. 11:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trongphu (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Floury Baker cicada side.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 13:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's interesting how it naturally is somewhat camouflaged. Royalbroil 22:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 09:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PAULOGARCIA2005 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture for organism.Trongphu (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I say yes --Citron (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 01:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rockefeller Center, December 1933.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 08:30:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by w:en:Samuel H. Gottscho - uploaded by Michel Vuijlsteke - nominated by Elekhh -- ELEKHH^T 08:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ELEKHH^T 08:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 79 years old! Achird (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support! -- MJJR (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 00:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a historical document it is valuable, no doubt about that. As an FP candidate is sucks big time. พ.s. 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You might not like the mood or the tension between light and darkness, or simply not like any historic photo, but if you don't explain nobody will understand. --ELEKHH^T 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only thing that sucks is your inappropriate use of the English language. Wetenschatje, insulting other people's photographies is not very cricket of you. Constructive critique is welcome and I assume that even you can do better than "is sucks". Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current version. I like the scene, and the image deserves some leeway due to age, but I think it also needs further restoration work to make FP grade. There's a lot of noise, a lack of sharpness near the top of the Center, and there's an odd lighter patch flaring in from the right side (indicated with a note). --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avenue. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - needs de-noising, sharpening and some local reduction in contrast. --Claritas (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avenue. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lacks sharpness at the main focal building. Royalbroil 22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs de-noising--Miguel Bugallo 17:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Torstein (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see need for restoration here. --Lošmi (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elephant feces in the wildlife.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 09:03:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Info Now you can official write and say: this image is simply shit --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remembers me this one, never assessed in the QIC page...:/...;)--Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See the shade: Unnatural color (perhaps too saturated) and chromatic noise. In adition, chromatic noise in all the object IMO--Miguel Bugallo 17:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lmbuga, please read the article: Color temperature and then you understand the "blue shadow" areas. I can mail you my RAW file too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only can read the spanish version (too little version) and I think the same, sorry--Miguel Bugallo 00:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen something like this in a picture mine not oversaturated. In the shade there are green colors, violet colors, blue colors...!: Excessive to me--Miguel Bugallo 00:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The shade is not a valid reason to oppose. I see nothing wrong with this picture.Trongphu (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the shade (or shadow) is a demonstration that the image is oversaturated IMO--Miguel Bugallo 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Brackenheim (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let us not argue about this shit. Shit Happens ;-) --Ritchyblack (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wow for me--Umnik (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Umnik, nothing so special for FP. --Karelj (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid Miguel is right. The shadow does look really weird. But also the top left corner, and the dung looks too reddish and oversaturated. There's also some chroma noise. --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original shot wasn't "tick sharp" and the well executed sharpening process can't change that fact. Moreover the chromatic noise in the dark areas as mentioned by others reduce the images' quality. Please consider using {{Retouched picture}} to point out the changes done to the image. Great idea for a featured picture btw. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't retouched. It is simple an other second image, taken some seconds later.
I withdraw my nomination I withdraw this image for now. I try to rework it new, perhaps without chromatic noise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mergus octosetaceus.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 18:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A male specimen of Mergus octosetaceus, Brazilian bird considered critically endangered. It is estimated that only 250 individuals remaining in the wild; created by Sávio Freire Bruno, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado.
Support Conrado (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Conrado (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size, quality and crop. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this image with 1,4 MPx resolution does not meat the minimum size criteria of at least 2 MPx --LC-de (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Info But the image has 3,37 MPx! Conrado (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the filesize is 3,37 MB, but the image size is 1.452 × 946 pixels = ~1.373.600 pixels = ~1,37 mega pixels < 2 Mpx. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my ignorance! Conrado (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chairs freeze in Winter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 15:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dipankan001 - uploaded by Dipankan001 - nominated by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeToo dark, Perspective distortion, left chair is missing snow, traces of cars and persons are disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary snapshot. Nothing to feature. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --Katarighe (Talk) 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shillong parrot.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 15:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dipankan001 - uploaded by Dipankan001 - nominated by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because ot the flash shadow, and the cropped tail. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, unsharp, nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --Ritchyblack (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cropped tail and harsh flash. --ELEKHH^T 05:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mastle y la Odles.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 21:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love that picture --Llorenzi (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support me too. --LC-de (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too underexposed Cathy Richards (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Pardon me, could you please point out the underexposed parts of the image? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect the grey clouds and yellowish snow make one wonder as they should be lit up by the sun. Regardless, you should take care of the dust spot just above Sas Rigais. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the magic of the evening, when the path of the sunlight is much more intriguing - thanks for thw dustspot!--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Trongphu (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Beautiful colors/scenery, but most of the picture is in shade, and when you open the file full size you see artifacts in the sky, and the rock is not very sharp.--Paolo Costa (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Paolo Costa. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Do I have to understand that only pictures in full sunshine are eligible for FP? The artifacts can be fixed. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:AMG Mercedes-Benz C204 (DTM).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 06:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not votes anybody ? Pro - ~~Contra~~ opposed, as you think, but nothing at all, very strange --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good otherwise but there is something with the crop that bothers me. I feel it's too tight. --Ximonic (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - They must feel like its close to FP standards but have no specific criticisms. Royalbroil 22:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chepry (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like the car, and I don't like the crop. / Achird (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hindu Bride, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 06:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image with high educational value --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rich in color and detail; tells us so much. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sfu (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the harsh flash light.. but the image is nice as a composition and has high EV. Ggia (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePoor light, poor background. พ.s. 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As พ.s. and a bit oversharpened--Miguel Bugallo 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not oversharpened. Yann (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support same as all the support above.Trongphu (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be better... --Citron (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little of a person's arm is seen on left border and distracting background. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Arrecife. Lanzarote-36.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 19:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 19:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 19:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The horizon is a very very little bit tilted clockwise.--Jebulon (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The technical quality is ok, but I miss that certain something qualifying it for a FP. --LC-de (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks. New version (not tilted now, I think)--Miguel Bugallo 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome quality. Nice water color! --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the perspective on it with the centred pillar. Orderinchaos (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per LC-de. Tomer T (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral superb quality, very nice light and colours, but I miss the wow, too, and that woman walking upstairs..... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 02:05:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Steinway & Sons - uploaded by Fanoftheworld - nominated by Fanoftheworld -- Fanoftheworld (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a newly uploaded photo of the known concert grand piano, D-274, by the world-famous piano company, Steinway & Sons. Both the concert grand piano, D-274, and the company, Steinway & Sons, have their own large articles on Wikipedia: Steinway & Sons and Steinway D-274. For years, I have been looking for good photos of pianos and esspecially of Steinway pianos and this new photo is undoubtedly the best photo of a piano I have found. I am happy that this photo now can be used legally in Wikimedia projects like Commons and Wikipedia. This photo is of high resolution, clear, crisp and detailed, no noise, well-exposed and the piano is photographed from a very good angle. I have read the Commons:Image guidelines and as I see it this new photo is a featured picture. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fanoftheworld (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect. -- -donald- (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support professional studio environment. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per many of the comments. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very nice, but shouldn't be in .png format. --Claritas (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Claritas. --WikedKentaur (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – What about we just change the ".png format" to ".jpg format"? Do anyone know how to do this the easiest way? I have already a file in ".jpg format" with the same photo. (By the way, I fail to understand what is wrong with ".png format"). --Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – I've just compared this photo in ".png format" to the same photo in ".jpg format" and it does definitely look best in ".png format". --Fanoftheworld (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That could just be a bad conversion. What jpeg compression level was used? --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support With so much pure-white space, and sharp edges to black, I think png actually might be better than jpg for this. Both in terms of compression, and artifacts. --99of9 (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - I'm of the school of thought that .jpg is always better than .png for photographs. It makes images quicker to load, which improves the user experience, and if compression is done properly, there won't be much noticeable information loss at full resolution.--Claritas (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support png format, jpg format ... what is the difference? If you need a JPG format, then upload it simple. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trongphu (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Support Per 99of9. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Superb, brilliant quality. I love it. I've always loved pianos. Absolutely brilliant. This image just blew me away. Although I also think you should convert this image to JPG. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Africa from low orbiting satellite Suomi NPP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 06:54:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/NOAA - uploaded and nominated by Techman224 -- Techman224^Talk 06:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Techman224^Talk 06:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too prominent artifacts in the image. The earth hasn't these bright stripes in reality. --LC-de (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info As for those four vertical lines: That’s the reflection of sunlight off the ocean, or “glint,” that VIIRS captured as it orbited the globe.
- Yes, I know. And there are four stripes, because this image is a composition of several pictures taken by the satellite at various places, normally there would be only one area. So it's artificial and not even useful to explain the "glint". Btw. explaining the flaw doesn't improve the image. --LC-de (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the atypical angle. The description of the lines being sunlight reflection makes sense to me. Royalbroil 22:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not the real photo, no stars.Sasha Krotov (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No star doesn't mean it's not real lol. You know with our technology today, we can easily take out the background if we want to.Trongphu (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very impressive techinique in stiching. Although sun reflection from four visible passes of the satellite over the Planet makes the picture looking odd and unnatural. The fact that it's a stich is not a problem for me, but parts of pictures with sun reflection in the oceans should be avoided (I don't know it that was possible though). Also I'm not very sure if everything went fully correct while calculating the resulting image. When looking at the famous blue marble picture form Apollo (which didn't required stiching as it was taken far enough from the Earth) we can see that there is a big part of Antarctica visible. I suppose the purpose of the author was to create a picture of Earth as seen form a similar point as the one Apollo 17 was in 1972. In 2012 picture we can see only some coast on Antarctica, while in Apollo's quite a large part, including South Pole. In other words South Pole should be visible in a picure taken from very high above a point on the Earth south of the equator and it doesn't seem to be here (at least far enough from the horizon). --sfu (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the techniques. It doesn't look like a normal Earth doesn't mean it is not beauty. After all it is still our home, the best place in the world so far.Trongphu (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I agree, home-sweet-home. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Gnan garra 03:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Babboon says Phhhbt Mysore07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 06:36:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by VasuVR -- VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now this can be used wherever you would like to say :P.

Support -- VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The noise and the sharpness foil the funny motif. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yikrazuul. Tomer T (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yikrazuul. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Hasn't got the material for FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Gnan garra 03:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chateau Versailles Galerie des Glaces.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 19:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Myrabella - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and quality, lots of wow too. --LC-de (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting doesn't convince me 100%... but I was there and I can say this picture reproduces very well the atmosphere of the chateau. EV is high, quality ok for me, and there is wow factor - the place itself is a huge wow.--Paolo Costa (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per LC-de --David საქართველო 19:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as author. Thank you for this nomination! --Myrabella (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as supporter/fan beside the author, I was there this nice day. Great shot indeed, Myrabella! Happy to be the seventh !--Jebulon (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots of visual drama and well executed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. — Raghith 10:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very complex, rich in colour. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Gnan garra 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chris Rea 03 AB.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 06:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by / uploaded by / nominated by -- Chepry (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Chris Rea during the Santo Spirito Tour; concert at Sala Kongresowa, Warsaw, Poland on February 5, 2012
Support -- Chepry (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me it is too dark and noisy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I share Yikrazuul's feeling that it is too dark. But the main problem is that the image is not nitid at all. I can see too much motion blur in the guitar . --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose focus problems, unsharp Cathy Richards (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Just too dark. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diomedea exulans in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 21:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison -- JJ Harrison (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, well executed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 01:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Raghith 10:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brilliant composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support / Achird (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Gnan garra 03:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jerusalem Dominus flevit BW 2010-09-20 07-01-11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 16:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info File:Jerusalem Dominus flevit BW 1.JPG is already featured, but I think this one is better. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like this one better too.Trongphu (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better indeed. If promoted, maybe should we delist the previous one ?--Jebulon (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- if promoted: yes. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice frame --Schnobby (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one, remove the other one. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad! --Karelj (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Not bad at all. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Gnan garra 03:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Light painting gnangarra-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 17:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Gnangarra -- Gnan garra 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnan garra 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but noise.--Claus (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's to be useful for an encyclopedia, you should explain how you produced the picture. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
see w:Light Painting for the encyclopaedic information. Gnan garra 03:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've denoised the sky. Feel free to revert if you don't like it Gnangarra. --99of9 (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks,it looks fine to me Gnan garra 03:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see you around again. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 07:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support good lighting Cathy Richards (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Orderinchaos (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Textbook example of light painting. Royalbroil 22:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful.Trongphu (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite nice, illustrates the end result of light painting very well. Lankiveil (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it's up there. --99of9 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Gnan garra 03:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Mergus octosetaceus 2.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 00:19:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A male specimen of Mergus octosetaceus, Brazilian bird considered critically endangered. It is estimated that only 250 individuals remaining in the wild; created by Sávio Freire Bruno, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado.
Support Conrado (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC). And now, actually more than 2 mpx.[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, upper crop too tight. --Cayambe (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not sharp enough, blurry. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Gnan garra 03:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Painted Stork in Flight 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 06:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:VasuVR - uploaded by User:VasuVR - nominated by User:VasuVR -- VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the photo, I know how dfficult it is to get birds in flight but its not FP, this is dull and the bird isnt in focus especially the head Gnan garra 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Head not in focus. --ELEKHH^T 20:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. –Makele-90 (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Gnan garra 03:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palace of tsar Alexey Mihajlovicha in Kolomenskoe-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 10:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PAULOGARCIA2005 (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. "Турки строят муляжи Святой Руси за полчаса..." Ю. Данилевский (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Main object of picture (as per the name of picture) seems to one side and rest is distracting. Nothing special. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I don't think it could be an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Gnan garra 03:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peasant Woman Cooking by a Fireplace.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 22:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vincent van Gogh - uploaded by Claritas - nominated by Claritas -- Claritas (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claritas (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not one of his best works in my opinion... but this is still a good reproduction of a Van Gogh, with high EV and quality. --Paolo Costa (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Trongphu (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support EV in peasant series and resolution --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Gnan garra 03:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pileated Woodpecker Ash RWD2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 15:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:DickDaniels - uploaded by User:DickDaniels - nominated by User:DickDaniels -- DickDaniels (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DickDaniels (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conrado (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC). The real Woodpecker![reply]
Oppose sorry, this bird is unsharp, false focus. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a real pity, but Alchemist is right. The bird is clearly out of focus. Otherwise it is a very nice picture --LC-de (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others. –Makele-90 (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sad oppose. Nice image, but per others. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Gnan garra 03:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Wedding Stockholm 2010-Slottsbacken-05 edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 23:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Prolineserver - uploaded by Prolineserver - nominated by Katarighe -- Katarighe (Talk) 23:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Katarighe (Talk) 23:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not the good file to be nominated. The better should be, perhaps, this one.--Jebulon (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is replaced. --Katarighe (Talk) 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you don't mind, I added image notes to illustrate the photo. You can undo my action if it feels not good to the picture. --Katarighe (Talk) 16:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Conrado (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC). The maternal grandmother of the Princess was Brazilian! That's cool![reply]
Support good image--David საქართველო 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info - I think this one - currently the lead image in the wedding article - is the best one. A pity his hand is slightly over his face, but considering that this is a one-time-only event, I think it's a great photo and I decide to nominate here as a FP yesterday. --Katarighe (Talk) 22:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everyone can use a bit of bright and cheery. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I hope that wasn't meant as an argument for making it a FP. As someone who was forced to pay for this wedding I don't find it cheery in any way, but like your comment that has nothing to do with the quality of the picture. / Achird (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No, bright and cheery was a statement of fact. Other facts include high EV, well executed and a bit of wow. As to the cost... surely outweighed by short and longer term economic benefits. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is actually featured on the English Wikipedia proof. The photo is selected to as POTY for June 19th, 2012 on en.wiki. --Katarighe (Talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. — Raghith 10:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I wouldn't say I didn't like this image, but I don't do like it either. I think an image of the Royal Wedding with Kate and William would be better. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Gnan garra 03:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC); added "alternative"--miya (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:Royal Wedding Stockholm 2010-Slottsbacken-05 edit.jpg

File:Tallinn - Town Hall Square (Raekoja plats).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 14:09:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture but, too much distortion and the left side is too dark for me. To much contrast. --Ritchyblack (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ładne i wartościowe. Albertus teolog (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too noisy, and i don't like this many people in the picture, unbalance. I don't like the left side either.Trongphu (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
too noisy? where?? --Pudelek (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I wouldn't say noisy, but is quite contrasted. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Gnan garra 03:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Temple Square, Salt Lake City, 1899 retouched.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 01:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Henry Jackson - retouched by Tom dl - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 01:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 01:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment link to source doesnt work Gnangarra 01:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed ■ MMXX ^talk 01:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 04:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition: tight framing on the bottom, 1:1 sky-earth ratio. --ELEKHH^T 20:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Guys, come on, this is 113 years old! Yann (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Orderinchaos (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent quality for its age. Royalbroil 22:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice one!Trongphu (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose per Elekhh: I don't like composition and crop. It's an old image, but it's not the only one. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Gnan garra 03:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Tipula oleracea female (Linnaeus 1758).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 00:39:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you please add some scale to better understand the dimensions? --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Paolo Costa. The body length by the Tipula oleracea female is 26 mm. I have no possibility to add some scala. Maybe somebody can help me. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support,Sasha Krotov (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added a note, can crop the top?--Sasha Krotov (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please add notes on the nomination page, not here... It is impossible to click to open the file in the zone you delimitated--Jebulon (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows too dark. Indirect light would be better. The sharpness is perfect. --Ritchyblack (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support not perfect but in my opinion feature pictures don't need to be perfect. After all nothing is perfect in this world.Trongphu (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows too dark and I don't like the detail, I don't like the quality of the sharpness--Miguel Bugallo 01:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadow too strong, disturbing IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Interesting subject, shadow could be improved, and a crop should be made. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Gnan garra 03:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Titanacris picticrus picticrus MHNT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 22:47:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superbe !--Jebulon (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon. --Cayambe (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive --Llez (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing image! --AlphaEta (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would make a great POTD. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support vorbildlich --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Superb. Brilliant pic. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Gnan garra 03:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ST-UBB - Clément Poitrenaud (essai).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 22:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PierreSelim - uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by Berru -- Berru (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice and sharp high speed sport shot. -- Berru (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Face down... not recognisable. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Three players have parts of their bodies cut off, which spoils the image, sorry..
Comment Thank you for the nomination, however I'm really not sure it's a feature picture material (referee and sound man beheaded, and Yves Donguy has lost his left leg and arm). PierreSelim (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Doesn't seem good enough for an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kukoboy temple.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2012 at 08:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivengo(RUS) - uploaded by Ivengo(RUS) - nominated by Ivengo(RUS) -- Ivengo(RUS) (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivengo(RUS) (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info it's tilted counterclockwise. --Ritchyblack (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Even if a nice temple, the sky is blown. --201.208.169.81 12:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to log in to vote. Yann (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice temple --Katarighe (Talk) 16:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a silicate brick 100 years of age? The site of the village said that the white and blue bricks for lining taken from Finland. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it!Trongphu (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting building but image has poor lighting and lacks sharpness. --ELEKHH^T 05:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Elekhh. --Karelj (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not so sharp. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lynx lynx2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 20:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Marcus Pietrzak - uploaded by Mpiet - nominated by Nicolat95 -- Nicolat95 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolat95 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a very nice picture but it doesn't meet the size requirements (<2MPX) Tomer T (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: size < 2MPX Tomer T (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Culicivora caudacuta.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 17:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A specimen of Culicivora caudacuta, Brazilian bird considered vulnerable in the Red List; created by Sávio Freire Bruno, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado.
Oppose distracting background. Tomer T (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... and the tip of the tail is out of focus. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Out of focus, sorry. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bonaparte premier Consul Gérard Chantilly.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 01:50:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by François Gérard - uploaded & nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Napoléon Bonaparte, as First Consul of the French Republic, Feb. 1803. On display at Musée Condé of Château de Chantilly, France. Photo taken by the nominator.-- Jebulon (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High educational value. :). TrebleSeven (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Borboletas em Mini-Dálias.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 18:33:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Five butterflies in five Dahlia flowers; created, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado. Conrado (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conrado (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and beautiful, for the first time i saw all 4 butterflies on the flowers in the same picture.Trongphu (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and blurry, the flowers as well as the butterflies --Llez (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality just not enough for FP. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better don't zoom in...--Yikrazuul (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exocoetus volitans.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 15:01:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gervais & Boulart - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool looking fish, it seems like a drawing picture to me.Trongphu (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is...--Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor colors, no wow at all for me, would like it more sharpened. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Nice drawing, how can it be even more sharpened? TrebleSeven (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Goddess Bhadrakali Worshipped by the Gods- from a tantric Devi series - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 12:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 17th century Basholi artist, Google Art Project - latest version uploaded by Redtigerxyz - nominated by Redtigerxyz -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Yann (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice art work.Trongphu (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brilliant educational value. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crocus tommasinianus LC0031.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 09:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Tommasini's crocus (Crocus tommasinianus); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good enough for me. Use of DOF, composition, sharpness. Direct sunlight might be a minus in some cases, yet here I think it is a plus. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gratulon pro la momento! Conrado (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful pic. Identified sp., has EV, nice atmosphere, good composition. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just not clicking with me. I find the ground and background distracting. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Gambliel, nothing special. --Karelj (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is too cluttered, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Bit blurry at the back, per Cayambe. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurred flower in the foreground spoils the composition Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose uniteresting composition, bad light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Šmarjetna gora 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 08:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Meho29 - uploaded by Meho29 - nominated by Meho29 -- Mihael Grmek (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the subject/what would the educational value be? --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support. -- Raghith 10:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very pleasant, nice place to go to forget your troubles. Brilliant pic. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TrebleSeven Cathy Richards (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberration --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. --Miguel Bugallo 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten and no Wow --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:20081206 Alexandros Grigoropoulos december 2008 riots Sina Street Athens Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 12:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Ggia - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This B&W picture appears timeless ; the grain and stark contrast from the film, along with the make of the car (a Jeep...), had me wonder wether it was truly from 2008. It also has an eerie feeling, as if the burned down and turned over body of the car was floating above the ground. Truly worth being featured, according to me. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conrado (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC). Impressive, a tribute.[reply]
Support !!! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request @Ggia: maybe you could add some infos about your used camera and the settings of the image? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportAt full size it's very noisy and I get the feeling the jeep could be more focused. Anyways, I am not opposing since I am aware of the difficulty of all the conditions and It still is a wonderful pic, with a huge wow (the light just above the car is perfect).--Paolo Costa (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dr.Haus (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer finds another nuggest of gold. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info I am really impressed that you like this image since it is an image from film, having some grain - and noise-grainy images are usually rejected for being FPC ;-). According to my negative notes it is shot by FM2 Nikon, Kodak Tri-X 400ASA (Shot at 400ASA), D76 developer 1 (stock) + 1 (water), 11 minutes @ 20Celsius. Shoting during the night (without flash) and with 400ASA film you need to have open diafragm and the depth of field is quite limited (you can see it at the image). I uploaded this image on December 2011 remembering the December 2008 riots without thinking that this can be a FPC. Ggia (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Paolo Costa Cathy Richards (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Raghith 10:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good, very vintage. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Nice to see someone shooting in the only true raw format.--ArildV (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Beautiful autumn day.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 16:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photos public domain - uploaded by Dipankan001 - nominated by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp and oversaturated. Take a look to the sky: you see chromatic noise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Over-saturated. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glass of red wine.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 15:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photos Public Domain - uploaded by Dipankan001 - nominated by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilted and dictracting background. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise, not sharp and what is the encyclopaedic value? --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not so sharp, the background is a little bit distracting, per others. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ice cream van, Helsinki (Helsingfors).JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 12:42:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Simply an image of an ice-cream van, nothing special. It's not even sharp enough. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TrebleSeven. Tomer T (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad cut, simple and boring centered composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mtbromo.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 11:25:15

Info Unsharp, chromatic aberration (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is an image from 2002! Ant the main: it is a bit chromatic noise, not CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since it was a one-off event, it cannot be retaken. So, like historic images, if it was featured according to the technical criteria of the time, I think it should stay featured. If the volcano was not erupting, I would have voted to delist. --99of9 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Katarighe (Talk) 00:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Automeris caterpillar.jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Aleks G (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark details of caterpillar and branch eliminated by the black background. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Karelj (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bold image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. Bad black colored background work. Otherwise nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp, oppose only due to the "bad" black background.--Jebulon (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark image--David საქართველო 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The background isn't good enough. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background is OK: better than white or green one. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As kaʁstn--Miguel Bugallo 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 08:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by US Department of Commerce, restored and nominated by Yann (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Woman operating a card puncher. Image from the US National Archives and Records Administration.
Support -- Yann (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible to remove the white line around the head?--Sasha Krotov (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done ■ MMXX ^talk 23:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yann (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is an example of a nice old image. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)S[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Sasha Krotov (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Econt (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jovian Eye _storm 12:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Hallstaviks kyrka January 2011d.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 19:42:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by ArildV -- ArildV (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! / Achird (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow at all. It is simply a well executed picture of a church. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Saffron Blaze. --Karelj (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Architecture is under-appreciated on FP in my opinion. This has serene mood all around, with a good combination of lighting and snow-dusting. Technically, it is sharp, with correct perspective, and minimal noise. The composition is great, with high EV, no distracting elements, and the eye is led right into the door. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nothing wrong with it, nice composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dull colors and visible CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaveri river.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 15:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and poor license. Yann (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at about 1pm: the sky is simply too dark for me. The license is however full OK for wikipedia. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark + the crop on the right seems too tight. Tomer T (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russia. Moscow Region. Winter pine wood, lake Kratovskoe area.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 21:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impo, this is not sufficent for a featurable picture (nothing special, just trees). --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above--David საქართველო 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the image is really technically good, its interesting it shows the detail it let the viewer experience what snow looks like. Gnan garra 01:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better viewed as an artwork rather than a picture of trees. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Gnangarra. --Cayambe (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Tomer T (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters.--Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Raghith 10:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- These are superb trees, really nice composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 00:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per JJ –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dandiya Raas.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 18:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kondicherry - uploaded by Kondicherry - nominated by Kondicherry -- Kondicherry (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kondicherry (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: size is under 2MPX Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Sevilla 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 21:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Meho29, nominated by -- 80.230.5.252 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 80.230.5.252 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote. Yann (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilted, no specific point of interest Gnan garra 02:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Busy composition, unneccessary black and white reduces the educational value. --99of9 (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Tomer T (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:King penguins on South Georgia Island.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 00:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Antarctic96 - uploaded by Antarctic96 - nominated by Antarctic96 -- Antarctic96 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antarctic96 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small at 0.9MPX —Bruce1ee^talk 05:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Eilean Donan Castle Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 06:09:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice view and panorama. The only thing I am not totally happy with is the colour or saturation in the sky, but that's a minor problem. / Achird (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super. -- -donald- (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, though two people are on the bridge centre section in the reflection on the water.... Gnan garra 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good of you observed, and I have retouched badly! --Ritchyblack (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment very nice, I would support a better crop (the tree on the right is cut). PierreSelim (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Pierre-Selim. Two cm less at left, and two cm more at right...
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't understand why the two people were erased in the first place. Thierry Caro (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I like the photo without people prefer. I had been waiting a very long time that the two go on. But now came the next travel group already on the bridge. I'm standing with the feet in the water and the flood was rising. These are only temporary objects that I have removed --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this photo--David საქართველო 06:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNice.-- Raghith 10:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture!!! --Meho29 11:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice, very nice, very high quality and very pleasant to the eye. Did you use Photoshop for this?

Question -- Did you use Photoshop? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info The metadata indicates that Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows was used. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! ■ MMXX ^talk 00:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Royalbroil 03:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good nice image --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support "the reflection on the water". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khost children in 2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 11:34:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Staff Sgt. Andrew Smith (U.S armed forces), nominated by 122.169.50.222
Support --Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the composition. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice image--David საქართველო 06:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bruce1ee. Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice propaganda from the US military, but well... Yann (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Yann, except the "but well...". Parent's consents ? Personal rights warning ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid many of these children have no parents--Sasha Krotov (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann and Jebulon. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. / Achird (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice aesthetically, has EV.. of course.. US miliatary propaganda... Personal rights warning etc.. should not be arguments for a FPC IMO.. may-be for a deletion request... but not here. Ggia (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support our troops. USA! USA! USA! - But seriously, this is one of the best shots in Category:Children of Afghanistan so far. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I nominated this picture I was acutely aware that this was USM work. But despite that this work humanizes and highlights the Afghans. Secondly its hard to say 'kill all Muslims', 'bomb,bomb!' while looking at this picture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.141.235 (talk • contribs)
- So it is a non-neutral nomination with a political purpose ??--Jebulon (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wonderful picture. Really, it's a brilliant shot. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
about you comment, Commons:Featured_picture_candidates General rules: Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome.--Sasha Krotov (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind who took the photo. It's a featured picture IMO. --Dr.Haus (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is excellent. Royalbroil 02:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose License at source restricts commercial use Images uploaded to Flickr are for the free intended use for dissemination by media outlets and all other interested persons or organizations for newsworthy or educational media products. They are not, however, and in accordance to Flickr policy, to be used with the intention of reproducing and selling the images without prior consent of the releasing authority, or by extension, the photographer whose name should be included in the description. Please credit "Photo by ISAF Public Affairs" unless otherwise noted. The releasing authority is the Public Affairs Officer for ISAF Headquarters or any persons designated by the Public Affairs Officer, any of whom can be contacted at pressoffice@hq.isaf.nato.int. [1] Gnan garra 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Created by U.S. Army Photographer (not another NATO Army Photographer) which means this photo is public domain. Sasha Krotov (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not according to the source used, please link to a US military source for this image as there is nothing on the source page that identifies the photographer[2]. Gnan garra 11:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
see Exif2 Info[3], it consist all information about author. Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that just means its a copy violation at source, as such we cant link to it. Find a US military alternative Gnan garra 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tamba52 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Gnangarra's concerns. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all other contras. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 13:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Katarighe (Talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! ■ MMXX ^talk 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support thank you for the nomination --PierreSelim (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great. I like it :)--David საქართველო 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice action shot. Maybe a bit oversatured, but not sure. FP.--Jebulon (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Jebulon, and a little bit of noise, but very nice and good action shot--Miguel Bugallo 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've tried this kind of shots myself. Not easy stuff. Anyways, the moment offers a big wow in this pic. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Námafjall in summer 2009 (2).jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 18:27:26

Info Reason to delist: The smoke is quite ugly and blurry for the image and it's not even that sharp. Not impressive. (Original nomination)
Delist as nominator -- TrebleSeven (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the image is great + stability (the image was just made FP). Tomer T (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good image --Katarighe (Talk) 20:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yann (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tomer T Cathy Richards (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tomer T --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Force India 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 01:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gil Abrantes (flickr), uploaded and nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment considering that the photo was taken from far away and the car is moving at high speed picture turned out good --Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --David საქართველო 06:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition and cut isn't OK for me: to much unatractive foreground, lo less car, not enough place in front of the car. And the main: the car ist unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. / Achird (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I agree, if only the background was a little bit different. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. --ELEKHH^T 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. --Pitlane02 _talk 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - must agree with Alchemist-hp. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metropolitan opera 1937.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 10:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Information Agency - uploaded by Darwinek and AndreasPraefcke - nominated by Fanoftheworld -- Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like it, brilliant composition, good quality for a B/W image. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs more/better restoration, see image notes, just marked some of them. also image has artifacts, unlike the original TIFF, it is grainy,. ■ MMXX ^talk 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MMXX --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MMXX. But will be happy to change my vote to support if corrections are made, this is a beautiful, impressive and valuable image. It just needs a little boost to be a FP. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metropolitan Opera House, a concert by pianist Josef Hofmann - NARA 541890 - Edit.jpg, Alt version[edit]

Neutral Here is a new version, adjusted the brightness/contrast locally and globally, also removed most of the spots and scratches. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's much better. Tomer T (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps renominating it would be better, so that it gets a chance. This one's voting period is reduced at this point. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ricinus communis - Fruits.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 17:53:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Moonik (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moonik (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I find the composition too busy. Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the main: the fruits are too unsharp. The DOF is too low. The distracting background kills the composition. If we see only the sky in the background and the plant slightly tilted, then I give my full support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes the fruits are not sharp enough. But I like the composition. Vegetal elements are a bit distracting maybe, but the building surely not (IMO).--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 16:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Katarighe -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The author is one of the best heraldists in "Commons", and this work is particularly good (and "heraldicaly" correct, obviously). Very nice and difficult SVG coat of arms IMO. + Very pleasant to be seen in detail.--Jebulon (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jebulon is right --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. --Ximonic (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jovian Eye _storm 12:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vammpi (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Winterporling Polyporus brumalis.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 21:09:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it--Miguel Bugallo 22:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW factor due to the ice crust. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tamba52 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

Image:Aceros cassidix - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2011-02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 01:56:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fiorellino - uploaded by Fiorellino - nominated by Fiorellino -- Fiorellino (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fiorellino (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too tight crop, not sharp enough. Tomer T (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomer T --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great colours, I've saved this as my phone's wallpaper. --99of9 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common Jezebel Delias eucharis by kadavoor.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 09:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jkadavoor - uploaded by Jkadavoor - nominated by Jkadavoor -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe it's too noisy to be featured. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 11:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Maurilbert. And crop is really tight. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keisarinnankivi (Helsinki) - 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 12:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's not sharp enough + could be brightened. Tomer T (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop, tilt, sharpness, exposure not optimal imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Paolo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machecoul - Abbaye Notre-Dame-de-la-Chaume (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Selbymay (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Selbymay (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Tomer T (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it a bit soft ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice, good composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it a bit yellow ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp (out of focus) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. I am suprised this made it through QI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but I see too many unsharp areas at the main object. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural colours, not really sharp. --Berthold Werner (talk)
Oppose Colors not ok. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - color of the clouds and sky is perfectly plausible and natural, so I don't doubt the rest of the image is very similar in color to the actual scene at the time –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors OK for me. Yann (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The picture looks good when filling my full screen, but in full resolution it's not sharp. -- Achird (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunate composition, seems to be blurry in full resolution. --LC-de (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tropidacris collaris MHNT vol.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 22:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, huge EV. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, congratulations. --Cayambe (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support An image with a definitive wow-factor. What beautiful color and detail. --Bthv (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 19:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Je m'associe au triomphe.--Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, impressive picture. PierreSelim (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine white background. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of all Orthoptera, thank you! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corvus tasmanicus - Collinsvale.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by p0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient use of the camera's native resolution. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - "Ghostbusters" the next round :-( I my opinion it is simply unfair!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (it's a crop) JJ Harrison (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So just because the camera could have taken a higher resolution photo you oppose it? A picture is a picture, regardless of the camera that took at, am I wrong? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary. And yes, I do oppose those who limit resolution by downsampling or disproportional cropping - independent of the image. This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld. One of the major aspects to a featured picture is the way people can re-use it. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld." Yes, that's exactly the reason why we require a minimum resultion of 2 MPx. Everything above would fit that requirement. The cameras original resolution is absolutely irrelevant at this point. Arguing against the FPC is
        unfair, because this argument targets the equipment, not the image itself.
        
        stupid, because for this argument you need knowledge of the used eqipment supported only by EXIF data which can easily be changed or deleted.
      - "Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary". This is just a statement from you. In fact you don't have any clue, if the author cropped it to improve the composition or downsampled it without any strong reason. Alleging the last is again unfair and stupid. --LC-de (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What a petty reason for opposing this image. It's this kind of rule-craziness that discourages people from submitting images here. --69.225.14.10 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Peter Weis. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support a very good and valuable image. We needn't larger images for Wikipedia too!!! It is exact and perfect for the full resolution of my monitor (2560*1440 pixel). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alchemist, I simply don't care about your WQHD display setup. One of our projects targets is the re-use of images outside the wiki world and the internet. To assure the possibility of re-use in print for example, high resolution is mandatory. Since we don't know how people like to re-use images, providing the highest resolution we can is a service to them. Given a situation in which people can rely on the quality of this project, more and more re-users will be convinced by our cause and the usefulness of free licences. Again: limiting the possibility of re-use is counterproductive to this process. Other users apply nutty licence combinations to decrease the chances of commercial re-use or any other way of re-use they oppose to. Yet this is allowed so far, and therefore no valid reason to oppose. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, now we have a new rule: the "Peter Weis Rule": if the image isn't uploaded in full camera resolution then it is permissible to oppose it. --> absolutely NONSENS! "In the future I eliminate simple my EXIF Data or I manipulate it to a low resolution camera, perhaps to a 3MP Kodak DC 4800, my first photo tool." --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think equity is important, and we should apply the same standards to all nominations, regardless of camera type. We assess the qualities of an image, not the performance of the creator. Ideally, the creator's name should be hidden as long the image is under assessment, to assure fairness. --ELEKHH^T 12:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Alchemist: Despite being a timeconsuming endeavour, this would be rather useless. Since I know that you are working with a Canon 5D Mark II (SN: 530306722), and comparing the differences in terms of image quality should be possible on eye sight, feel free to do as you like. You are trying to decrease the credibility of my statement by presuming that my opposition is based on a rule, which you referred to as the "Peter Weis Rule" - why, thank you for this subtle move. The only thing that is nonsens (sic!), is your made up citation and rule. For clarification: I do oppose in this case, because the native resolution of the Canon 7D (5,184 x 3,456 pixels) was cropped disproportional. More than 50% of the image were cropped. I am fully aware that it might have been necessary to keep this distance to avoid scaring off the crow and that 700mm is already at the upper end of what most people carry around. To me a true featured picture would have been able to provide a larger resolution without cropping at large. There is no guideline that prohibits opposition to featured picture candidates. Despite the supports to this decreased resolution, you won't be able to convince me - a compromise is futile.
    - @Elekhh: I would have opposed anyone else who's cropping away that much of his native resolution - independent of the camera. The performance of the creator is what determines the quality of an image. Unregarded our desire to prevent this from being part of the decision-making process, we do considerate the performance of the creator as well. The story behind the images is critical to our evaluation, because it determines our view to the picture. Imagine a panaroma that was taken shortly before the photographer got killed by a landslide. It's just not possible to remain unbiased during this process if knowing about this. The idea is to produce arguments that are considered being objective or technical and blind out those arguments which affect us as well. In this case we don't know much about the circumstances under which the image was taken. And yes, of course my critique is directed at JJ Harisson as creator of this image and his extensive cropping. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are almost alone with your (for me) unfair opinion. Our minium requirement are 2MP for an FP image. It don't must be the fuill resolution of the camera. We can be lucky to have this image. It is much better then nothing! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Per Alchemist. / Achird (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alchemist. --Cayambe (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intriguing "crime scene", good quality. --ELEKHH^T 00:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I demand to have this at billboard HD size resolution. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alchemist. --LC-de (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice timing, deliciously done! Royalbroil 02:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- cropped image so what many FP are cropped, it a common adjustment during the FP process Gnan garra 02:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2000px is fully sufficient. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alchemist --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enjoy your meal! --Schnobby (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice image, but I also agree with the argument of Peter Weis. I think we should increase the minimum image size for QI and FI. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YES, minimum 60MP and only using of a Hasselblad H4D-60 or a better camera. We have NOW the rule of minimum 2MP, not a fantasy resolution of more. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. I can start to vote for your images with contra.[reply]
- Comment You are right, minimum 2MP is the present rule and this is why I didn't vote against this image. Please note, that I just didn't support the promotion to FI. I don't understand why you become so emotional and announce to vote against my images. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on a sustainable POV, this image will be one of the first, which could be affected due to a new rule on image resolution. Currently we delete images that fall short to the 2MP rule. Again: our current image and FPC guidelines is not the only set of valid arguments for or against images. It provides us with a set of rules that are widely accepted within the community and therefore rather uncontroversial. As of now, there is no limitation on the reasoning for opposition or support of an image. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course there is no "limitation on the reasoning", anybody is free to make an argument trying to convince others. But the statement that "currently we delete images that fall short to the 2MP rule" really confuses me, haven't seen such a rule. --ELEKHH^T 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, I should have been more specific here: delete from Featured Pictures, i.e. delist. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, let's explain again the background of this 2 MPx rule. We have a minimum size requirement, because the pictures in Commons are not intended for use in WP net projects only. This minimum size of 2MPx is widely accepted, because it fits also to bigger computer screens, different screens (2MPx ≃ 1080i HD resolution) and even to print media. (A 1600x1250 digital image equals a 13,55x10,58 cm picture using a print resolution of 300 DPI (standard in printing) which is fairly enough to provide reasonable good article illustration in a book.) You can suggest a higher minimum resolution and discuss this on the discussion page. Unless we don't have a new minimum size requirement the increasing sensor resolution will give more freedom to the photographer, freedom to enhance the images by cropping or even downsampling. Please don't invent and apply any Peter Weiß Rule without discussing it. It will just undermine your reputation. You can delist the pictures afterwards anyway (as we do currently with some older FPs not matching the 2MPx rule) --LC-de (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DoemitzerBruecke2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 18:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fice - uploaded by Fice - nominated by Anonymous
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prominent shadow on the foreground + not that much wow imo + poor crop on the sides + a bit of horizontal perspective correction needed I think. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 19:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brian Gratwicke - uploaded by me (through File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)) - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info A very good shot of a critically endangered species of a frog. Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute frog, harmonious composition, nice colours, excellent picture. / Achird (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh flashlight and the resulting strong shadows ruins this pic imo. --mathias K 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to note that this species is critically endangered. To my understanding of reading its profile in the IUCN red list website, the species is very rare and there are very few individuals left, and that's what makes the picture so valuable in my eyes. I'm not sure you can say the image is reproducible, so I think quality issues are secondary in this case, or at least less important than usual. Your opinion is your opinion, but I just wanted to share my point of view for a productive discussion. Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the argument with the critically endangered. And yes you are right, this is a very valuable image. But imo this is a very good argument for a VI not for a FP. Especially in this actual case I think the picture quality could have been better if an other equipment would be used. For example a ring flash or maybe a reduced flash power with a little longer exposure. Also the composition with the leaf "in" the eye isn`t the best imo. But it looks like this picture will be promoted anyway so my oppose wont be that bad. ;-) Greetings mathias K 15:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The flash light is a minus. Definitely. Should have used some other illumination system (there are many for frog photography, like a macro ring led flash light). But detail is good, the composition is awesome, and it is an endangered species. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support nice frog. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It's critically endangered. Why not? TrebleSeven (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--P0lyzoarium (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare picture --Citron (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alborzagros (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 09:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Third of May 1808, by Francisco de Goya. A very high resolution of a famous painting, by the Google Art Project. It is acknowledged as one of the first paintings of the modern era. According to the art historian Kenneth Clark, this is "the first great picture which can be called revolutionary in every sense of the word, in style, in subject, and in intention" (Wikipedia).
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice image, but can you crop that black line on the left? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request -- Can you crop that black line on the left? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please notice that the "black line" (in fact, a shadow) is part of the framing. It is necessary for an encyclopedic purpose: it proofs that the picture shows the whole painting, whithout any crop.--Jebulon (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My connection is too slow to download the whole file, let alone upload it again after editing. Yann (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Jebulon Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This proves nothing. Given the picture frame of the painting is not displayed, even this decision was an initial crop to the composition. Without the picture frame any statement on the actual image borders is mere guesswork. In case you've seen the image in reality things might be different because you know how it looks. Yet this is not the case for most viewers. Cropping an area that contains no information is admissible in this case. Indeed a version featuring the frame would be nice for its encyclopaedic value, given the frame itself has fallen into the public domain and the creator of this image would provide it with a free licence. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand very well what you mean. Maybe we agree. Here we can see a part of the framing all around, then we may be sure that the whole of the painting is shown... I know the rule about the PD domain of the framings.--Jebulon (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niveoscincus metallicus - Austin's Ferry.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by p0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood -- Raghith 08:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and sharp on the eye and most of the body. Pleasant composition. --99of9 (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice and sleek. Peaceful image. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole tail is out of focus, which is not that bad. But the crop so near the end of the tail ruins it imo. A more balanced composition would require the same amount of space as the one left on the left side, from the head to the edge. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - when I first looked, I thought it was very aesthetically pleasing. Then I thought of several reasons why it shouldn't be... but it is. I don't get it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Paolo Costa. --Kadellar (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but why a much lower resolution than 7D can do? - A.Savin 17:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olympic and Titanic.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 15:55:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Robert John Welch (1859-1936), official photographer for Harland & Wolff - uploaded by User:Centpacrr - nominated by User:TrebleSeven -- TrebleSeven (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- Outstanding image, brilliant quality for 1912, and is one of the only images of the Olympic and the Titanic together after nearly colliding. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small ~~and blown out sky~~. Yann (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is not that great, needs more restoration, version uploaded by Centpacrr seems to be better somehow. ■ MMXX ^talk 01:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done TrebleSeven (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but there are still problems. See annotations. Yann (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info correction of colours, contrast and enlargement by User:TrebleSeven.
Support -- TrebleSeven (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, clouds disappeared, the corners are all very blurry.--Sasha Krotov (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy, there are still problems. See annotations. Yann (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parmeliopsis ambigua - lichen - grünliche Schneepegel-Flechte.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 20:09:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Norbert Nagel - uploaded by Norbert Nagel - nominated by Norbert Nagel -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as nominator. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because not taken with a Hasselblad H4D-60 camera. The resolution is to small for me. Is this OK for you? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) But of course, this is nonsense. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Tomer T (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tamba52 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 19:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Achird (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Wadi Rum BW 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 07:52:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Tomer T (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 14:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not wow, but still Ok... –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waldermarsudde Panorama February 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 18:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achird (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Muthathi.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 18:44:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is original, something different, and acceptable quality. Full support if red/cyan CAs are removed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Tomer T (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but there are ghost effects at the legs of the animal. - A.Savin 10:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you say that, there really is something strange in the legs area. Tomer T (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly skewed, but OK. Fine picture. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. Tomer T (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I didn't see that before. Give me a day to fix it --Muhammad (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Muhammad (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fünfmastvollschiff.JPG, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 16:16:09

Info Not sharp enough, distracting element on the foreground (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep image has something magic IMHO. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not distractive, but interesting composition work, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Especially the foreground makes it excellent to me --LC-de (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The foreground is intentional with artistic value. --Jovian Eye _storm 12:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schöne und Seltene Kombination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defisch (talk • contribs)
Keep --Katarighe (Talk) 16:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent image, no reason for delisting. --Karelj (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colchicum automnale.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 20:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Cquoi - uploaded by User:Cquoi - nominated by User:Cquoi -- Cquoi 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- User:Cquoi (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp details, I would like to see more of the stamens. Tomer T (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bad file name imo... One could be confused and doubt if it is the name of the plant or the animal. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see nothing sharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think it's below the resolution limit. --Kadellar (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kadellar is right. Nice, but too small. Yann (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality Cathy Richards (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 22:18:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco, improved versions by NorbertNagel and Aleks G and nominated by Poco a poco -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose-The window through which it is taken is not centered--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 19:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so yellow. The whitish marble colour captured in the original picture is gone in the edit. Compare with FA File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India.jpg and unedited upload. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gauravjuvekar and per Redtigerxyz. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 18:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 00:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown Polish photographer - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Miniapolis -- Miniapolis (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miniapolis (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the pink color. It should be converted to shade of gray. See File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew 1939.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's worth Wikipedia featuring, but not Commons. The image is extremely blurry, noisy and shows poor detail. It also has this pink tint. I know it's a very old shot but then, should every historic picture be featured? I don't think so, that's why we have a valued images section. This is not among commons best historic material by far imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Paolo Costa --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Yann and Paolo Costa. it has good EV but the quality is not that great. ■ MMXX ^talk 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other contras. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:RomaCastelSantAngelo.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 11:17:00

Info per nominator in the previous delist vote (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist bad quality, crop, colours... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 20:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Cathy Richards (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --99of9 (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Kadellar (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - unattractive lighting. --Claritas (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yosemite meadows 2004-09-04.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 11:19:56

Info Unsharp, colors (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This no longer represents our best work. It is very nicely composed. But the issues Tomer T mentioned are real, and the resolution does not meet our current low standards. In principle a similar scene could be retaken now. --99of9 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom --Citron (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Araña Mandaio 07-0-2006 10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 17:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lmbuga-- Miguel Bugallo 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ It's not a perfect portrait (taken in 2006 with a Nikon 8800), but perhaps wov. I want to know what you think-- Miguel Bugallo 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral--Miguel Bugallo 19:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seriously, your nominating an image and not even supporting it. Gnan garra 01:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (I'm not sure if I understand you) With this nomination I can learn if people think: Currently I do not understand that this image has been promoted to QI. I'm not sure..., if QI...perhaps FP?--Miguel Bugallo 07:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see nothing wrong with nominating a picture while abstaining from the vote. Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achird (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ophelia2 (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 10:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chlorophyllum rhacodes LC0093.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 11:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Shaggy parasol (Chlorophyllum rhacodes); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 23:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colin (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scewing (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stu Phillips (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (1952-2022).svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 16:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Katarighe -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as used by current monarch Queen Elizabeth II from 1952 to the present (as used in all her realms except Scotland).

Support -- Katarighe (Talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and interesting. A short visit to User:Sodacan's galleries is a real pleasure.--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the hint, Jebulon --Schnobby (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like it. Really royal. :) TrebleSeven (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jovian Eye _storm 12:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TrebleSeven. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 10:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2012-02-03 20-34-32-salbert-moonlight.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 15:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achird (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice! wow factor here. Full support if CAs are removed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, well done --LC-de (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSimplement beau. --Jebulon (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky^talk 20:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice athmosphere. - A.Savin 11:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vammpi (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Galerella sanguinea Zoo Praha 2011-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 20:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now but would support a crop. (see image notes) --Jovian Eye _storm 03:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and useful. - A.Savin 11:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support All supporters comments mentioned. Alborzagros (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vammpi (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Stu Phillips (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Jovian Eye. The mongoose seems to look away from the side of the picture. --Ximonic (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support} great alofok * 09:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 10:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I also think Jovian Eye's crop is an excellent suggestion. Karelj, just try it! --Kadellar (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mandarin Oranges (Citrus Reticulata).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 04:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye
Support -- Jovian Eye _storm 04:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The colours look oversaturated to me, especially in the red shadows under the leaves (and the leaf-green looks a little overdone too). I would support a different version of this picture if it is reprocessed. --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have reprocessed the image from RAW with standard picture control. The earlier version used vivid. --Jovian Eye _storm 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Good for me now. --99of9 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wouldn't mind it being featured. But I think, as 99of9 that saturation should be lowered a bit. Won't support also because I don't like the leaves being under the mandarins, it looks kind of too "forced". --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Changing the picture processing has reduced the saturation a bit. As for the leaves, I never forced them down, its the way they were packed and kept at the store. :) --Jovian Eye _storm 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good colors and DoF. - A.Savin 18:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vammpi (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 20:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christopher Neugebauer on Flickr - uploaded and nominated by Cloudbound -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, but this can be corrected. I made a try: File:Qantas A380 lands at Melbourne Airport edit.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, I like the atmosphere the colors create. But I too think it might bee too dark. I think a more mild brightening would be better, for exmaple File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport-edit2.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Early-morning light is one of my favorite shooting situations, so I think the general atmosphere of the image is fine. Darker blue colors high in the sky transitioning to reddish toward the horizon is consistent with what I'd expect from the timing of the shoot, and indeed I think it makes the aircraft stand out well against the sky. However, 1/1000 is an awful short exposure time for this kind of lighting, so I agree that it's probably way darker than it appeared in person. I like what you did with the second edit... I'd definitely support that file. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess the world is a small place. The photographer is an acquaintance of mine. He has a username here with a couple of uploads (User:Noogz). JJ Harrison (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Noogz (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC) (By the way, if consensus is that it needs to be brightened, I'd be more than happy to do this from the original RAW)[reply]
Oppose This image has nothing exceptional. Perhaps QI but not FP. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I may be wrong but, looking at other featured airplane pictures, I think this one is not among the best. There is very strong vignetting and underexposure I'd say. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's so special about this composition? I don't see it, I have hundreds of photo's like this one. --Bthv (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Support Tomer T (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still nothing special, though the underexposure has been corrected a tad. --Bthv (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As original image nominator, I support this improvement. I'd argue this view of the aircraft is impressive. Cloudbound (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem Dominus flevit BW 1.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 13:51:34

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination)
Now File:Jerusalem Dominus flevit BW 2010-09-20 07-01-11.jpg is featured. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Tomer T (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. --Jovian Eye _storm 13:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. --Cayambe (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom.--Jebulon (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom, to make it short... --LC-de (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karelj (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 16:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amethyst gem stone texture wwarby flickr.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 14:08:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Tomer T (through File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)) - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many gray areas. Lighting that crushes the volume. Caption too poor, not to scale. Wow no effect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pav bhaji.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 12:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dforest - uploaded by Dforest - nominated by -- P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good Picture. Look like real food. -- P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Look[s] like real food", what does that mean? Do we see anything different? Besides, this images lacks in sharpness, it is noisy, and the composition is inconvenient. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Katarighe (Talk) 16:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor composition and image quality, looks like a snapshot to me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per above. Tomer T (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Rød ræv (Vulpes vulpes).jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 12:54:03

Info Nice picture, but unfortunately much too small (0,7 MPx) (Original nomination)
Delist -- LC-de (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I should be able to zoom on a FP. Tomer T (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist oversaturated, too small --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist too small, for a common subject --Citron (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist too small and oversaturated. --Kadellar (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above.--Cayambe (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per kaʁstn -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 16:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oia Santorini Blue Domes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 14:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Danbu14 - uploaded by Danbu14 - nominated by Danbu14 -- Danbu14 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danbu14 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit CA, tilted, seems too bright, not a fortunate crop on the left. Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think there is no tilt, but the irregular shoreline makes it appear that way though. --Bthv (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition: a lot of empty sky and white foreground. Yann (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 01:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image looks to be way overlighted. lacking detail and object is not clear, too much background noise/distraction from the actual subject. --Bthv (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop to the left. Tilted and distorted by wideangle lens. "Empty" foreground and bad composition. -- Achird (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I do agree it's not the best crop and light is quite harsh. But could not resist such beautiful colors. I could see this one in the gallery of FPs; image has good quality, little noise, and CAs, exposure and tilt could be corrected. What a beautiful place, I want to go there. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Central Park path.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 23:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Paolo Costa (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral What makes this so special? Not that it's a bad picture, it's lovely, just not very special... --Bthv (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know, I was looking at my NY pictures and this one caught my attention. Must be the peaceful feeling one gets in those paths in the middle of one of the most chaotic megacities... I also liked the colors. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmm... Sorry. I do not find actual serious _problems_ in this picture. So don't get me wrong, it is very good as a picture, a nice add among the other material in Commons. One might find the picture quite useful as well. But the thing is: I really do not find the exceptionality which would make this picture clearly overcome many other good pics of parks. The problem (if I can enunciate it so) is quite much the same like with the sunset pictures here for example – many of them are pretty but they cannot all be featured. Keep it up nevertheless! --Ximonic (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ok, I am just biased because I was there but you are probably right about it being pretty common scenery. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special (featurable) for me. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Bthv. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Lotus 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 20:05:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gil Abrantes (flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the image, but what is that bumpy (?) thing on the top right (see annotations)? Is that a part of the road or some kind of image distortion? Tomer T (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its called a ripple strip it defines the edge of corners on race tracks Gnan garra 01:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's obvious, but there is some kind of bumpiness/distortion there. Tomer T (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 01:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the crop it too tight for my liking given the original there is plently of room to give the car some space Gnan garra 01:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not oppose the FP, but I think that Gnangarra has a point about the crop being too tight. I would support a slightly wider crop. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I re-upload image with another crop version. Now it's better? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
better for me, Support FP. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto di Marina Grande - Isola di Capri.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 03:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Paolo Costa (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy. No apparent subject. Too much like a holiday snap. Colin (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and no wow for me. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yikrazuul. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin --Citron (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ю. Данилевский (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:A big argument for good roads in Argentina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 21:28:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by he National Geographic Magazine, VOL. XL, No. 4 OCTOBER, 1921; page 430 - uploaded by Haabet - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too bright, and generally the quality isn't among the best of old pictures. Tomer T (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. Just 1,728428 megapixels. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail)
Oppose too small and overexposed Cathy Richards (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andricus kollari - Capanne di Marcarolo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 17:36:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andou - uploaded by Andou - nominated by Andou -- Andou (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andou (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral quality is good, but I'm not sure it represents the best of Commons' work. Tomer T (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Scewing (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 10:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I made my mind to oppose because of the distracting foreground. Tomer T (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris moderne. Les Tuileries, le Louvre, et la rue de Rivoli, vue prise du Jardin des Tuileries.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 09:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Charles Fichot - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really "outstanding" amongst other similar artworks. I have seen better and more vivid paintings. --Bthv (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is tilted, isn't it? --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zosimova Pustyn 08 Belltower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 19:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by A.Savin - 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - A.Savin 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine photo. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry guys but the light is not the best as well as image quality, whith the strong white haloes due to sharpening. I don't like the unfocused plant in the foregound either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alvesgaspar has said all to the Picture. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo. Alex Florstein (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Maybe a more frontal view would have been better. --ELEKHH^T 20:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 12:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-02-05 16-14-05-fort-arches.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 15:18:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What should we see? Now wow impo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An underground corridor. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yikrazuul. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not doing anything for me. Colin (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW. Excellent! Albertus teolog (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:06. Whiteheaven Beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 14:28:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Whitsunday Island National Park; created by elemaki - uploaded by elemaki - nominated by elemaki -- elemaki (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- elemaki (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality, impressive photo. Tomer T (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Is the f/4.5 value real?? the image is sharp all along it does not seem like aperture was set to f/4.5. Very beautiful, a heaven indeed. The crop is poor though, cutting the beach at the bottom. Also horizon is tilted and slight CA is visible. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the crop is pretty bad. Greetings mathias K 19:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I´ve checked the pictures I used to do the stiching and the f4/5 is rigth. The crop is the best I could get from the place I was and I think the overall composition is good enough (you can see a huge part of the Whitsunday Island NP) even though a small part of the botton beach is cut. Thanks anyway to all of you for your reviews. elemaki (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Leviathan, the crop is not convenient. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor crop, tilted/curved horizon --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice and interesting, but the crop ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where is beach?--David საქართველო 10:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whiteheaven beach is the huge beach you can see at the middle-left of the picture (if you zoom in it you can see a lot of people walking over it). The small cropped beach at the botton is nothing important in this picture. Regards. --elemaki (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keisarinnankivi (Helsinki) - part.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 09:49:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward angle. Not especially detailed. Colin (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. --Miguel Bugallo 23:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin--David საქართველო 10:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Colostygia aqueata Buchstein01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 14:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:kulac - uploaded by User:kulac - nominated by User:kulac -- Kulac (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad background--David საქართველო 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I´m not familiar with the procedures here, so i´m probably wrong and the picture still has a bad background, but may i refere you to en:Crypsis? --Kulac (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the quality, but "bad background" is really a poor argument. This is called camouflage. Yann (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality is good imo, and the photo is a good illustration of crypsis. Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Butterfly has changed color or is it just a coincidence of colors? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think none of what you metioned. Butterflies cannot change colors like a chameleon, not any that I know (I do know a little about BFs). But it looks as if this is not a color coincidence either, but a butterflies which has this color to be camouflage in this rocks where it can rest without being noticed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent example of camouflage with high educational value. Sadly, it's a quite grey and dull picture with low contrast. -- Achird (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC) / Ximonic and Archaeodontosaurus are right, so I am changing my vote from Weak support to Neutral. -- Achird (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not a bad background. A very good example of camouflage. I think the DOF isn't optimal though and many interesting parts seem to be more blurry than needed. According to my own experiences these specific animals aren't so timid and fly away easily anyway so one can concentrate on optimal technical settings quite safely. --Ximonic (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good didactic image. But the lower wing is blurred. In this situation one has time to experiment. F20 would be a good option. Or put in the exact plane of the butterfly. Personally I would have two images in Focus staking. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alofok * 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:All Aboard.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2012 at 10:37:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by TucsonDavid - uploaded by TucsonDavid - nominated by TucsonDavid -- TucsonDavidU.S.A. 10:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TucsonDavidU.S.A. 10:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, blurry, unsharp. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor image quality. Am I wrong or this is the second nomination of the same photo? Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No Alvesgaspar, you're actually right. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and the quality looks really poor. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution is low, composition is okay, but not FP worthy. Scewing (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality (noisy, blurry, unsharp, low resolution). Need to be cropped to get rid of the empty brownish lawn. Everything, except the sky, need to be brighten up and to have better contrast. -- Achird (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: very poor quality, way below FP standard: noisy, blurry, unsharp, low resolution --ELEKHH^T 08:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Cappadoccia Balloon 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 21:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Benh - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark background. Dipankan001 (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the whole point... Tomer T (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to dark and CA around the balloon and the horizon. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite a nice effect but this is just art. It has little value wrt the project's goals. See the "Value" bullet point in the above guidelines. We're not an art gallery. Colin (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girl in the Hopi Reservation.JPG[edit]

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

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a white balance issue? --AngMoKio (座谈) 09:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. These are the original colors by the Kodachrome 25 slide film taken in the year 1997. The white balance would destroy the original colors by Kodachrome 25. The Film had nice colors with poetry, softness and elegance, and he needed with 25 ASA a long exposure time. When stored in darkness, Kodachrome's long-term stability under suitable conditions is superior to other types of color film; images on Kodachrome slides over fifty years old retain accurate color and density. It has been calculated that the yellow dye, the least stable, would suffer a 20% loss of dye in 185 years. This is because developed Kodachrome does not retain unused color couplers. However, Kodachrome's color stability under bright light, for example during projection, is inferior to substantive slide films; Kodachrome's fade time under projection is about one hour, compared to Fujichrome's two and a half hours. I used the Kodachrome 25 film in the years 1974–2001. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me it is too unsharp/noisy, and besides I cannot see a wow-effect. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sometimes I have to resist children's pictures... Very good composition but poor image quality: unsharpness and exagerated yellow cast. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreenHead01-AltesMuseum-Berlin-reconstructed.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 14:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Reconstructed image of Berlin Green Head scuplture

Info photo by Captmondo, derivative work by Yjenith, nominated by -- Yjenith (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yjenith (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: resolution is under 2MPX, a lot of chromatic noise. Tomer T (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Jasmine in the garden.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 09:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, nominated and uploaded by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Noisy, disturbing backgrund, unsharp. -- -donald- (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Katarighe (Talk) 15:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just zoom in...--Yikrazuul (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are you trying to tell by "Just zoom in"? Dipankan001 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...to clearly see the issues donald was talking about. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per donald --David საქართველო 10:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't unsharp, I have increased the sharpness in the second upload. Dipankan001 (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image quality is still very bad. --Jovian Eye _storm 11:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination for the comments above. Dipankan001 (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem Mount of Olives BW 2010-09-20 07-57-31.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 08:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vammpi (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberration everywhere in the image. Composition would be better with less sky and more cemetery. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As kaʁstn--Miguel Bugallo 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. --Kadellar (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ There are some CA, imho easy to fix. Otherwise a nice image. - A.Savin 19:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ok, I made a new try to remove ca. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better now. - A.Savin 19:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but still strong CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CastillodeMarvao.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 14:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mavao´s Castle (Portugal), created, uploaded and nominated by -- elemaki (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- elemaki (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because I don't like the crop at bottom, but nice and good. --Miguel Bugallo 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because the composition could be more exceptional and quality a little bit better, but...! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 10:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Correct composition (though the crop in the foregound is less-than-optimal ), very nice colors and mood, but image quality and size are on the poor side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 12:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamadryas arinome MHNT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 10:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stu Phillips (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you. I do not have much merit for this image. The real credit goes to the butterfly. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 10:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sasha Krotov (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me perfect and featured. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Oh yes! This is the kind of illustration that makes Commons a very rich source of encyclopaedic material. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totodu74 (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning --PierreSelim (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 02:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support No merit to you?? This type of picture is a great example of what we need on Commons! In fact, please can you write down somewhere technical instructions for how you achieve an image like this? --99of9 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure, I am sending you a note with my techniques, but in French because I can not for another language.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a pleasure to help on the translation. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. For now I've put the French and a very rough English translation on the image talk page. --99of9 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Raghith 12:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rouge gorge in Brest.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2012 at 21:26:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Llorenzi (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is very unlucky as the shadows covers half of the head and the bird, the background is disturbing (a more "blurred" background would help), the composition is not very interesting. The an excellent image below can give you an example on how to create good bird pictures. --LC-de (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 15:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cows in green field - nullamunjie olive grove.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 04:01:50

Info While this a nice landscape, the subjects in the foreground are in the shade and these dark portions are quite prominent even in thumbnail sizes. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Jovian Eye _storm 04:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator + it seems tilted. Wouldn't have passed today Tomer T (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I don't see anything bad about it. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist large areas of shadow, oversaturated cows. --Cayambe (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Cayambe --LC-de (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --99of9 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abraham Lincoln stereoview by Walker, 1865.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 05:42:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lewis Emory Walker (American, 1822 - 1880) - uploaded by User:scewing - nominated by User:scewing -- Scewing (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For FPC, do we judge the "picture in the picture", the "picture of the picture", or both?? Interested as to the comments on this one...
Neutral Good resolution (6,139992 megapixels), but not wow. Hmm... –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This man is historical. The president of the USA. Perhaps one of the greatest leaders that have ever lived. I strongly support this nomination! TrebleSeven (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. The stereogram works and the image has obvious encyclopaedic value. But needs restoration. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Nachshol Reconnaissance Company.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 21:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Israel Defense Forces - uploaded by Matanya - nominated by Jdcollins13 - chat 21:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- User:Jdcollins13
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 11:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Questionalbe license. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet again, please see Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Images taken by Israel Defense Force. matanya • talk 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very shadowed image and false yellowish colors. I don't see the "Israel Defense Forces". I see only one smiling women in a distracting background and also a simple and boring centered composition. I see nothing featured. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. I also don't like the crop close to her hat. -- Achird (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, crop, DoF, and colors aren't that good. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as all above.Trongphu (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orange flame tulip.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2012 at 06:15:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photos Public Domain - uploaded and nominated by Dipankan001 (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp, low DOF. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist. DimiTalen (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Katarighe (Talk) 13:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Railway station Kreiensen 1963.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 22:58:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, 1963 work! Is this originally colour or did you convert this in software? --Jovian Eye _storm 04:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, these are the original colors of the slide. The sunrise has been at 08:17 a. m. on the date 16 January 1963 in Kreiensen. I took this image at 08:55 a. m., see the station clock. The purple colors are the colors of the morning sun. I don't know if the color of the slide has changed in the last 49 years. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see ~~any artistic merit~~ and as an image, the quality is terrible: it is low resolution and even at that resolution there is no detail whatsoever. None of the people have faces. Flare in the middle of picture. Colin (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a Contre-jour photograph. Contre-jour produces backlighting of the subject. This effect usually hides details, causes a stronger contrast between light and dark, creates silhouettes and emphasizes lines and shapes. The sun is seen as either a bright spot or as a strong glare behind the subject. See this featured picture: File:Vaalankurkku railway bridge.jpg. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... or a poor quality snapshot with a backlight/flare problem. The arrangement of people and trolleys is random. There's really less than 1MP of detail here. I do like the lighting, but low sun on snow is pretty just like a sunset is pretty: doesn't make it featurable on its own. Colin (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (update) Ok I was a bit harsh with the "artistic merit" comment. The light in the scene is very artractive and the silhouette a deliberate effect. Various lines/shaddows/brightness-gradiant lead the eye towards the centre. But then what do we see? A random collection of trolleys and people milling about. This is a bit of a let-down for the eye. I think other people are responding to the nostagia of a 60's period and costume, as well as the lighting. But sunrise/sunset pictures are naturally pretty and it needs more IMO. I would be interested to see a version without noise-reduction applied because I suspect that is responsible for the lack of any detail. This reminds me of a picture of Harlech castle at sunset that I took with a toy digital camera years ago. I'm quite fond of it, and the colours are great. But it is just too small. Colin (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, too bright, nothinb special impo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of this image is the railway station Kreiensen in the year 1963. Kreiensen is an example for other railway stations in Germany. Nearly everything changed in the railway stations in the last 49 years. Station concourses, switch towers, baggage trolleys are mostly out of order. It is today not allowed to desert his baggage or to go over the rails to the next platform and so on. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vammpi (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question The overall quality of the image is rather bad (lacking sharpness, no film grain, smallish resolution). I wonder if this was due to the scanning process or due to digital enhancement? Could you provide further info on the equipment you used to create this image in the first place? Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I scanned the slide in the Nikon Coolscan V ED 35mm film scanner with Nikon Scan 4.0. I needed to take Windows XP, Nikon made no driver for Windows 7. In some time it will be possible to use SilverFast HDRStudio 8 with his driver for Windows 7. I used Dfine 2.0 to apply noise reduction. I cropped the Tiff-image with Adobe Photoshop CS2 and converted the Tiff-image with ViewNX to JPG. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would be great if you could provide the unprocessed image. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info try VueScan.. you can use scanners without drivers for Windows 7. Probably this software works for you scanner too (in my scanner Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 it works - it is the same issue - it has drivers only for WinXP). Ggia (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for this information. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC) - I purchased the VueScan Professional Edition. It works with Nikon Coolscan V ED in Windows 7/64. Now I am able to scan Nikon Coolscan V ED with Vue Scan and as well with the scan-software by Nikon. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is a great picture. Impressed by the preservation. Chaojoker (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's an old image, and a good one, but nothing special to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alofok * 10:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I think this picture is astonishing from artistic point of view. Yes, of course, you cannot expect 2012 quality from a 1963 picture, but the imperfection is what makes it authentic. It reminds me of surrealist painting, for example The Son of Man.--Joyradost (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this photo is VI, it could be used in Wikimedia projects. Przykuta → [edit] 16:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this information. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Sally Lightfood Crab, Floreana-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 18:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David Berkowitz - uploaded by Молли - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 18:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 18:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alofok * 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of Panama.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 17:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Shadowxfox - uploaded by Gumff - nominated by Ginés9 -- Ginés90 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ginés90 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vammpi (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tresco - aerial photo6.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 20:23:42

Info I find the bad crop very distracting (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Cathy Richards (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 16:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karelj (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist bad crop and quiet unsharp --LC-de (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist crop. It only just passed in 2005, and our standards have risen. --99of9 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist crop and general quality.--Cayambe (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puffin Latrabjarg Iceland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2012 at 18:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Boaworm - uploaded by Boaworm - nominated by P0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral indeed it is a very good catch. This picture is valuable and quite nice. However I think the DoF is a bit short (that why I'm neutral). --PierreSelim (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 02:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 12:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support LOL (side note: look exactly like the one in happy feet 2).Trongphu (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quito as from panecillo Basilica.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 18:09:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cayambe - uploaded by Cayambe - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 18:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 18:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vammpi (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info Improved version uploaded, tone mapping. --Cayambe (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no wow. Tomer T (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No wow? I can not be surprising that, behind the historic center are large modern buildings? This mixture is nice and amazing. In my opinion if it is wow. David C. S. 21:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Crop ~5% on the top - IMO this photo without "gray area" on the top could be better. Przykuta → [edit] 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think you are right, thanks. --Cayambe (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good overview and detail. --ELEKHH^T 20:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as author. --Cayambe (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and now inserted in fr:WP --Myrabella (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 17:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rouge gorge familier - crop.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 23:51:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PierreSelim - uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by PierreSelim -- PierreSelim (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PierreSelim (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 02:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong support~~ --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Achird (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC) / The version File:Rouge gorge familier - crop (WB correction).jpg is better! -- Achird (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a wow. - A.Savin 17:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC) to support the other version --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support top --Böhringer (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above --LC-de (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC) to support the other version --LC-de (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Stu Phillips (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose nice, but: can anyone see it: absolute false colors. It is simple to blueish. Take a look to our galery: Erithacus rubecula. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I am also very surprised at the unusual color for the robins, but can paint a feature of juvenile birds, or a feature of the population of southern France. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, or have southern France blueish timber??? The colors are false oversatured. Take a look at his image histogram. And now ... now all the other voters are too proud to change their opinion. I shaking the head about so much ~~ignorance~~ unknowingness. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calling it ignorance if they're not of your opinion? That's a very bold statement... --LC-de (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I corrected my "bold statement". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        What about this correction of the colours? -- Achird (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Per Joyradost. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Info Would this correction be better File:Rouge gorge familier - crop (WB correction).jpg (RAW file with increased color temperature, and sharpness/noise only) ? --PierreSelim (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a much better version! -- Achird (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not significantly different. I think the color temperature is false. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you think it's possible to improve it ? should I increase the color temp ? I've tried up to 6500K it seems really orangish cast, the one I showed seemed the more neutral to me.
Strong support--David საქართველო 10:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Llez (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colors definitely look fake, plus the color of the background makes them look even worse. It looks better on the one with the correction of the colors but still not enough to be featured.--Joyradost (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Joyradost --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Joyradost -- -donald- (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, well captured, excellent composition... but sorry, there is indeed a strong bluish/violet colour cast here. --Cayambe (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, false colors.Sasha Krotov (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist. Sorry, it`s a really nice catch with a suprising good quality for f/2.8 but i have to agree with Alchemist and Joyradost. --mathias K 16:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above--Miguel Bugallo 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment I think we should consider another version with a more realistic colors. Sasha Krotov (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sasha Krotov (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achird (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Temperature is better, but the colours are still way to oversaturated. --mathias K 16:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- hum, well all I can say is that I didn't touch the colour from the RAW file, the first version was a tad over staturated (with vibrance) but this once is untouched. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here i`ve uploaded a corrected version where the colors look even more natural than in the actual alternative. This was just a quick try, with the raw-file and a little more time the result would be even better I think. --mathias K 16:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any oversaturation here. It wouldn't be a robin if it has a grey throat. --LC-de (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks more natural. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the backgraund is similar to the bird. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 12:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better alternative in the encyclopedic sense, even if I didn't mind the blueish tone. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose: underexposed, tilted and per Alchemist-hp. It's really a nice picture, but I don't think it's featured, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 17:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Rouge gorge familier - crop (WB correction).jpg

File:Observation Tower view of Niagara Falls in winter.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2012 at 17:04:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panorama was made out of 24 images. All by Paolo Costa (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, out of focus and the quality looks really poor.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 08:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't get the above comment at all. The picture is perfectly well focussed and as sharp as one could expect given then weather and distance. I have no problems with the quality either. There's a wealth of detail all over the picture and I can't see any stitching problems. However, there's no getting away from the fact that it was a dull day and those buildings up the top right aren't pretty. My brain likes it but my heart isn't in it. Colin (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Think he's just getting back at me for opposing his candidate "All Aboard.jpg". He did the same with the nomination by user scewing, who also opposed on his FPC. Not the most mature behaviour, but whatever. I thought the buildings were good for illustrating purposes, but now you mention it, they actually disturb the nature scenery. I'll nominate another cropped version later on, thank you. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It's a shame that I have to oppose this picture because the idea and mood are really nice. But the composition is somehow unbalanced, with too much white on the middle (and all around) and a too imposing and less interesting foreground. Also, the care to make the vertical lines vertical on the right was not taken on the left as well. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really i don tlike it--Llorenzi (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adelpha cytherea MHNT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 18:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 02:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 14:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 12:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support can't deny!Trongphu (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achird (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bald Eagle Portrait.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 14:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Saffron Blaze - uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Saffron Blaze -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have five bald eagle featured photos! This is a fine photograph of one. Colin (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 02:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good background --Llez (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 12:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another support especially for the good and not too striking background. --Ximonic (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, eagle rocks!Trongphu (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Achird (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nothing more to say. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zapyon (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brandenburg St-Katharinenkirche 03 (MK).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 18:53:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Interior of the Katharinenkirche in Brandenburg an der Havel view to the polyptych. c/u/n by me mathias K 18:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- mathias K 18:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the interior of this church looks impressive, however the perspective correction is a bit weird (exagerated ?). --PierreSelim (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 12:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --LC-de (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DTM Mercedes W204 Lauda09 amk.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 14:21:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by AngMoKio - nominated by =- Tomer T (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 02:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 12:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spurzem (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support epic!Trongphu (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kohrvirab.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 06:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

created by MrAndrew47 - uploaded by MrAndrew47 - nominated by Anon -- 24.145.245.141 04:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 24.145.245.141 04:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chaojoker (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For me there is on the bottom something missing, what is there? A forest, a town? -- -donald- (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The monastery in the foreground is Khor Virap, which originally served as a dungeon for Grigor Lusavorich, the patron saint of Armenia that converted the country to Christianity in 301 AD, as the first state with the official religion being Christianity. The mountain in the background is Mount Ararat, which according to the Biblical accounts is where Noah's ark is supposed to have rested, and serves as a great national symbol. So if anything was cut off in the bottom, it could hardly compare in significance to the rest of the photo :) Chaojoker (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a vineyard. Sardur (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad image quality (noise) and colours (white balance is too warm and looks oversaturated IMHO), even if the view is really stunning... There are some dust spots in the sky, too, and I'm not really happy with the three leaves on the right. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but I agree with Carschten. --Kadellar (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coenagrion hastulatum , featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 21:35:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A teneral, still colorless female of the Northern Damselfly (Coenagrion hastulatum). The ripe damselfly will show a green colouring with black markings, typical for female Northern Damselflies. c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another damselfly pic, yet this one is pretty good with detail and low noise. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. Tomer T (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 12:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice quality (as usual), but i don`t really like the centered composition --mathias K 17:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 21:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice!Trongphu (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zapyon (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Telefon BW 2012-02-18 13-44-32.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 07:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ich weiß nicht so recht. Schönes Bild, kein Zweifel. Aber der Hintergrund ist mir persönlich zu dunkel, da wäre weiß angebracht. Das Kabel nach rechts wäre toll, wenn es flach aufliegt. Und die Reflektionen im vorderen Bereich über dem roten Knopf stört etwas. Und dann den Blickwinkel ändern, dass man die Zahlen lesen kann und das Telefon mittig, symetrisch ist. -- -donald- (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment volle Zustimmung. Ein wenig mehr Platz drumherum (insbesondere links) täte dem Bild auch gut. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High quality photo and interesting object. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting picture --PierreSelim (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classic :) But - is wb correct? Is this objest black or brown? Przykuta → [edit] 16:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per -donald- --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- donald was neutral and I think it is a nice thing to disagree using English language.
Support Good quality with soft lighting. I don't think it is necessary to always have such images isolated on white. There appears to be a reflection of a fluorescent strip light in the glossy portion below the dial. Colin (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 12:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects