Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2010

This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.

File:Battle of Mount Sorrel - Battle Map - June 6.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 15:49:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Labattblueboy - nominated by Labattblueboy -- Labattblueboy (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A partially restored version is also available at Image:Battle of Mount Sorrel - Battle Map - June 6 (restored1).jpg.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Labattblueboy (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Budda.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 19:04:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cadolzburg SK DSC 0080.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2010 at 09:04:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good image. There are few dust spots that should be removed IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The D90 has an automatical sensor cleaner build in. So i dont think that there a dust spots. Maybe some birds are the reason. --Simonizer (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my canon also has automatic sensor cleaner. I wish you saw how many dust spots I have :). Anyway I am sure about 2 dust spots. If you'd like me to. I could upload an edited version to show where they are.On the other hand I could live with them, so

Support --Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Colors look a little unnatural. The vegetation is yellowish to an extent that I'm not sure can be explained by the time of day, and the sky seems desaturated. Standing by on this one, in case any smarter minds disagree. Severnjc (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree that the color balance looks problematic. Durova (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camaret Steine SK DSC 0009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 13:51:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Don't we have FP like this already? —kallerna™ 17:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have we? I dont think so! --Simonizer (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your memory isn't playing tricks on you Kallerna, we do indeed have a similar picture featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok ok, i had even support that one. Its similar but not the same. Different colours, different stones, another place and different image size --Simonizer (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special.--Garrondo (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cliff erosion in Pacifica 2009-12-23.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2010 at 19:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Well another try with IMO rather interesting subject. Please notice bulldozers working in the surf. The crane is used to bring boulders down
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image, high EV --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a bit too tight - I'd like to see a wider perspective --Leafnode✉ 13:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neat! Diti the penguin — 18:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Valuable quality image, but the balance falls too much into left hand side IMO for a FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in your opinion it would have been better without the crane? --Mbz1 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the crane makes the photo heavy on left, but on the other hand, without it the documentational value of the image would be lower. Anyway, I think this is a good news photograph and doubt that anyone else could have done it better from this angle. I just don't think it's exceptional enough to be featured. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is only the best image of erosion on Commons, the image that not only shows erosion itself, but the work that is done to fix it, but of course it is not good enough to be featured I guess

. BTW, if I may ask, what was wrong with that image File:Bluff erosion in Pacifica 2.jpg, on what side it was heavy :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down - it was a neutral vote, not even an oppose! :-) I just think that these pictures were not aesthetically as exceptionally superb as e.g. your best pics, like File:Crepuscular_rays_and_Dead_trees_at_Mammoth_Hot_Springs.jpg or File:Seal_Rock_from_Cliff_House.jpg, are. While falling of a house into Pacific is of course very important and we should take erosion seriously, in my opinion we are not talking about historically very important pictures here compared to e.g. first aeroplane flight etc. Therefore, I expect the aesthetics to be on par with the other FPs. This is just an opinion of one Commons user from a distant country - don't take it too seriously! Keep up the good work and Happy new year! BR, --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whatever... Happy New Year to you too!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rare! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crownshaft Roystonea -1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 18:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kumar83 - uploaded by Kumar83 - nominated by User1 -- 113.21.73.220 18:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 113.21.73.220 18:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - CA. Location not documented. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The location is Kolkata, India, 22°34′11″N 88°22′11″E Kumar83 - 15:29, 30 December 2009 (IST)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK NOHAB Di 3 007 near Bablak.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2010 at 21:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are still way too few featured railway pictures, so let's try again :) -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There's something about a mile-long object that is just hard to capture on film. When I think of the best images of trains, what comes to mind are the old B&W early 20th century industrial images showing the machinery, the complexity of the vehicle. This one just doesn't seem to capture 'train' as well as it could. Also the subject is fairly small and we can barely see the rails, which are a fairly important part of the train concept. Severnjc (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About not seeing the rails: There is often no other way to get a background that isn't cluttered except standing a bit lower, as I did for this picture. Otherwise you'd have to be in a desert to get a calm background :) (we'll try that in February in Morocco). --Kabelleger (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose central composition --Leafnode✉ 13:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And what is so wrong about central composition? Please elaborate, since I don't see anything wrong. --Blago Tebi (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm afraid that composition (too much foreground) and quality here are a little bit too average for FP. But yes: we need definitely more good railway pictures at Commons! Interesting and very nice view of a legendary European engine from the 50's. This model - based on the famous F7 of General Motors / EMD - was not only built in Sweden by NoHAB, but also in Belgium by AFB (Société Anglo-Franco Belge de Matériel de Chemins de Fer) for the Belgian and Luxemburg state railways. In Dutch these engines are called "Bolle Neuzen" (Round Noses). -- MJJR (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Weak support. Nice summer countryside feeling and colors. The composition could be better, but is anyway still ok IMO. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MJJR's comments I guess. It is a nice image just not quite FP to me, sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, per Matti. Wolf (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oirat (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral per MJJR --Cayambe (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

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

File:Juvenile Araucaria Sapling.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 18:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kumar83 - uploaded by Kumar83 - nominated by User1 -- 113.21.73.220 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 113.21.73.220 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Noisy. Location not documented. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I can't help the noise - the branches in the background are difficult to shift. The location is Kolkata, India - Kumar83 17:26, 30 December 2009 (IST)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Let L410UVP-E16 Góraszka 2008 edit2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2010 at 21:28:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by -- Wolf (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{abstain} as author -- Wolf (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know it is probably the best and neutral way to vote for a picture, but it is common practice that authors support their photos, you can do that! Diti the penguin — 22:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I know, and I've been doing it for a long time, but I decided it's more fair that way, when I'm both the author (well, co-author) and nominator. Wolf (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, OK, I don't want to be a total freak. Support Wolf (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Details seem to have been lost in the shadows, but I don’t know why. Diti the penguin — 22:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominated this for FP at en, where it succeeded. Maedin\^talk 09:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old ruins Kos 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 20:38:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Archeologic site on Kos island (Greece), created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the image is technically OK, it's hard to tell what makes it a feature. --ElHeineken (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Redsea sandstorm May13-2005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2010 at 23:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Pixeltoo - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Also featured on Turkish Wikipedia. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes. Takabeg (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why there's those black lines on the photo? —kallerna™ 12:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The black lines are country borders, and as far as I know, all of the images from NASA's MODIS have them drawn over the image. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's really not sharp at full res, unless my computer is acting up. It's a wonderful image, perhaps English Wikipedia? Ceranthor 16:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saddle tor to Hey tor pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 09:31:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This images is a panorama made up of 5 images showing part of eastern Dartmoor in the snow and some sunshine. It includes a number of tors including one of the best known Hey tor. There is a lot of detail viewed fully zoomed and it captures the beauty and bleakness of a moorland landscape.
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality, and EV--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear case. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sinaia - military cemetery from WWI (bw).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2010 at 21:50:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Czy brak kolorów jest zabiegiem artystycznym? A jeśli tak, czy koniecznym i słusznym? Wolf (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wydaje mi się, że lepiej oddaje atmosferę starego, nieco zaniedbanego cmentarza. Kolory mogłyby tutaj rozpraszać odbiór zdjęcia --Pudelek (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is that tight crop for? Is this a place for documentation or for artistic impressions? I don't agree with a neccesity of desaturation for the sake of "atmosphere". --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Zasadniczo bardzo mi się to zdjęcie podoba, ale nie jestem przekonany do tej dekoloryzacji. Sugerowałbym raczej pobawienie się balansem kolorów tak, aby kolory zostały, ale aby powstało wrażenie "wyblaknęcia" czy też jakby imitacji starej fotografii. Wolf (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nie jestem zwolennikiem zabaw z kolorami. To jest, moim zdaniem, zbyt duża ingerencja w fotografię, która ma w końcu coś dokumentować. Usunięcie kolorów do bw to rozumiem (w końcu to widać powyżej), ale już sztucznego "wyblakiwania" generalnie nie stosuję --Pudelek (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Blago. The photo was taken last July, not before the development of color photography. It's a nice image, but removing color information is removing information. Severnjc (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A mnie sie podoba pomysł z fotografią czarno-bialą. Dałem sie nabrać :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Meavy valley in snow.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2010 at 17:15:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nilfanion - uploaded by Nilfanion - nominated by Nilfanion -- Nilfanion (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nilfanion (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good catch of a moorland landscape in snow and high quality. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, lovely composition, but I don't quite agree of high quality. —kallerna™ 10:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is actually wrong with the quality? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretful oppose. It's certainly a good picture, but I can't believe that it wouldn't be possible to take a better one, especially as the Upper Meavy Valley isn't going anywhere. The amazing view would seem to lend itself to a panorama; as for the ponies, right now they're big enough to catch the eye, but really too small to contribute to the picture. Severnjc (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hate to oppose, but the background is highly distracting and it seems like everything leads into the lower erm, valleys. Ceranthor 16:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whitehousenight.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2010 at 17:04:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info White house at night. Artist - Vincent Van Gogh - uploaded by olpl - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Barun (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 06:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oirat (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Support --Mylius (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vincent! --Phyrexian (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diya 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 20:19:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Traditional Indian earthenware oil lamp or diya

Info created by Kumar83 - uploaded by Kumar83 - nominated by Kumar83 -- Kumar83 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info - This picture was taken on the first day of the festival of Kali Puja in Kolkata, India - the lighting of the oil lamps or diyas is to keep evil spirits at bay. It was almost a new moon and the picture was taken at a moment when there was no breeze, allowing a perfect flame. Kumar83 (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The harsh flash just kills the picture, imho. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most of the image is completely black. --ianaré (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Year of the ram4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 01:49:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Yajima Gogaku - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Year of the ram.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ukiyo-e woodblock print, created 1818-1830.
Support -- Durova (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fine. But as far as I know, the auther's name is Yashima Gogaku (八島五岳) and his gō is Gakutei (岳亭). Takabeg (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, LoC often does last name, first name. But with Japanese artists they sometimes reverse the order. Durova (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. But I want to said his surname must be Yashima, not Yajima. Takabeg (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going from Library of Congress records; might be an alternate transliteration. Durova (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of way of reading of kanji (not transliteration) is not important. This image is very fine and useful & valuable for encyclopedia. For example, in Turkish Wikipedia related article was written :) Thank you very much for your contribution. I wish you a happy new year ! Takabeg (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice image and well restored --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Phyrexian (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo December 2009-5a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 15:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Stormy day in Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not that good. Kleuske (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Maybe with beams of sunlight through the clouds ... --ianaré (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schoolgirls in Bamozai.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 09:59:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Severnjc (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) - uploaded by Severnjc (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) - nominated by Severnjc (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) -- Severnjc (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info One of my favorite images from Afghanistan, where colors like this aren't seen very often. These girls are sitting in their section of a school in Bamozai -- the school consists of the shade of some trees in a nearby orchard. They look so happy because they just received the backpacks in front of them, which are probably the first school supplies they've ever owned. ~~Some of the alkalai is blown out, as the girls were sitting in the shade rather than the direct sun.~~ Fixed by Herby. Thanks man! Severnjc (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Severnjc (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely image. The colours and the faces are very good indeed. (I have tweaked it to remove the clipping). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Econt (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Yann (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Kleuske (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 22:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I am saddened to see that even when we (the 'west') try to do good, we can't get away from blatant corporatism and the imposing of consumer culture. Why not plain backbacks ? --ianaré (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one donated plain backpacks <shrug> Severnjc (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support In theory it's nothing special, just a bunch of children, yet... Wolf (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Barack Hussein must look at this picture. Takabeg (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Je-str (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 11:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:First flight3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 21:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wilbur and Orville Wright - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Wrightflyer highres.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wright Brothers' first airplane flight. This nomination is a reedit of File:First flight2.jpg. The new version brings better contrast in the shadows for a clearer view of body positions and machinery. Durova (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and effective image. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Extremely high value. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agreed. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An important historical photo, and certainly not likely to be reproduced. Severnjc (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely tops. --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Same reasons as last time. In dark areas, too much detail is lost. I still think there's something wrong with the contrast/levels. Problem areas marked with image notes in the preview above. Lupo 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps your monitor needs calibration? This was reedited to address those concerns. This does bring out more detail than the previous nomination. Other (non-uploaded) edits that go farther than this give an unnatural appearance. Would gladly send you the interim version if you'd like to try it yourself. Durova (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My monitors are all fine, I think. (Using several different monitors and computers, in fact; same problem on all of them, and one of them is a calibrated 27'' iMac screen that is used for semi-professional graphical work.) Just compare with the unrestored original where the details are visible just fine. In fact, I just verified in GIMP that large parts of the shadow on the right man's back and left arm are just black (#000000). So it's not my monitors, but really something in this image. Lupo 16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As you can tell from the difference in filesize that "original" wasn't the actual starting point for this restoration. The Library of Congress later uploaded a much higher resolution version that was probably scanned separately. This restoration was edited from the highest resolution source file, although I had to convert it from 16 bit to 8 bit in order to upload to Commons. It gains an order of magnitude of resolution, which seems worth the loss of a few folds in Orville's jacket sleeve. Durova (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, compare these two crops:

Cropped directly from the 232MB TIFF scan from the Library of Congress (Converted from 16bit to 8bit by the GIMP)
Cropped from the nominated File:First flight3.jpg

As you may notice, the 16-to-8bit conversion still leaves much more detail than what remains in the restored version you nominated here. It is evident to me that something with the histogram adjustments went wrong. Lupo 13:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support That flight was no big achievement, really, but the photo... Yes, its quality is an achievement to be proud of. Wolf (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Sayornis saya2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 17:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Basar - uploaded by Basar - nominated by Basar -- Basar (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support---donald- (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - IMO: the central composition here does not apply. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good framing; gives a sense for the size and weight of the bird. Durova (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Interesting image, good colours, but please cut away the left edge to this point: behind "cre" from the words "createt by Basar". You will see: The image will be better. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have uploaded a version cropped thusly. Basar (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one, it's more eye-catching. ■ MMXX ^talk 21:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one.--Garrondo (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful detail at 0.01s/400mm ! --99of9 (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop[edit]

Support alternative crop - "What is he staring at?" --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative crop - I change my support to this alternative crop. I like this image more. Thank you, Basar, for this upload. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative crop Per the above ones. Better image to me :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is IMO better. —kallerna™ 17:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A mechanical application of the rule of thirds. Loses lead room and crops out the leftmost part of the plant, which destroys the impression of a rising diagonal from left to right that gave the original composition dynamism. Now this bird has nowhere to fly. Durova (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Completely agree with Durova. Bird no longer gives the impression of distant observation. ZooFari 03:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If anything cut out from behind the subject, not the front. --ianaré (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Sayornis_saya2.JPG

File:Thomas Bresson - Fort de Roppe (abri-caverne) (by).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 10:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes - I have to admit I rather like this image. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow to me. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image would gain IMO from cropping the lower part, i.e. removing the overexposed left and right sides. --Cayambe (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Surely not bad enough to oppose, but somehow it does not impress me. Wolf (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Antep erased2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 05:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Durova. Edited version of File:Antep 1250575 cr.jpg with edits by Durova and Xavexgoem. -- Durova (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I prefer to File:Antep 1250575b.jpg (also your work :)). I think version b is more natural. In version erased2, there are serious problems especially at the egde part with its rough trimming and it has lost the originality of historical artwork. Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think that too much of the original artwork is missing (and no restoration can help that unfortunately). --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Please could you provide a png "other-version" with transparency? I assumed this one had it, but only just realised it was a jpg. --99of9 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your question. Are you just asking for a PNG upload? Durova (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes please. Without the white background. Transparent instead. --99of9 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I think it already exist ;-) File:The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma 1250575.png --Phyrexian (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Yes, I supported that version too, but the general consensus was that the colours were not correct. So if we are featuring this version, I would have liked a transparent version available with good colours. --99of9 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Bicheno Seascape 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 02:07:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fairy Penguins were running around on the rocks. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Timing. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not actually a big fan of "blurred" water. However the colour/light on this are good. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support super! --Pudelek (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent!!! --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO not as good as your other photos like this. —kallerna™ 16:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition; subtly original. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For colours, composition, sharpness and the great landscape. --Cayambe (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glass Beach Fort Bragg 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 21:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jef Poskanzer (Flickr) - uploaded by Tldtld - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ever since I discovered the article about en:Glass Beach (Fort Bragg, California), I've been fascinated by it.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very interesting and colorful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont like the highlights in the water with the purple fringes --Simonizer (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Glass Beach Fort Bragg 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 21:25:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jef Poskanzer (Flickr) - uploaded by Tldtld - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An alternative to the below.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - They look like candies. Unfortunately, there are sharpness issues at bottom right. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually prefer this one in some ways but agree with MattiPaavola, sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - quite nice.--Avala (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think this one would make better FP if it wasn't out of focus on some areas. ■ MMXX ^talk 21:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakeside of Mono Lake.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 00:20:53 (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) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are the plants overexposed during the digitization? I'm not sure. Maybe slightly smaller gain would be better. Furthermore, I'm not sure since I haven't been on the spot, but you might want to try adding a little bit of red, too. These are just some thoughts. Great picture anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, MattiPaavola, I made an update with color correction and added a little bit of red. I think some red has been lost by projections of the slide in the last ten years.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the corrections. I think the overexposure on the highlights is now lower and OK IMO. But, about the colors, I think I was wrong when I was speculating about adding some red. I started a discussion about the details on your talk page for not to bother everyone. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. ■ MMXX ^talk 21:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good composition. The colors of the latest version illustrate the hot day and the water is waiting for a swimmer. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image. --Cayambe (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petra Jordan BW 16.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 18:46:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too dark. —kallerna™ 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...but enough dark to make it a very good picture. --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potato with sprouts.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2010 at 20:53:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ZooFari - uploaded by ZooFari - nominated by ZooFari -- ZooFari 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ZooFari 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but no wow to me. PS it would be useful if the cultivar was mentioned in the documentation. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI and maybe VI, not FP. —kallerna™ 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a more valid oppose. ZooFari 20:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, IMO it's just a potato. —kallerna™ 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's just a potato. If you mean "per MattiPaavola" or "no wow", that'd weigh much better :) ZooFari 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support QI and FP for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Versailles Chapel - July 2006 edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2010 at 16:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated a while ago and failed because of stitching faults (and overblown colours). I've since gotten around to reprocessing it and fixing the stitching faults so I present it for your reconsideration! Diliff (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Diliff (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent -- MJJR (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Captain Bradley (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice symmetry. —kallerna™ 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Doucus (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gives a good sense of space. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, beautiful! – Alensha ^msg 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antep 1250575b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 15:11:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Durova. Edited version of File:Antep 1250575 cr.jpg with edits by Durova. Durova (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that too much of the original artwork is missing (and no restoration can help that unfortunately). --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too much information about the original artwork is missing. Otherwise (despite being rather fragmentary) it is a nice picture. It's just not clear exactly what it is. Kleuske (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this version is better than File:Antep erased2.jpg. Missing in this image is smaller than in File:Antep erased2.jpg. In the erased version, there are serious problems especially at the egde part with its rough trimming and it has lost the originality of historical artwork. Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Te Anau Night.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2010 at 10:01:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zhexu14 - uploaded by Zhexu14 - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice scene, but IMO too dark. —kallerna™ 11:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for now. Kallerna has a point but I think with a crop and a tweak it might be better. Not sure if I will have time to get something done for a while now tho. Lack of geo tag is a pity too and that I can't solve - worth asking the user? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - A quick look - it is actually a pretty noisy image so while it can look a little better I doubt it is FP sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Múzeum slovenskej dediny 10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2010 at 14:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting image in great quality --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the subject of this image is dull and technically it is not well executed considering that the horizon line is distorted, also it is not very sharp and detailed.--Avala (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BrockenSnowedTrees.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2010 at 19:54:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Snowed trees on mount Brocken, Harz, Germany

Info created by Tillea - uploaded by Tillea - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Errr...this was taken in 2005, and it shows. It's blurry, pixellated at high res and has rather unnatural colours. Might I suggest getting a new onitor before nominating any more pictures? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:BrockenSnowedTrees.jpg. —kallerna™ 15:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Per Kallerna.Patriot8790 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Durga Puja Lights.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 19:21:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Kumar83
Info Characteristic neon light images glow as midnight revellers throng the streets of Calcutta during Durga Puja festivities.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: quality and composition issues : blurry and subject cut off --ianaré (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I am only trying to offer helpful criticism. Please try submitting some of your images to Commons:Quality images candidates for feedback on quality and composition. Your contributions are appreciated !! --ianaré (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the quality is awful --User:Kumar83 14:40, 01 January 2010 (IST)

File:Fotothek df ps 0000005 Straßenbild mit beräumtem Gehwegabschnitt.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 06:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Richard Peter - uploaded by FotothekBot - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too small. Takabeg (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too small --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Given the historical significance, the size is forgivable. But I think not enough wow for me to actually support it. Ben Aveling 01:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gallivare dundret 2005.jpg[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info - Created and uploaded by User:Eino81 --Eino81 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2009 (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. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2009 (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:Hibiscus20091227.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 12:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hisbiscus sp. from a garden in New South Wales, Australia

Info created, uploaded and nominated by —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No harm in trying – will allow for some feedback at the least. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a lovely picture, but the blown-out left background is quite distracting. Wexcan Talk 17:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wexcan --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree, to be honest. Perhaps I'll re-upload a new version with a better background. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HillInlet ST 03.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 17:53:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ST (Ester Inbar) - uploaded by ST - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture of a beach. Much like a nice picture of a sunset... Nice picture, but not that good. Kleuske (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2009 (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. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:39, 31 December 2009 (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.

Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:In the Web.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 18:32:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kumar83
Info - One rainy morning, I spotted a soldier ant in my garden that had fallen from a slippery branch into a spider web. After observing it for a while I took this photo which I had to crop a bit to remove water splashes - Kumar83

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: severe quality issues including heavy noise and blurriness. --ianaré (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2009 (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:JKT Soenda Kelapa 07 2008 ID-0002-1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 00:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Blago Tebi - uploaded by Blago Tebi - nominated by Blago Tebi (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Blago Tebi (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - direct sunlight without justification, confusing composition, low contrast --MattiPaavola (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Splash 2 color.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 07:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pro2 - uploaded by Pro2 - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoSplash, blue colored
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Not featured 4 July 2009 Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Splash 2 color.jpg --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Patriot8790 (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panthera onca at the Toronto Zoo 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 07:59:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Jaguar (Panthera onca) yawning at the Toronto Zoo, created by MarcusObal - uploaded by MarcusObal - nominated by Father Goose -- Father Goose (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes you come across an image that just grabs you. Aaargh, what a yawn! There is an alternative image, file:Panthera onca at the Toronto Zoo.jpg, though I prefer this one -- that extra kink in the tongue does it for me. It's possible the image is too dark, though hopefully that could be addressed with adjustments.-- Father Goose (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blaksems mooi Kleuske (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great scene, but bad quality and terrible colours --Simonizer (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot, but there are white balance issues. I guess two different kinds of light sources in use which makes it difficult. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. More specifically the skin around the mouth is completely blue.--Garrondo (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I made some adjustments, but it wasn't enought to make it featurable. —kallerna™ 16:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. A very welcome consolation prize!--Father Goose (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance issue around the mouth. Otherwise very impressive. --Cayambe (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stockholm photochrom2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 03:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Detroit Publishing Co. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Stockholm photochrom.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Stockholm World's Fair of 1897. The domed exhibition hall was designed by Ferdinand Boberg, a prominent Swedish architect of the era. That structure and most of the other installations were subsequently destroyed.
Support -- Durova (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Absolutely. Takabeg (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful image.--Garrondo (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent 19th century photo. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes good image. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Who was the photographer? —kallerna™ 16:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The photographer's name is not documented in the records. Durova (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent restoration of an historically important scene. Peter ^Isotalo 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Cayambe (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting scene, well produced. --99of9 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:A church in Scotland 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 13:28:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Paddy Patterson - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very atmospheric, would make a good album cover. Not sure it is a FP, though. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add description. —kallerna™ 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ good composition and atmosphere --ianaré (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (conditional) - support once description is added --ianaré (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for lack of description and location. Basar (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice atmosphere --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pity about the lack of geo-tagging though. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Maurilbert. Maedin\^talk 18:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of documentation --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What an atmosphere! – Alensha ^msg 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acid tower (aka).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 14:35:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aka - uploaded by Aka - nominated by Simonizer -- Simonizer (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good picture of an industrial ruin-- Simonizer (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I'd like to see it geolocalised. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I like it. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting subject and very good quality. Please geolocate. --ianaré (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its hard to get the location cause it doesnt exist anymore as far as I know. I will ask the author of this picture --Simonizer (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aka added a geolocation --Simonizer (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes - good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is very sharp and shows the tower very well, but I'm sorry, but I find the sky very boring. It feels like the blue channel is overexposed or the weather was just really dull. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting subject. --Cirimbillo (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weather doesn't hinder the subject much IMO. --99of9 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it the perspective, or is this structure leaning? Could someone expand the English language description with more detail? Jonathunder (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juggling on the Berlin Wall 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 13:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Juggling on the Berlin Wall on November 16, 1989. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the historic value overcomes the technical defects. I added geolocation. -- Yann (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Powerful image related to an important historic event. --ElHeineken (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{oppose}} Of the three i like this the best. But the picture is much too late to be of any real historic interest, and it isn't of a quality that makes me wanna FP it. 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)~~
- Did not read the date of the picture. Kleuske (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We were there almost at the same time.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored version[edit]

Comment Here's hoping it doesn't step on Yann's toes to offer a restored edit, but his user talk says he'll be unavailable in the near future. Thanks very much to Yann for copylefting and uploading these historic images. Offering this alternate version with warmest wishes for a happy new year. Durova (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better with Durova's expert attention. --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks a lot to Durova. I added geolocation. Yann (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work - both the original image and the restoration --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support More or less a formality, but just so it's clearly supported. Durova (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate 1[edit]

Info Juggling on the Berlin Wall on November 16, 1989. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the historic value overcomes the technical defects. I added geolocation. -- Yann (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is too static compared to the others. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate 2[edit]

Info Juggling on the Berlin Wall on November 16, 1989. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the historic value overcomes the technical defects. I added geolocation. -- Yann (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Corrected the white balance to remove the yellow tint.

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

The chosen alternative is: File:Juggling_on_the_Berlin_Wall_1a.jpg

File:Michael Gernhardt in space during STS-69 in 1995.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 10:46:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Tom - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reckon that the composition outweighs any small quality issues here.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one! Btw not the first astronaut picture here at commons, there are several others allready featured --Simonizer (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support And the noise could be quite easily reduced. —kallerna™ 16:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- OK. Takabeg (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Kosiarz-PL 18:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tom (talk - email) 06:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Austrian National Library-2.1.2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 18:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mflip - uploaded by Mflip - nominated by Mflip -- Mflip (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mflip (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does it seem a little tilted and perhaps the bottom cut off some? Also, it looks like the exif information was removed. Basar (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per user:Basar. In addition, the birds are blurred and should be removed. --Pjt56 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the birds, but the crop is too tight at the bottom. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably to cut off the cars usually parking there. Unfortunately that part of the square is a parking area and always full. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is a reshoot possible? I like the setting, and the colours are very good, but as has been said, the crop is very tight. I would also prefer a higher resolution, but if that's not possible, just do your best. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larus heermanni13.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 20:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Basar - uploaded by Basar - nominated by Basar -- Basar (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My major concern was the highlights on his head. The histogram looked ok, but there isn't much detail there. I took some less exposed photographs of the subject, and they indicated there may not be much detail there to start with. -- Basar (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good picture for documentary purposes --Pjt56 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is wrong with uppercase .JPG ? I think this is a very bad reason to oppose.--Korall (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both JPG and jpg work, but it is a guideline here to use lower-case; see Commons:First steps/Quality and description. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the guidelines state the extension can be spelled jpg or jpeg. I don't see that it says it must be lower case or can't be upper case. Upon review of the featured picture directory, I found a number with capitalized extensions. Does anyone else concur that a capitalized extension is not allowed? Basar (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course .JPG is OK. I upload almost all my files like that. This is the first time ever ive heard anyone complaining about that. It could be nice with a geotag or a info about where the file was taken in the file description. --Korall (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-003 Eight F-A-18 Hornets assigned the River Rattlers, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204, fly in formation over southern Louisiana's wetlands during a photo exercise.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 23:22:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John P. Curtis (USAF)- uploaded by Multichill - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to excessively long filename. Sorry, mate, I told you... Wolf (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vuokatti 2006 060.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 16:10:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kallerna - uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ski jumping facility in Vuokatti ski resort, Sotkamo, Finland.
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Llorenzi (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I've seen this ski jump and the image is gorgeous! --Vprisivko (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely image. I do find the floodlight a little distracting though. Worth cropping? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per my comment & others below --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's been on my 'to nominate' pile for a while. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems too soft for me to have the FP status. Diti the penguin — 15:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per diti --ianaré (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per diti - Otherwise a nice picture, but for an FP is the background blurred and the sky too noisy Je-str (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose considering the size the picture seems to soft. Composition is not the best as well --Simonizer (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per diti --Böhringer (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per diti -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Less-than-ideal composition, blurred in places, noise issues. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferris wheel Nice Dec 2008 a.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 21:22:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cayambe (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine colors, great resolution and sharpness, nice composition. Could you correct the crop so the circles at the top and the bottom are not cut? --Pjt56 (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Unfortunately I do not possess a wider crop of the wheel. --Cayambe (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the crop as it gives due prominence to the star. --99of9 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't want to see the complete wheel! I meant the two inner circles that are cropped just a little. --Pjt56 (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Nice Work" --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Nice colors, that said the crop could be better. Tiptoety ^talk 06:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's the crop i like. Kleuske (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition/image to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Golda Meir2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 00:23:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Marion S. Trikosko - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Golda Meir.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Golda Meir, the fourth Prime Minister of Israel. Photographed March 1, 1973. Public domain due to a donation by U.S. News & World Report.
Support -- Durova (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- OK. Takabeg (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Worthwhile image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 22:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Cirimbillo (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO this should be valued but not featured. The left crop is terrible, and 1973 is no excuse for that! --99of9 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How many other free licensed images from 1973 are we likely to get? Durova (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what makes it valuable. But to put her on the front page or similarly prominent, I believe she would need two complete arms. --99of9 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree with 99of9. I think this is a really good portrait except the crop. --MattiPaavola (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99 and Matti --Pjt56 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hochälpelealpe Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 21:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good indeed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 15:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Cayambe (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW-snow! Very nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality and lovely composition --ianaré (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--თეკა (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einstein2 (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plafond de la chapelle des Maccabées 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 21:38:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too like it. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 11:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good shot for a single exposure, and certainly deserving of QI status. However for FP status, I would have liked to see a stitch. This would have given better resolution and the corners would be in focus. --ianaré (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A very beautiful picture. I liked especially the colors. But see guideline FP: Every important object on the picture should be sharp. Je-str (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ianaré. —kallerna™ 11:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polish Army Kołobrzeg 077.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 17:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps some of you remember this nomination, which failed due to technical issues. I believe this one is better, both technically (far less noisy) and in terms of composition (the presence of the car, the soldier is little more than a shadow hidden in the smoke). It is my personal opinion that there are mitigating factors for the cropped mirror - the image was difficult to take. Note that they are not wearing masks. Polish soldiers are tough :) You can also have fun looking for a few little intricacies of the picture, if you want to. Wolf (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. I don't mind the mirror. Basar (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Patriot8790 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wouldn't say one is better than the other composition wise; both work in different ways. But this one is technically superior. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I like orange, :) Maedin\^talk 08:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too love the orange color. ■ MMXX ^talk 15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The car is cropped :(. —kallerna™ 10:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm too much of a pro-military geek not to jump at this. Although I wholeheartedly second Kallerna's statement. Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Żelazny and Boeing Stearman 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2010 at 20:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś - uploaded & nominated by Wolf (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info It was suggested to me at the QIC that it could be an FP. So let's try it.
Support -- Wolf (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trochę ciasno na dole, ale niech będzie. ;) --Kosiarz-PL 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Back lit, sorry. Would support otherwise --ianaré (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first time in 24 years I am speechless. Really. I find it unbelievable that a person boasting over 16,000 contributions has never actually taken the time to read the guidelines about file types, and instead invents his own guidelines just to have a reason to oppose. Sweet Jesus, I thought such things only happen in Poland. Wolf (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I have made over 16,000 contributions, but I do not boast about it. Also, I have not made up any guidelines. Perhaps you are confusing file types and file extensions. You have linked pages to file types, but not about the file extension to use. Please see Commons:File renaming and Commons:First steps/Quality and description. The latter says "For photographs, use JPEG (file extension .jpg or .jpeg)" and clearly indicating what file extensions are to be used. I am not doing this to just oppose, but I think that featured images should be in line with guidelines in every way. I realise that it would be fairly easy to rename the file, and if this is done, I would not oppose. I would like to see better compliance with basic guidelines in the featured images in general. Incidentally it is against wiki-guidelines to use eastereggs, so please remove the linked images from above. What are the eastereggs meant to mean? What happens in Poland? Snowmanradio (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What happens in Poland? This. This exactly, to the most minute detail. And above all, I refuse to comply unless I am given a proper justification of why it is essential and indispensible for the three letters to be lower case. If it is not essential and indispensible, I see no reason to comply, other than courtesy - I swear to God, I would not have a problem with this if you decided to let me know about it in a gentle and civil way (like you did just above), but you chose not to. Compare my oppose to SSL's recent nomination of F/A-18s which were preceded by at least two requests to shorten the filenames. More than that: I see every reason not to comply, as a gesture of civic resistance against such harmful actions. Because I do - with full responsibility, having thought through what I'm just saying - consider such voting as harmful. Mind you: not what you are trying to achieve, not the endavour of having extensions in lower case. But using this as a basis to oppose is, to the best of my judgment, contradictory to POINT. To sum up, quoting from the page linked by you: As a matter of principle it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist. Thank you for your attention. Good night and God bless. Wolf (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is unfortunate that we end up with featured images with file extensions that are not in line with the basic guidelines, and are likely to become bad examples of file naming to the general reader. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Basik07 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maedin\^talk 18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ianaré --Leafnode✉ 13:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Porto Covo December 2009-12a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 15:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Stormy day in Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Yann (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not that good. Kleuske (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing special. —kallerna™ 11:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a nice example of an ocean coast. I could image this being on a 'Visit Portugal' promotional website. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2007 10 25 - Greenbelt - Water drops on a Saab 9-3 roof 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2010 at 22:49:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Thisisbossi - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simple, yet elegant, this is just one of Andrew Bossi's many interesting photos.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good idea, but IMO it's too noisy and unsharp. DOF is rather shallow. —kallerna™ 11:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna, not sharp, sorry --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is one of the most beautiful images I have seen here lately. Unfortunately I have to oppose because of the sharpness issues and relatively low value outside the art world. --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Cool picture indeed, but rather useless and probably even out of scope. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely not out of scope. This could be used to discuss wetting-dewetting. --99of9 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant artistic picture. (Note that if this was adjusted to the other file format and slightly sharpened, it would probably get more support in a re-nomination). Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Partly to counteract JPG oppose. Partly because it's a striking image. Pity about the lack of DOF. --99of9 (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altocumulus cloud.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 18:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC) (please credit as Rubinstein Felix) - uploaded by Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC) - nominated by Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC) -- Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, the color balance is off and an antenna. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if this is of sufficient technical quality, there is no wow. --99of9 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel78 and 99of9 --Pjt56 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just clouds. No "wow." Tiptoety ^talk 06:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little bit grainy. --High Contrast (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australian Pelican Kioloa.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 23:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the contrast between the bird and the rocks. —kallerna™ 10:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light, composition, colors - super! --Pjt56 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Central composition doesn't usually work, but maybe it is the stone here that balances? Nice light. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with MattiPaavola about central composition and the stone at left (yes to the question). --Cayambe (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 06:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cheetah Umfolozi evening.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 22:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by wegmann - uploaded by wegmann - nominated by wegmann -- Wegmann (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wegmann (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Feet are blurry, and what is that "antenna" on the head? --Pjt56 (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that the feet are blurry and the eyes are sharp, shows the movement of the cheetah. The "antenna" is a branch, unfortunately --Wegmann (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question First of all I like the photo and you will get my pro. There is only one thing: The crop is for my taste a bit tight. I would be interested in the original photo to see if a wider crop makes sense. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- unfortunately it the picture is not cropped - it is the original one, I might have other pictures with more landscape on it, but then the cheetah does not look in the direction of the lense --Wegmann (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blurry. Tiptoety ^talk 06:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lack of sharpness due to camera shake/movement. Nothing in the image is sufficiently sharp - Peripitus (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Find the range of your patriotism2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2010 at 04:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vojtech Preissig - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Find the range of your patriotism.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info 1918 recruitment poster with an unusually good use of negative space for its era. The simplified composition and stylized lettering prefigure the Art Deco esthetic.
Support -- Durova (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per en:Ambrose Bierce. Kleuske (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how Ambrose Bierce relates to this. Vojtech Preissig was a typographer and graphic artist who aided the Czech resistance during both World Wars. Unfortunately that got him into trouble during World War II; he died in Dachau in 1944. Durova (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." Kleuske (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient visual impact for me. --99of9 (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the nominator said, it shows the aesthetic of the period and the culture very well. The fact that the artist eventually died at the hands of the Nazis is fascinating. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:MaryRose-wooden tankard4.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 05:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown photographer of the Mary Rose Trust - uploaded by Peter Isotalo - nominated by Korall (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice visual impact. There is some CA on the top inner handle and the top left of the tankard. Any chance of a fix? --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no clue how to do that. Im just happy the Mary Rose Trust chose to donate a lot of images to Commons and I would be glad to display at least one of them as an example of our finest images. --Korall (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The upper part, mainly the lid, seems out of focus --Pjt56 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Commons:First steps/Quality and description - the guideline is to use jpg (lower case) as the file extension. I would oppose this image with an upper case file extension becoming a FP, but not if it is renamed with the lower case file extension. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of linking to a page where I dont find the information, could you please provide a good reason why the case of the file extension is important enough for an oppose?--Korall (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page linked above says "For photographs, use JPEG (file extension .jpg or .jpeg)." See also Commons:File renaming, where you will see files with bad names are also changed to jpg with the lower case. I expect it is because you can get File:Book.jpg and File:Book.JPG, which is confusing to have files with the same name except for the file extension. I think that FPs (the best on commons) should follow the guidelines. If you are going to upload a new version with a fix as suggested by an earlier reviewer, then please upload the modified version with a lowercase file extension. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that text says nothing specifically about the case of the file extension. I think you are over-interpreting the guidelines and I do not think that reason is good enough to start renaming files. File renaming causes a lot of work on the other wikimedia projects that uses the files so frankly I think its best to leave the files with the names they already have. Every letter in the file name is case sensitive while naming files so there is a very large number of ways to name files with very similar ways and get confused. Please read Commons:File renaming that explicitly states 6 good reasons to move a file. Changing the case of the file extension is not one of them. --Korall (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Korall on this one, what exactly is accomplished by renaming these pictures? Is the quality of the image diminished in any way by having .JPG instead of .jpg? As far as I'm concerned, it's a giant waste of time and effort. The extension could be, .JpG, .jpg or even .JpG, and I wouldn't give a hoot. We should be grateful that people like korall, Wolf and others are generous enough to put their pictures on Commons for free. If you want to argue the toss, start a discussion on the talk page, in the meantime, strike your votes and get some commons sense. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Kammloipe unweit Großer Kranichsee.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 09:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by je-str -- Je-str (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, looks like a snapshot. —kallerna™ 10:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna --Pjt56 (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Snapshots are not allowed? Je-str (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They are. But they are rarely of FP quality.Kleuske (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna. Kleuske (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - crop of the front skier. --MattiPaavola (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's nice without doubt, and I really like it for its visual appeal. Unfortunately the composition and overall nature is not quite up to standard. Sorry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No "wow." Per kallerna. Tiptoety ^talk 06:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peleş - gardens1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 16:41:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition, but lighting lets it down. Kleuske (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh lighting --Leafnode✉ 12:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rippon tor pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2010 at 17:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Panorama looking South-West and West from Hey Tor on Dartmoor, Devon, UK in snow. It is made up from 4 images.
Info This image does have some similarities to this one in that they were taken less than a kilometre apart on the same day. However the similarity ends there for me as they were taken looking into opposite directions looking & into quite different conditions. To me this one reflects a bleaker and more remote scene well. There is a little light and the detail is there but in the distance the snow is falling and the weather closing in.
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. -- Captain Bradley (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think I preferred the other side, but this is a very good panorama as well. Severnjc (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm learning about personal taste and I appreciate the feedback too. If I'm honest I prefer this one but I felt the other had more "easy impact". This is much moodier but reflects the scene well (imho!). I've got a few panos from today but I'm working on them at present and there was no snow (just some frost). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I'd support without hesitation if it wasn't for one thing: The pano is tilted. A CCW rotation of between 1 and 1.5 degrees is all that's required (check the horizon on the right quarter of the image for example, that terrain is approx level), I would do it myself and present the alt but it would be better if Herby did so as I would lose more of the scene working from this file than Herby would working from the originals.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Referring to the ordinance survey map the cairns on Rippon tor are on almost exactly the same contour line as the tor itself making the image a pretty true representation to me. I see from the file history that the image has been adjusted by 0.5 deg already. I don't see compelling evidence for any further adjustment I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd still prefer a bit more, but no point arguing ad infinitum over such a minor issue. I think its within personal preference anyway as opposed to serious issue so I'll Support.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You might want to strike out your neutral vote then. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely stunning. Jolly Janner (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After seeing this, I *do* want to 'talk thyme'. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks oversharpened. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great landscape, great shot imo. --Cayambe (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty. Tiptoety ^talk 06:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 13:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture. Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flea Scanning Electron Micrograph False Color.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2010 at 01:28:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by CDC - uploaded by Raeky - nominated by Econt (talk) -- Econt (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Econt (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Captain Bradley (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and nice scientific image. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! ■ MMXX ^talk 20:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me want to scratch... ;) Durova (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose b/w is more encyclopedic - what motivates pink? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on earth is b/w more encyclopaedic - if that were the case there would be few colour images available here? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is like coloring the animal in this photo pink. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However in a repository of freely licensed images a coloured one with good EV can be desaturated if anyone wishes to do so. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Neonatal tetanus 6374.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2010 at 01:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by CDC - uploaded by GeorgHH - nominated by Econt (talk) -- Econt (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Econt (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support İt's sad --Captain Bradley (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Poor quality, but with a strong impact.--Econt (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extremely grainy. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kallerna Basar (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ari-Hest-December-2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 02:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info New York-based singer-songwriter Ari Hest plays guitar and sings at Highline Ballroom on December 26, 2009. Photographed by slgckgc on Flickr and then uploaded as well as nominated by Cousin Kevin. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe that its an interesting and detailed representation of Hest's live music, especially with the color scheme. His expression in his face and eyes look almost mystical and dreamlike. I have almost no knowledge of the technical specifics of the image, so I cannot comment on that. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's several pictures from this same concert on the related Flickr page (Just an FYI for those interested). Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, bad crop (the guitar and the finger are cropped). —kallerna™ 09:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo, but not really an FP because of the crop at bottom. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin Kevin (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC) On second thought, I may be able to find a similar yet better picture of the concert. Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hofkirche Dresden bei Nacht.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 21:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Low resolution, low quality. Tiptoety ^talk 01:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose messy composition --Leafnode✉ 12:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dresden photochrom2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 03:35:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Detroit Publishing Co. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Dresden photochrom.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Dresden in the 1890s, before extensive WWII bombing. Durova (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done restoration --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've occasionally wondered what Dresden looked like before the bombing! --99of9 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extreme historical value as mentioned by 99of9. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well worth while and well executed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh, how beautiful it was! -- JovanCormac 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:New River Ft Lauderdale.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 10:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info New River and Ft Lauderdale skyline (close to sunset). All by ianaré (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ianaré (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 15:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wonderful quality, but the composition seems unbalanced to me... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support strong support. Very nice IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Patriot8790 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basar (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the horizon is curved: the building on the left is clearly leaning a bit, while the ones in the middle are straight. Maybe try a restitch with more vertical guides? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great panorama of the area. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sydney Opera House with Tall Ship.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 06:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Sydney Opera House with a number of boats in foreground, most prominently, a Tall Ship, but also a wide range of others. Created by Ben Aveling - uploaded by Ben Aveling - nominated by Ben Aveling -- Ben Aveling 06:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ben Aveling 06:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-done picture of the Opera House and the surrounding area. Cousin Kevin (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love Sydney, but cropped buildings let this down. --99of9 (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, we have better photos of Sydney. —kallerna™ 09:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm prepared to accept that there are better pictures of Sydney, but this isn't a picture of Sydney. It's a picture of the harbour. Having more sky, and the tops of those not very interesting buildings would draw the eye away from the actual subject of the picture. IMHO of course. YMMV. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically it's more a picture of the Opera House than the harbour. A good image of the harbour would show its expanse, not a tiny fraction of it in front of a notable building. And even if it were of the harbour, it's usually a compositional faux pas to crop the tops of buildings, trees etc when it's unnecessary to do so. Diliff (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Getting the tops of the buildings would have meant framing closer to the tall ship. Ben Aveling 19:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...or a wider lens, perhaps necessary for this to be FP. Standards are tough around here. --99of9 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna and 99of9. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ben Aveling 09:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Araucaria Resin.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 11:42:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Kumar83
Info Unusually shaped fingers of resin extrude from the trunk of a mature Araucaria columnaris specimen at Hooghly near Bandel in West Bengal, India. Location is 22°55′22″N 88°22′46″E - Kumar83 17:21, 7 January 2010 (IST).
Oppose Out of focus. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... and main subject mostly overexposed. --Cayambe (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The glossy texture of the fully solidified portions make it appear overexposed - the finger on the extreme left (and the lower part of the long finger), not being too viscous illustrate the difference - Kumar83 19:41, 7 January 2010 (IST).

Support Looks as an abstract painting, and besides I like everything unusual--Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bandel Rose.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 12:38:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Kumar83
Info A beautiful rose specimen in full bloom, from Hooghly near Bandel in West Bengal, India. Location is 22°55′22″N 88°22′46″E - Kumar83
Oppose sadly. Uncategorized, but more importantly the composition is rather "blah", for lack of better wording. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice DOF but could have done with some light to give it a wow factor. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought the contrast between the blossom and the surroundings makes for a better picture - a radiating beacon of loveliness in an ocean of bleakness perhaps ? (with apologies for the poetry) - Kumar83- 17:39, 8 January 2010 (IST)

Oppose colors, DOF (and because of that - background) --Leafnode✉ 12:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Episyrphus balteatus 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 15:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Marmalade hoverfly (Episyrphus balteatus), created by pjt56 - uploaded by pjt56 - nominated by pjt56 -- Pjt56 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pjt56 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful picture. I was a bit concerned when I saw the file size that it might be suffering from compression artifacts or reduced color, but viewing the picture at full resolution I wasn't able to spot any problems. DOF could be a little higher, but you got the entire head and most of the body in good focus. A focus stack might have gotten better results, but I don't think the DOF is so shallow as to be a problem. The green plant parts in the lower left are a bit distracting as they intrude on the focal plane, but again, that's a minor quibble. Severnjc (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The picture was taken free-handed, and the fly was gone within a second, so there was not much time for a focus stack :-)--Pjt56 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Severnjc, nice --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing special. Our macro-standards are higher IMO. —kallerna™ 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --D-Kuru (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice shot, but the top crop bothers. Sorry. --MattiPaavola (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work Pjt56. Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The small issues mentioned above stack up to not being FP for me. --99of9 (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-007 ight F-A-18 Hornets assigned the River Rattlers, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204, fly in a column formation over southern Louisiana's wetlands during a photo exercise.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 23:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John P. Curtis (USAF) - uploaded by Multichill - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99of9 (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This one shows also the terrain. Would prefer cropping away the top, but I think it is a FP anyway. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Very nice image but I don't like the extra-long file name!! this make it hard to use images on other projects, also there is no more space for edit summary. ■ MMXX ^talk 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to excessively long filename. Sorry, mate, I told you... Wolf (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. --Cayambe (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's on the picture is spectacular, but i'm not impressed by the picture itself. Sharpness, composition... Not bad, but no cigar. B.t.w. is the top plane wearing soviet markings? Kleuske (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Since the en:VFA-204 is part of the en:Tactical Support Wing, and not actually a front-line squadron, I assume the stars are left over from Aggressor training. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I thought something like that might be the case. I remembered Top Gun just a tad too late.Kleuske (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture but for goodness sakes please rename it. Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI've submitted rename requests for all 4. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 07:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy to be FP, in my opinion... --Phyrexian (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-008 Four F-A-18 Hornets assigned the River Rattlers, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204, prepare to break out of formation over southern Louisiana's wetlands during a photo exercise.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 23:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John P. Curtis (USAF) - uploaded by Multichill - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to excessively long filename. Sorry, mate, I told you... Wolf (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~No depth of field.~~ Blurred anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportInteresting image, I like the way background planes are captured, looks almost as a mirage.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and dull colours. The name is indeed extravagant. Pieter Kuiper, the DoF is all right, what you see is atmosperic disturbance from the engines of the first plane. Rama (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1[edit]

Info created by John P. Curtis (USAF) - edited by Matti Paavola - nominated by Matti Paavola --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I hope I don't step on anyone's toes, but I think the original image has a lot of potential and decided to give it a try. I increased the contrast of the midtones to get the terrain sligtly more visible and tried to improve the composition by cropping. Warning: this now falls slightly under the 2 mpix recommendation. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:US Navy 090711-N-9712C-011 Two F-A-18 Hornets assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 204 and two F-15 Strike Eagles assigned to the Louisiana Air National Guard 159th Fighter Wing fly in an echelon formation.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2010 at 23:22:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John P. Curtis (USAF) - uploaded by Multichill - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Back by popular demand, these pictures depict aircraft of VFA-204 'River Rattlers', with an appearance by 2 F-15E Strike Eagles of Louisiana Air National Guard 159th Fighter Wing in the photo above. Vote for one, all four, or anything in between.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to excessively long filename. Sorry, mate, I told you... Wolf (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment S***, knew I forgot something... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image. Can't you just put in a rename request now? --99of9 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good idea. Doing it now. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Submitted requests for all of them. Any thoughts, Wolf? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. --Cayambe (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Supercellule orageuse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 01:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by MatP - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically fine, high WOW --Pjt56 (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Pjt56. --Cayambe (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --თეკა (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Diti the penguin — 13:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blaksems mooi Kleuske (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good educational image. ■ MMXX ^talk 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personally, I would probably have denoised it a bit, on the other hand the noise helps give structure and texture to the clouds. The tail cloud video is very interesting too. --Slaunger (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very informative example of the weather phenomenon. Excellent detail. I have no doubt that this will pass. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 07:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Nikopol (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sava Bohinjka.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 17:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Szasza - uploaded by Szasza - nominated by Szasza -- Szasza (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Upper Sava Bohinjka in Slovenia.
Support -- Szasza (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, already a featured image on Hungarian Wikipedia, I hope it'll get featured here too :) – Alensha ^msg 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Doncsecz (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not? :) ■ MMXX ^talk 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - CA --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful composition, but the water on the left is neither sharp nor intentionally blurred --Pjt56 (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is that artificial thing in center right? —kallerna™ 10:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i think this is a drinking water exception dot. Szasza (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have voted neutral without that drinking water exception dot. The photo itself in stunning, but there's too many problems with quality. It's too soft and blurry, CA and partly overburnt. Sorry. —kallerna™ 14:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Szajci ^reci 18:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Kallerna --Böhringer (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The wow is not there for me and there are valid issues raised above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einstein2 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Kallerna --Leafnode✉ 13:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per issues above. --99of9 (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Madura Máté ^talkstreet 14:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image but not good enough for FP IMO. --Cayambe (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --•Teroses^{je t'écoute} 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Mosaique-ecl-lune-20091231 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 17:03:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you please add to the description? At least say which order the shots are in and how long between each shot. Perhaps record the exact 4 times and location. Also you might want to look into the slight CA around the edges. --99of9 (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an interesting montage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine work! --Schnobby (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Damaliscus topi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 22:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Dreamdan - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 22:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 22:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please provide geographical and biological information --Pjt56 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture was taken in Kenya and here is a link to en.wiki Topi (Damaliscus korrigum) ■ MMXX ^talk 23:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture was taken in the Masai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. User talk:dreamdan 23:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Dreamdan - 00:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjt56 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good image. There is minor clipping in the red channel. Could be corrected from the raw file. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Unsharp. —kallerna™ 10:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe a bit soft, but with 400mm it's excusable :) --Leafnode✉ 13:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason not to feature in my opinion. Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice sharp and bright image of the 2 animals with excellent composition. --Korman (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)A[reply]

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

File:Great white shark and cage diving 2.wmv.OGG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2010 at 22:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is the point? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - your usual approach I see. Your absence of knowledge coupled with a wish to irritate someone else as you did last time. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At lest now I know that somebody watched my video!

thanks, but I am not sure what did you mean with "What is the point"? The point is to show great white shark swimming, or it is an every day sight for you?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good EV indeed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW fishing --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Jaws! --Aqwis (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cant see any cage diving nor can i see the shark very well. But i can see the beautiful back of a diver and his hat. --Simonizer (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - An interesting video, but not really of high quality IMO because of the main subject not being very visible and because of the camera shake. A side comment: I think we should have a separate system for giving recognition for videos. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fully agree with Simonizer and MattiPaavola --Pjt56 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tide Pools at Pillar Point 7.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 20:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The lower part of the image is under the fast moving water
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Intriguing symphony of different sea animals with very interesting colors. Is the saturation really like that or have you given it a hrmph on the saturation knob in the editing process? In certain areas immensely crisp and detailed. However, there is a bad area (cf. annotation) and I think that the composition is a little bit too busy for my taste. --Slaunger (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while quality is great, I think there's a bit too much going on on the picture. It's dominated by the massive surface of the pillar, and details are lost when viewing on zoom level lower than full view. --Leafnode✉ 13:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rome panorama sb1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 17:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rsuessrb - uploaded by Rsuessrb - nominated by Markos90 -- Markos90 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Markos90 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, stitch lines visible. White balance is off. --Aqwis (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, ack. Aqwis. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Aqwis. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several obvious vertical bands of bad stitching. Noisy sky and too uneven color reproduction of the sky. Otherwise a nice view. --Slaunger (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mravaldzali st.George catheral.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 15:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rati Skhirtladze - uploaded by George - nominated by George -- Gaeser (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gaeser (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ჯაბა ლაბაძე (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--თეკა (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful in small size, but fairly unsharp. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, some CA is present, noisy sky--Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The approved file name format is with lower case jpg. The file is not in line with basic guidelines, so I think it should fail because of this. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's not perfect technicaly but it got my heart. Basik07 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly. Never mind technology failed here a bit... I can breathe Georgian air for a while. Blago Tebi (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mbz1 & because of contrast problem. Takabeg (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support To partially counteract the JPG-oppose. I don't think that is a good reason to fail. The file name can be changed easily if it's inconsistent with the regulations - just post a rename request. We shouldn't need to go through a whole new FP evaluation just because of a small technicality like that. --99of9 (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brute (Talk) 10:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very good shot. Unfortunately, the camera's skills are far far behind the photographer's. --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy and not too sharp. --ianaré (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tokoko (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with Basik07. Cousin Kevin (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. Basar (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gota (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NorthBeach WillingaPoint Bawley.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 05:56:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, dull light. --Aqwis (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your review. I see what you mean. I've now uploaded a version with adjusted levels which brings out the texture better. --99of9 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but while the edit made the picture look better, it didn't (and cannot) alter the light quality. --Aqwis (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I didn't see what you mean! Can you explain what light quality is exactly? This was taken on a midsummer day in Australia - so I had plenty of light, but that's obviously not what you mean. Do you mean how diffuse/direct it is? If so, which are you after? --99of9 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read [1]. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Aqwis (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Interesting read. The problem is that most of his specific recommendations (dawn, dusk, clearing/oncoming storm) change the behaviour of the people on the beach. The aim here was to include typical beach activities, and for that you need typical atmospheric conditions. The hunk in Speedo's for Durova would probably not be there at dusk :). --99of9 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great landscape, with some human presence. Colours, composition and contrast very good now IMO. --Cayambe (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cayambe --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lower left corner is out of focus, but still a goog quality panorama of an interesting page--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mbz1 --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO no wow. —kallerna™ 12:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Aqwis. Nikopol (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Weathered growth rings at Aztec Ruins National Monument.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 01:10:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great example of tree rings, with strong encyclopedic value. Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, per Cousin Kevin --George Chernilevsky ^talk
Support Per Cousin Kevin - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 12:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others. --Cayambe (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image per the above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 22:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting. Tiptoety ^talk 09:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be reshooted, but I guess it is good enought now. —kallerna™ 12:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was just about to complain about the borderline resolution when I realized it is a scan of a photo from 1978. I must say the photo has a very good quality considering this. I also read about the camera you used then. Cool camera, for its time I must say. Very nice texture.--Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice use of colours and great composition. --Korman (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 07:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Ardea Alba in Hugh Taylor Birch State Park.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 21:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ardea alba everything by -- Korall (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support 83.15.210.186 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Basik07 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 06:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp --Leafnode✉ 12:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little soft, and there are already 3 featured pictures of this species. Basar (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Basar. Nikopol (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Circumzenithal arc and sundog over Cirrus clouds.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 16:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A more or less rare display of w:Circumzenithal arc, which is also called "upside down rainbow" and a brighr w:Sun dog
Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I understand this must be very rare, but both features are rather small & not well pronounced. I could not see sun dog until saw image notes. Otherwise 90% of the image is random blue sky. Renata3 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to show how both features look together. Many people, who see a sun dog never bother to look up, and to see, if there's something else at the sky. I see Circumzenithal arc about 2-3 times per year. In many places it is much more common occurrence. How many of you have ever seen one?--Mbz1 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support very rare and nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basar (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Giralda, Seville, Spain - Sep 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2010 at 19:07:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by David Iliff, nominated by Maedin
Info La Giralda, the tower of the Cathedral of Seville. An interesting angle that made getting the tower in the frame possible. It's 97.5 m (320 ft) high. Featured on English Wikipedia.
Support —Maedin\^talk 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjt56 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting angle indeed, very nice picture. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I'd like to see all the way to the ground. Perhaps a stitch? --99of9 (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did also do this panoramic stitch but because the plaza is quite small, and the tower is very tall, there is significant distortion. There is no way to show the whole tower from this angle without distorting it unfortunately. Diliff (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for showing me the context, amazing tower! I agree that one looks distorted because of the height of the tower. In this case I think you could have stitched just one landscape frame below this one, and refrained from perspective correction. --99of9 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - gotta love the colours - Peripitus (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9 --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Do not care much for the crop. Sorry, Tiptoety ^talk 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous! Rastrojo _(D•ES) 14:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I have to agree with 99of9. --Aqwis (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well, I suppose I might as well thrown my hand in since it's close. ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mirounga leonina.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 17:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by User:Butterfly voyages - nominated by Wolf (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! I can smell the breath. --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! technically, EV, WOW factor --Pjt56 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment POTY 2010, perhaps? :) Wolf (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically excellent and otherwise very impressive. --Cayambe 18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Well done shot --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not keen on the advertising but a wonderful image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very neat image. Diti the penguin — 19:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Simonizer (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! - LOL! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I agree with Cayambe. Cousin Kevin (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A brave shot! I don't think I would want to get that close... Tiptoety ^talk 20:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it! Nominated at en wiki. Maedin\^talk 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a pity about the other person's shadow (on the right), but this is great in so many other ways. --99of9 (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Wolf, a good nominee for POTY 2010. ■ MMXX ^talk 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, 1a+. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support *Jumps on top of the pile-on* You might want to let BV know you nominated his inage, Wolf. Let him know it's enjoy more success than the last time someone nommed an image of his... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 12:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. (Ps. I tried making a version with the shadow removed, but I'm not sure it's really an improvement — the shadow seems to balance the composition somehow.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good stuff! --Slaunger (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great!! --ianaré (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I so love image. The best Ive seen in a long time. Not that my vote will make any difference, but great work!--Korall (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 07:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ankara (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC) great![reply]
Support Nikopol (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The pileon is well deserved. Durova (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah! Bravo Butterfly, Il est adorable! --Sitron (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 29 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Slap Savica.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 01:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Szasza (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very difficult subject. You have used a very wide angle lens, but somehow I still would like to see more at the bottom: where all that water is going to. Might not be possible to achieve without stiching at least from this camera location. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Matti, this is the only view you can get from the sightseeing point in a closed pavilion. The old way on the left side of the image is forbidden, there is danger to life after a landslide. If you want to see more: have a look to this web site with the views from the now forbidden way made in the time before the landslide.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I too really wish that I could see exactly where the water went to, but that's not really a major issue to me. The overall quality of the picture is excellent apart from that. Thumbs up. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Limnodromus scolopaceus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 06:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Basar - uploaded by Basar - nominated by Basar -- Basar (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basar (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, activity gives it even more impact. --99of9 (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! strong support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 99of9. That slimy thing on the mouth, bubbles from disturbed mud... --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow, perfect. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 12:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image indeed - well crafted. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great animal - great image. --Cayambe (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with above. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would profit from noise removal. —kallerna™ 12:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appears to me that there are several dust spots. Some of them are probably small droplets of water out of focus, but it appears to me that several of those are at improbable places and cannot be droplets. It may be my eyes deceiving me though, so I will not oppose for that reason. Besides that: Very good photo. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, they are out-of-focus objects in the water. I think I see them transition from the focused area to the background. Basar (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A great foto with balanced colours and great composition. --Korman (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice, but... sorry, I don't see anything outstanding --Leafnode✉ 07:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: very beautiful picture. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gobsmacking. Durova (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sediment in the Gulf of Mexico (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 10:49:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Tropical Storm Ida had come ashore over Alabama and Florida, immediately east of the area shown here, a few hours before the image was acquired. Much of the dirt that colours the water is likely re-suspended sediment dredged up from the sea floor in shallow waters.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly valuable, but the raster in the dark blue ocean (even visible in the thumbnail) disappoints me. --99of9 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose you mean the diagonal stripes (presumably artifacts of the satellite imaging method)? I suppose I could try editing them out later — if I could get the mesh out of File:Speyer Dom BW 1 (edit).jpg, I should be able to fix a couple of stripes. Not on this laptop, though. And not over the original image. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, that is what I'm referring to. --99of9 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info As promised, I tried to edit this image to reduce the stripy artifacts. Here's what I came up with:

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This version. Well improved thanks Ilmari. --99of9 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version. I see a red four-sided figure north of Houston. What is it? Will you remove it? --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burrow Mump.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 18:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Maedin - uploaded by Maedin - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A view of the ruins of St Michael's Church, from near the top of Burrow Mump. Burrow Mump is located in the village of Burrowbridge, in Somerset.
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A really good photograph. The question is if the technical quality of a point and shoot camera is enough to take an FP. I don't know. (BTW, this comment is a good candidate for the most useless comment of the day now that the JPG/jpg discussions have started to settle. :-)) --MattiPaavola (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the difference between lowercase file extensions like .jpg and capital file extensions like .JPG? I thought that one of the criteria for FPC' s is the quality of the image and not the file extension. --Patriot8790 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Patriot, there have been some opposes recently from a specific user regarding whether or not an uppercase file extension is within the guidelines. See here and here. Frankly, you can safely ignore this; it's not part of the criteria and most likely never will be. Maedin\^talk 13:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment My point exactly! --MattiPaavola (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - My first FP was from my point & shoot. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful photograph. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KässbohrerPB260DW 3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 20:38:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being a resident of hot and dry Australia, I had never seen one of these odd machines before. Quite an interesting design.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support danke für die Nomination --Böhringer (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bitte! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sehr gut! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Just out of curiousity George, what's the 3a mean? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - in Russian за=support. It is not 1,2,3a. Transcription is za --George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality useful image (& always good to educate Australians...;)) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, to me this is one of those pictures, that could be QI or VI, but not FP. The centered composition is bit dull, the crop is bit tight and I can't see anything really special in it. —kallerna™ 15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically fine, but for encyclopedic purposes (e.g. for Australians who have never seen such a machine ...) the part of it doing the actual work (i.e. the device at the back!) should be better visible. --Pjt56 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kallerna. I'm Australian, and even I didn't get wowed :). --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image. --High Contrast (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I agree with Kallerna. IMO not enough wow / outstanding enough for FP. Nikopol (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trier Porta Nigra BW 5.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2010 at 17:56:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp - just like the previous picture which was also not featured because of that (but still I think that previous shot was sharper). --Leafnode✉ 13:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, those roads distract me. —kallerna™ 11:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Night lights like these make everything seem too yellow IMO. Also, there is a distracting car trail on the left. --99of9 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance. Also, the lighting is much better in the previous shot referenced by Leafnode above. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MGB HGe 4-4 II mit Glacier Express kurz vor Oberalp Passhöhe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 19:22:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Glacier Express from St. Moritz to Zermatt on the rack rail section just below Oberalp Passhöhe.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but it would be better if the train was bigger. —kallerna™ 12:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's like a model railway. :-) --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bitte erkläre auf der Bilderklärungsseite die von Dir verwendeten Abkürzungen MGB HGe 4-4 II und SLM HGe 4-4 II. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Ist jetzt besser? --Kabelleger (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC). - Ausgezeichnet! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice foto with bright, nice colours. Wish the train was larger but such is life. --Korman (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 07:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perolinka (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Phalanx CIWS test fire - 081107-N-5416W-003.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 23:55:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MCS3 Class William Weinert (US Navy) - uploaded and nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info For those of you wondering what the white dome shaped object is, what you're looking at is the en:Phalanx CIWS (Close-In Weapons System), designed to destroy missiles, aircraft and other 'close in' threats. It has a fire rate of 3000-4000 RPM, and is mounted on nearly every ship in the US Navy.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i dont like the composition --Simonizer (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, says me, the militarist. Wolf (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mauritania boy1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 06:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ferdinand Reus - uploaded by Mangostar - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 06:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 06:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and simple portrait. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mati precisely! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support He is more gifted than me, for sure! ;) Diti the penguin — 14:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice shot! What are the artifacts in the upper right corner? They look like fingerprints on my old slides ... :-) --Pjt56 (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know what was them, they were pretty strange, but for sure they weren't fingerprints anyway I've removed them. ■ MMXX ^talk 22:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sushi... Durova (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Well done, but the green stuff in the background doesn't make it excellent imho. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That was also my first thought. But if you look closer you see more trash in the background which indicates a pretty dirty beach. And yet the boy bites the raw fish ... So the trash could be part of the picture's message!? --Pjt56 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I don't think it's an outstanding portrait - rather a snapshot. Light is flat, background is messy, DoF is too deep... --Leafnode✉ 13:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 11:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Leafnode --Simonizer (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. Pile of dirt next to left ear, green trash above head. Thats a pity, as the boy would be great. --Leuo (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the garbage as it adds another dimension of information about whether it was a clean fish (per ptj) :) --99of9 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Leafnode –Ppntori (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Devon fields stitch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 13:28:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A Panorama of rural/agricultural landscape in south Devon, UK with some snow. It is made up from 7 images.
Info It is possible that some will say there is no "wow" with this image and, in a sense, I accept that. However I see this as a high quality illustration of a highly typical landscape in the west country of the UK. It shows a timeless setting of fields, hedges, sheep, a barn, woodland in an elegant way and I feel that timelessness is worthy of being featured. With agriculture and the landscape changing such scenes will not always be there. Distant moorland can also be seen.

Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done result and wow landscape for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice combination of white and green. --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. --Cayambe (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I would reduce the blue colour, the shadows of the trees and the hedches are unnatural blue. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. Tiptoety ^talk 08:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ per Michael Gäbler. Apart from the oversaturated shadows it´s a great picture, and I´ll instantly support if you desaturate them a little. I love the "pattern" created by the paths Nikopol (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When people ask nicely I do try and listen :) New version uploaded with blue toned down a bit. I guess some of the shadows did look a bit "off". I have slightly boosted the sky which suffered otherwise. If folk see this as overdone please do let me know. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thanks Nikopol (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thanks for your accommodation. The image is an exceptional addition for FP. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Great now. --99of9 (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. Maedin\^talk 07:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support toll --Böhringer (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one. Even after scrutinizing it a long time for stitching errors, I did not find any. Well done. --Slaunger (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poppies in the Sunset on Lake Geneva.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 18:33:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eric Hill, uploaded by Pete Tillman, nominated by Maedin
Info This is almost certainly Papaver rhoeas, the common or field poppy. However, as I'm not 100% certain of the species, I haven't marked it as such in the file description. Please remember that species identification is not an element of the featured picture criteria.
Support —Maedin\^talk 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Too much colour noise IMHO, and images should not be framed. -- H005 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't notice the border! Oops, :) I've removed it now. I also used Noiseware Professional to fix up the noise a bit. It may not be enough to change your mind, but hopefully an improvement nonetheless. Maedin\^talk 20:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak support Noise is ok now, I don't mind the DOF very much, the "back lighting" I even find very positive, just the halos are a bit disturbing. -- H005 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose back lighting --Leafnode✉ 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, beautiful light, but the out-of-focus flowers are too disturbing. --Aqwis (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - beautiful. DOF doesn't bother me too much. The only relevant downside to me is the tight crop at left. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting. Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 09:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi kallerna, I noticed that you very often oppose a nomination by just saying "poor quality". I hope you don't bother me telling you that I believe that, except for really obvious cases, it should be a courtesy to the nominator to be a bit more specific. -- H005 12:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, but in some cases these's just too many problems to point out. The problems are too obvious. —kallerna™ 12:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't disagree with kallerna, there are flaws. I just decided that other aspects of the photograph outweighed the technical inferiorities. I appreciate that kallerna didn't really need to embellish in this case. Maedin\^talk 12:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Worth pointing out to anyone here that some who are here are not as experienced as others and may well wish to learn about their errors so it is helpful/courteous to comment fully IMO --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don´t like the halos, but otherwise the image is very nice. Nikopol (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Am I the only one who doesn't like the left crop? --Pjt56 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there is no problem. --.ds m. 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Leafnode -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset Starnberger See.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 11:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Thiergan - uploaded by Graf Geo - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sunset at Starnberger See.
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Size, unsharp around hills/trees, unnatural colors (gray coulds) --Leuo (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose size and sharpness. --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MattiPaavola. --Cayambe (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationPer comments above. --Patriot8790 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michael martin wüste (49).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 08:55:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Desertman - uploaded by Desertman - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoDunes in Arakao, Sahara, Niger
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too noisy. --Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, very noisy. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above, really not good I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very nice direction of light, but needs denoising before FP nomination. May or may not be too saturated, too. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Per comments above. --Patriot8790 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vourvourou-Greece.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 08:43:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The beach of Vourvourou in Chalkidiki, Greece

Info created by Snowdog - uploaded by Snowdog - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThe beach of Vourvourou in Chalkidiki, Greece
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad image but probably overexposed, not that clear and no wow for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little too harsh light for my taste, a nice view but the composition does not really catch my eye. I suggest you use the {{Information}} template to properly describe your image on the image page. You could add value by adding a geolocation (including a heading) and link the location to relevant page(s) on Wikipedia(s).

I withdraw my nomination Per comments above. --Patriot8790 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volcan de Colima 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 20:15:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jrobertiko - uploaded by Jrobertiko - nominated by Jrobertiko -- Jrobertiko (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jrobertiko (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a nice image, but too hazy for an FP IMO. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great image but I agree with the above I am afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah haze is a problem, and the composition is rather uninteresting as well in my opinion. Besides that an impressive sight. It must have been great being there to see with own eyes. --Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination due to opposing comments above. --Jrobertiko (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paisaje del sur de España.jpg[reply]

File:KinkakuJiDetail.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 13:32:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leuo - uploaded by Leuo - nominated by Leuo -- Leuo (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- Leuo (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, but I don't see anything fancy in the composition, sorry. --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light and colours are good, but there is no clear idea in the composition. It is OK to zoom in on details of a building, but the crop should be well thought out then, and it not the case here, where the corner of the roof is cut off, and there is a distracting perspective distortion/tilt. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for reasons above.

Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama Istenmezeje2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 12:24:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Domokdr - uploaded by Domokdr - nominated by Szasza -- Szasza (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Panorama of the village Istenmezeje, Hungary
Support -- Szasza (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an interesting image, but too small for an FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. --kallerna 14:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belém Fishing port and Ver-o-peso 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 22:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Cayambe (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Graininess esp. visible in the sky ; lack of sharpness and some distortion, esp. in the top left corner ; possibly over-processed/over-smoothed (oily appearance in some places) ; and, unfortunately, the composition is too busy imho, lacking a focus or a directing line. Sorry. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Maurilbert. Also, it is a bit too busy for me. Tiptoety ^talk 08:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy for me.
Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 14:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Imagine a fishing port and a market hall where nothing's going on... :-) --Cayambe (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Pictures like this are great fun to examine. Unfortunately I agree there's a graininess problem, and I'm also disappointed by the bottom crop (perhaps none better was possible). --99of9 (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, no other crop is available, this because of the wall seen at right. --Cayambe (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fog on the tree line in the Rocky Mountain National Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 20:18:24 (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) 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too grainy. I know that the conditions have been challenging, but the result is what counts :(. —kallerna™ 14:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kallerna, please read the name of this image: "Fog on the tree line in the Rocky Mountain National Park." This is an image about fog. Therefore it must be grainy, this is the quality of fog. I read in the regulation of FP (see above): "Focus - every important object in the picture should normally be sharp." Normally, not always. Sharpness is needed only in normally cases, if an image can be sharp. But this image shows the grainy effectiveness of fog.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I have to agree with Kallerna that there is too much film grain/noise visible taking into account the relatively low resolution of the image. Nice picture otherwise! --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schiller edit1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 04:55:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info published by Jos. Koehler (creator unknown) - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Schiller.jpg by Durova -- Durova (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically high quality portrait of Goethes friend. However, such an idealized "pretty" portrait does not really make a significant impact on me as an observer. I find the portrait rather uninteresting, actually. --Slaunger (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ This is different enough for many of today's readers. --99of9 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per the historical argument given by pjt56. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm glad it's not a misspelling, but I stand by my (changed) vote. The reason for the restoration can't be a factor in whether it should be featured. --99of9 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seems like a nice example of what high-quality portraits looked like at that time. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good work by Durova, but I don't like the zigzag crops around the person in the original print. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sorry, Durova, once again great restoration work. But being from 1905 (Schiller died in 1805) and no other sources given I'm afraid this portrait is far from authentic (even the name is spelled incorrectly! And look at his nose on other portraits ...). Featuring it would give it false importance. There are lots of authentic, contemporary Schiller portraits available. --Pjt56 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a misspelling: Schiller was ennobled in 1802 by the Duke of Weimar and changed his name slightly. The caption in this portrait uses that version. This restoration was performed for the specific purpose of showing to German archives to seek access to better material. If those negotiations yield a digital file of equivalent technical quality from a likeness taken during his lifetime I would gladly delist and replace this. Durova (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The von indicates his acquired nobility and is spelled correctly, but Fredrich instead of Friedrich is incorrect. It may be the adaption of his name into another language (which one?), but this would again support my doubts about the authenticity. I can offer to help you to get access to German archives if you're interested (let's continue this on our talk pages). --Pjt56 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, love to. Durova (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC) pushes Hegel and Max Planck to the back of the desk[reply]
Support --Gaeser (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:St Paul's Cathedral, London, England - Jan 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2010 at 12:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've annotated some issues with ghostly people at full-res. Aren't people annoying! ;) This isn't an oppose, because you've given us such high-res that I don't even deserve to be able to see them. But I am wondering if you can improve them with the original images? --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's difficult to improve it, because this is a HDR shot. If anything was moving in the various segments, not only do you have motion-blur ghosting, but you have three sets of movement because of the three exposures that comprise each segment. It was shot on a tripod so there shouldn't be any movement of the building, hopefully. ;-) I could possibly blur/clone the people out completely, but they're fairly minor issues IMO. If this wasn't HDR, I could also get PTGui to output a layered PSD file and remove them completely, but since it is, I had to output it has a .HDR file (layers flattened prior to this point) and process it in Photomatix post-stitching. It all gets a bit messy! Diliff (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yes, people are bloody annoying! It was so much worse than this image suggests. I spent at least 10-15 minutes waiting for the right moment to avoid them walking through the shot. The things you do for photography... there's a story like that behind many of mine! ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely golden light on the front of the building. Great resolution. Ghosting doesn't bother me at all. Maedin\^talk 07:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Challenging subject given the number of people inevitably around. High quality of the subject and high EV --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really excellent! (Btw: the ghost people don't bother me, but I noticed a small dust spot in the sky, just right of the tower). -- MJJR (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why did you remove the ghostly-like effects? That's merely Father Bennett Edwards and his fellow departed friends coming by to comfort the current parishioners. :-D Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tower on the right side looks odd, probably because of the projection. —kallerna™ 09:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the perspective is to marked. I think it might have been better if photographed further away from the buildings, or perhaps a perspective correction might help. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective and slight lack of midtone contrast. I tried an edit with subtle changes, but the perspective is tricky... Well, seems it will get featured anyway :) Nikopol (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The perspective was probably corrected by the book: the verticals are vertical. Unfortunately, the result isn't this time really pleasant regarding the tower IMO. Sorry. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did actually apply some compression to the horizontal extremes, but I guess it wasn't enough. I just didn't want the scene to look too squashed as a result. Unfortunately (IMO anyway) this is the most aesthetic view of the cathedral. Diliff (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great resolution, and the minimal ghosting is alright in my opinion Nikopol (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:White water in the Savica.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 01:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oversaturated? —kallerna™ 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made an update with reduced saturation. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is a fine photo of two streams combining, but the competition is hard for these types of photos, and I do not think this one is quite on par with what we already have with streaming water. The main problem as I see it is the composition, which is not so interesting and eye-catching. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic picture. Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know what it is, but this picture gives me a nice, relaxed feeling. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Gareja monastery complex.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 19:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Paata Vardanashvili - uploaded by Sandstein - nominated by Gaeser -- Gaeser (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gaeser (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any chance of finding a similar image with a higher resolution? This looks like it would succeed a nomination handily if it weren't relatively small. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--თეკა (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of very low resolution --Pjt56 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no way this will be featured. It is way too low resolution (for a start). I don't know what the point of contesting the FPX is. Both the nominator and now თეკა have contested (perhaps friends or sockpuppets?) without explanation. I suggest you both hang around FP for longer before submitting again. --99of9 (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size. —kallerna™ 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection! Please remove the arrogant garbage about sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. I don't appriciate being insulted like that. Cousin Kevin (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't referring to you. You correctly raised the size issue in the first place. Pjt56 then tagged this as FPX because the size made it so unlikely to succeed. The nominator Gaeser and თეკა were the two who contested the FPX without explanation. --99of9 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Size. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size, indeed. --Cayambe (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cymatium lotorium 2010 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 06:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky ^talk -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Black-spotted triton seashell Cymatium lotorium
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why have you chosen this orientation? I think I would prefer it rotated 90 degrees clockwise. --99of9 (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top part of image - photo "as is" on a black table, bottom photo - with tiny support from bottom (retouched) --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean the orientation of the image, not of the shells. The shells are great! --99of9 (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why the background is black? I would prefer white background. —kallerna™ 14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This object has partial white edges, so black background is better IMO. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer black too, for that reason. --99of9 (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I´d prefer white background too, but if you don´t change it, I´ll also support this version Nikopol (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the black background. Very good image. --Korall (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High value, great light, colours and overall quality. I agree with the disposition to use a black background as explained by the nominator. --Slaunger (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done --Simonizer (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Очень хорошо выполнено ! - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with black background. --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of high educational value. Tiptoety ^talk 07:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Keswick Panorama - Oct 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 22:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Simonizer (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saw it at the german wikipedia fpc, just beautiful -- Simonizer (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. --99of9 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I had to check if this wasn't already featured - it's one of my favourite panoramas on Commons. --Aqwis (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow landscape, nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 08:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just one of those outstanding landscape panoramas --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Herbythyme. Please remove the dust spot at the very left in the sky. :-) --Cayambe (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, lovely colors and super high resolution. The only downside is that some of the houses are blown, but that is acceptable taken into account all the plus sides. Thanks for the great work! --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 12:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikopol (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Szasza (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. By the way: High over the one sea at the back in the white clouds near the top of the image is a little blue thing. What is it? --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see it as well and my guess is that it is Superman, who is really pissed because his red cape was stolen and used as sail on that little sailboat on the lake . --Slaunger (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 969696 M (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking. --Slaunger (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Hey, I can see my house from here!" No, but really, this is a wonderful shot. It makes me want to visit England. Also, I love how this photograph tells a story. Tiptoety ^talk 07:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWow again! --Patriot8790 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --High Contrast (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This pic is a fairy tale... --Phyrexian (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Praha Staromák sníh 2010 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 22:03:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by [[User:Karelj|]Karelj] -- Karel (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - difficult light with multiple types of light sources has caused issues: white balance in front and overexposure on the church towers. --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great atmosphere and light, but the building at the left hand side is blurred, and the ISO 400 has introduced a little too much noise in this nocturnal setting. The image also seem to have a slight clockwise tilt. Was it hand held? If yes could have benefitted from a tripod perhaps? --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The orange lights are not that orange like in the picture, the Týn church could have some perspective correction, some buildings seemt to be in weird angles. --Aktron (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am afraid the snow makes taking this shot hard because it really screws up the lighting. Sorry. Tiptoety ^talk 07:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tinghøj Hammershøj Kvorning 2010-01-08 edit filtered.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2010 at 22:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info There are about 22000 protected tumuli in Denmark and they are characteristic features of the typical flat, cultivated landscape. This is one of them, from the bronze age called Tinghøjen which I pass regularly. Today, the light and mood was special and I had my camera in the car, so I took a few photos of it. I think the somewhat melancholic mood fits well with a grave, which is probably over 3000 years old.
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors and composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Matti --Pjt56 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems like an open and shut case. It looks like a fantastic example of the natural area in that part of Denmark. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ <--- Until the dust spot I marked is removed. Lovely and interesting scene otherwise, thanks. --99of9 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that was one big dust spot. Wonder how I could overlook that? Thank you for pointing it out. I have now removed it. --Slaunger (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Good fix. Don't worry, 4 other reviewers missed it too! Happy to support now. --99of9 (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, without reading the text, it just looks like a normal hill. And it's bit blurry. —kallerna™ 09:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the description on the image page could be improved to help users see the significance. --99of9 (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Probably not as sharp as it might be but even if it was an "ordinary" hill it would be a nice one :). As it is it has a good EV and is a well composed image. The info is useful too (I do wish more people would give more info). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 12:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also agree that the image's description needs to be fleshed out a bit more and expanded. Cousin Kevin (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have now (to the best of my ability) added an English translation of the known registrations for this tumulus based on the link that was already there on the file page. I hope that adds to the fleshing out requested. As for slight blur/resolution, I was a little in doubt of what would be the best composition in the end when I was on-site, so I took a relatively wide view and experiemented with cropping it at home until I got the nominated result. Due to the crop the resolution is non-optimal. I also took another photo, where I zoomed on the tumuli. This one resolves the tumulus a bit better, but I find the composition too uninteresting to consider nominating it at FPC. With respect to Kallerna's comment about the ordinarity of the subject, I can somewhat acknowledge this. The tumuli shown is not a special tumuli but just one of several thousands. And when you just pass them they quite frankly normally look quite uninteresting. My objective with this nomination is to try and make a regular/common subject look visually appealing and interesting. Had it been just a hill, it would have dissapeared a houndred year ago as a result of repeated plowing. The bushes on the tumulus indicate that it is untouched by agricultural machinery. That is how thousands of other tumuli have dissapeared, amongst those another tumulus, which once was right besides this one. Today that area is agricultural field and completely flattened out. --Slaunger (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting historical subject and nice winter light! As there is only one hill visible, the English description should mention "tumulus" (singular) and not "tumuli" (plural). -- MJJR (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, you are right. I've corrected it on the file page(s) (and in my comment above). And thanks for your appraisal of the winter light! --Slaunger (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ottawa - ON - Library of Parliament.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 20:24:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Taxiarchos228 - uploaded by Taxiarchos228 - nominated by Brackenheim -- Brackenheim (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light, colours and interesting building, but I find the centered composition rather uninteresting, and the sky could use a denoise. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It must have something to do with the tigh crop, centered (or should I say "invasive"?) composition, and foreshortening, but I just can't say "wow"... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NYC Public Library Research Room Jan 2006.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 03:00:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by NormanB -- NormanB (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent work of art. -- NormanB (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another version of this picture is allready featured! Look at File:NYC Public Library Research Room Jan 2006-1- 3.jpg --Simonizer (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent shot especially taken into account the low amount of light and the motion of the people. Please link to the building or document the architect. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this version is better than the already-featured version. --Aqwis (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed. At first glance I thought it was HDR. Nikopol (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Shouldn't they be put up as alternatives to one another? Otherwise how will we know which version to remove from FP? --99of9 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 14:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 07:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Famine in India Natives Waiting for Relief in Bangalore.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 17:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Adam63 - uploaded by Adam63 - nominated by Adam63 -- adamjones.freeservers.com (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- adamjones.freeservers.com (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adam63 did not create this, he made a scan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly evocative image. Thanks for the quality scan. The only slight issue I noted was a little seam, perhaps from a fold. --99of9 (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice and informative illustration of the Indian famine. Too bad the author is not known. I would be happy to support if the seam I have indicated would be repaired. --Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Great Britain Snowy.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 14:35:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by すけ - nominated by すけ -- すけ (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- すけ (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of too low resolution. Great picture though! I'd certainly support it as a valued picture! --Pjt56 (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC) thanks for uploading the high-res version --Pjt56 (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have uploaded a higher-res version straight from the source and updated source and copyright info. In my opinion this can be featured now. le Korrigan →bla 18:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes! The updated one it's very impressive! Thank you ! --すけ (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Korrigan - good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Umm... Problem here, this is a duplicate image (other version is File:Satellite image of snow-covered Great Britain on 7 January 2010.jpg and is on en.wp FPC). The other file was uploaded earlier, has better description, and is the one actually in use - which means File:Great Britain Snowy.jpg is the one I'm inclined to delete, but I'm not sure how that would affect FPC syntax. Should I just delete the file that is nominated here and move this page to point to the other file?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course (commented more on en).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an amazing picture. WikiLaurent (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many clouds. —kallerna™ 12:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth do you think causes such weather! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --elemaki (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare sight. --Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special - typical Northern European weather. It is beyond my comprehension what caused such a fuss about the topic. Wolf (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not live in GB nor know the details of usual winter wheather there, but from reading articles like w:Winter of 2009-2010 in the United Kingdom it seems like a quite unusual wheather situation for GB and it is my impression that complete snow coverage of GB is a seldom event. The snow depths and cold temperatures are also unusually severe as I understand. --Slaunger (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The media are reporting that it is the most severe weather for 30 years. Equally 30 years ago the snow, while bad, was not as extensive across the whole of the UK. As such this image is rather unusual to say the least. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like this picture and think it's perhaps FP, but I prefer File:British Isles on 7 January 2010.jpg. Could do with a link to it in other versions section, but the file's protected >.< Jolly Janner (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is already a link in the "Other versions" section under the copyright status. --すけ (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm seems a bit strange calling it "Same image" when it isn't. Personally I would add a 100px image of it there so users can preview it. Jolly Janner (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is Phil Plait being credited as the creator? The image page states: NASA image by Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, Goddard Space Flight Center. Zaui (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's only the case on this page (and is merely a mistake in the original nomination). Fixed...--Nilfanion (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is one waterfall that actually looks more interesting with a bit less water in my view. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little tilted to the right? Diliff (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point - I gave it a tilt. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still seems fairly tilted. Perhaps it's an optical illusion due to the irregular path of the water on the falls. There aren't any known verticals, and it's a wide angle view, which complicates it. Diliff (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky is badly overburnt. :( Could you reshoot this waterfall some day (when the sky is blue)? —kallerna™ 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Photographing a waterfall like this in direct sunlight is a bad idea in my view. The brightness across the scene would vary dramatically and it wouldn't look very good. Unfortunately a blue sky tends to imply that the sun would be out. I don't think blending such extremes in brightness would look very good either. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not too fussed about the sky, but to feature a detailed landscape like this, I'd want a higher resolution. Additionally, there's a fair bit of red CA on the dead tree trunk lying on the left that you might want to look into. IMO the foreground is really nice. --99of9 (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:African Lion Resting at the Entebbe Zoo in Uganda.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 23:46:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by iq385 - uploaded by iq385 - nominated by iq385 -- Iq385 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Iq385 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'm willing to look past the technical flaws. --Aqwis (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I see evidence of a fence that the picture was taken through. Basar (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground is quite distracting. --99of9 (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack 99of9. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry - no - per the above --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like to support, but... the fence. :( —kallerna™ 12:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fence. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fence. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not that it matters now, but as Aqwis. --Lošmi (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brienzersee from above.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 18:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 969696 M - uploaded by 969696 M - nominated by 969696 M -- 969696 M (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just love this pic, and it really show what its like being there IRL. -- 969696 M (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly even more tree and even less Brienzersee is this one. Dark too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ok composition, but dull light and contrast. Since the trees take so much of the picture area I would expect them to be brighter. Please try shooting early morning or late evening instead. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Herby. --Cayambe (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More see, less trees, thanks. Perolinka (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chordeiles minor -British Columbia -Canada-8c.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 23:24:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gavin Schaefer - uploaded by Snowman - nominated by Snowman -FP on English wikipedia - Snowmanradio (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find; these are difficult birds to locate. Basar (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I liked this on en wp. Well caught image of a tricky subject. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A great capture, but the plants look somehow overprocessed / posterized. I personally prefer more conservative treatment, therefore neutral. Nevertheless nice. Nikopol (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If possible, and if it is not a threatened species in the area it would be nice to have it geocoded. --Slaunger (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image description gives its location, but I do not know what side of the lake it was situated, so I can not write the geocodes. Snowmanradio (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that. The fairly good description of the location is a reason for saying it would be nice, but not a requirement. --Slaunger (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice image and nice camouflage! ■ MMXX ^talk 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panthera tigris altaica 13 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 21:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Davepape - uploaded by Davepape - nominated by Simonizer (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very cute. ■ MMXX ^talk 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and touching :) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Attentive parenting. Wonderful. --99of9 (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 12:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but I do not really think the nominated photo is quite on par with other mammal FPs. For zoo shots I expect a little more, like this. Here the light is flat, and the overall technical quality is good, but not impressive. I also think it has a little too much point-and-shoot character for my taste. Don't get me wrong. I think it is a good photo. I would be happy if I had taken it myself, but I just do not think it is among the 1/2300 images that should get FP status. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point for me why i nominated this zoo picture is, that it looks very natural. You dont really see that its a zoo picture. If this picure would have been taken in Siberia it would look very similar. --Simonizer (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I acknowledge that for a zoo-pic, it does not appear very zoo-like. But I do not feel convinced that it looks very "Siberian" either apart from the snow. Anyway, just ignore the pedantic here. The photo will get promoted anyhow ;-) --Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Slaunger. A very good picture, but IMO not quite FP. Nikopol (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ari-Hest-December-2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2010 at 02:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info New York-based singer-songwriter Ari Hest plays guitar and sings at Highline Ballroom on December 26, 2009. Photographed by slgckgc on Flickr and then uploaded as well as nominated by Cousin Kevin. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe that its an interesting and detailed representation of Hest's live music, especially with the color scheme. His expression in his face and eyes look almost mystical and dreamlike. I have almost no knowledge of the technical specifics of the image, so I cannot comment on that. Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's several pictures from this same concert on the related Flickr page (Just an FYI for those interested). Cousin Kevin (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, bad crop (the guitar and the finger are cropped). —kallerna™ 09:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo, but not really an FP because of the crop at bottom. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin Kevin (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC) On second thought, I may be able to find a similar yet better picture of the concert. Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Codiaeum variegatum - male flowers - Kroton 003.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 17:54:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kroton - uploaded by Kroton - nominated by Kroton -- Kroton (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kroton (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - beatiful image, but the DOF/sharpness doesn't meet the high criteria for FP IMO. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per MattiPaavola. --Cayambe (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too. Its not a very sharp foto. --Korman (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but lovely artsy photo. —kallerna™ 14:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kroton (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snow-covered fir trees.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 14:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Muu-karhu - uploaded by Muu-karhu - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoSnow-covered spruces (Picea abies) in Valtavaara, Kuusamo, Northern Finland.
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)*[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too small and overexposed snow --Korall (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination --Patriot8790 (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kyrgyzstan Ala Archa National Park 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 06:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vitaliknyc - uploaded by Vitaliknyc - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Ala Alcha national park in Kyrgyzstan.
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot, thanks for finding and nominating beautiful images, but please check that the resolution is at least two megapixels since that is the requirement for Featured Pictures.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: its resolution is below 2 megapixels. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination --Patriot8790 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zagori Dragonlake and Gamila summit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 06:16:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kanellopoulos.Nikos - uploaded by Kanellopoulos.Nikos - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoZagori: Dragonlake and Gamila summit (2,497 m) of mount Timfi, periphery of Epirus, Greece.
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: its resolution is below 2mp --Basar (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weird the resolution is so low considering it has been taken with a 12 Mpx camera...? Maybe a higher resolution could be retrieved?--Slaunger (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Speaking with myself). Perhaps not so weird as the creator states that he is happy to contrubute with images comparable to his gallery page, that is, lousy resolution. --Slaunger (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per comments above. --Patriot8790 (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: withdrawn => not featured. 99of9 (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brienzersee high.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 05:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 969696 M - uploaded by 969696 M - nominated by 969696 M -- 969696 M (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pic -- 969696 M (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor crop. Tiptoety ^talk 05:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place but the quality is not wonderful and you mostly have a picture of a bush/tree rather than Brienzersee I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - central composition and too hazy. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 c.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 12:59:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given that the particular fighter crashed ~~the day~~ two days after (I've seen a video clip from it previously, terrible accident I must say), I think this merits promotion for its historic value combined with its technical merits. --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two days. This was taken a day before the show, the accident happened on the second day of the show. Wolf (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Corrected. Thank you for pointing it out. --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Slaunger. --99of9 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for its historical value per Slaunger. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Türkenbund Lilie, Lilium martagon 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 11:29:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Nice shot. --.ds m. 16:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - beautiful colors. --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with all the others, but could you change the left crop? --Pjt56 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The flower sits center and bottom left of the leaf would wefallen something. I think the cut as well. --Böhringer (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an The balance would be lost

Support Lovely shot. Nikopol (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colours are great and the DOF is also nice. BG Leviathan (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --İazak (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a brilliant, eye-catching composition. Good light, colors, DOF. The tight crop on the leaves to the left bothers my eye a little, but I am not sure how to fix it without ruining a nicely balanced composition. --Slaunger (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:Peleş - sculpture 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 13:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - good image, good statue, but I don't see anything exceptional. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Matti. And there is no EV as long as you don't say whose statue it is ... --Pjt56 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Incomplete description on image page. Who is depicted? Fairly good light on statue, but distracting fence on left hand side, unbalanced background (dark on right hand side), and uninteresting composition. Has a little point and shoot character. --Slaunger (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mooncolony.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 22:47:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Artist's concept of possible Moon exploration programs.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Kozuch - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 22:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 22:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although the LEGO figure described as "a marketing executive" made me laugh. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's pretty detailed work, and overall an interesting scene. There is a signature on the original which gives a different date (1997) to the image summary. --99of9 (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Excellent composition and nice details, but why isn't it razor sharp? I'm guessing this is a rendered image and therefore the result should be pixel-sharp. --MattiPaavola (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Pieter implies, perhaps it's a photograph of a model. --99of9 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, everything is possible, but the colors and the infinite DOF kind of hint IMO that it is a drawing/rendering. But, after thinking it a little, I think I'm going to Support it anyway, since the production of this pic has required lots of imagination and time anyway. And, it is razor sharp in full screen (at least with my screen. :-)). --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is even a dust fiber in the image (left of the "LunOx" tank, only visible in full view). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pingvin Expo Lisboa.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 22:39:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Perolinka - uploaded by Perolinka - nominated by Perolinka -- Perolinka (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Perolinka (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least, a penguin! But way too much noise… Diti the penguin — 01:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but noisy and overexposed. Furthermore, location and species not documented. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lisbon, African Penguin. With a little bit of research. Diti the penguin — 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Matti. —kallerna™ 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per MattiPaavola. Tiptoety ^talk

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:US Navy 090210-N-9671T-144 A port security boat patrols the waters near Kuwait Naval Base.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2010 at 23:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MCS2 Kenneth G. Takada - uploaded and nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Wedding ring on the character's finger not sharp enough. Nah, just kidding... Support. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was about to leap through the screen and do horrible things to you...you might want to strike the oppose, or the bot will count both and get confused. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, bad crop. —kallerna™ 12:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terrible image :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very dynamic --Simonizer (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop - cut antennas, generally not enough space --Leafnode✉ 07:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop is not that bad IMO, and definitely with WOW. Nikopol (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good capture. An inch of antenna makes minimal difference. Durova (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice action, but a significant fraction of the boat is obscured by the water splash, the light is rather flat and I find the photo too dark in areas were interesting details could have been revealed. I'm OK with the crop. But considering the bar for military shots is quite high, this does not quite make it over it in my opinion, but close. --Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While I agree the crop could be better, that is a hard image to capture. I agree that it has enough "wow" and other quality factors to be considered a featured image. Tiptoety ^talk 07:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry splashes in the foreground while the rest of the picture is sharp --Pjt56 (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support I made a wider crop. --Lošmi (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:US Navy 090210-N-9671T-144 A port security boat patrols the waters near Kuwait Naval Base.jpg

File:Albatros fuligineux.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 07:08:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kroclebo - uploaded by Kroclebo - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured on en-wiki and of high quality. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support DOF is a little shallow IMO, but still very nice. Nikopol (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, very nice picture. Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the photo is very good, but there is more to FP than pretty pictures. There is also meta-data. The file description page does not tell anything about where this bird was photographed and under which circumstances. --Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For now I will not withdraw support but I do agree with Slaunger's comments - can we get any more info about this image? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, the uploader/creator has not edited or uploaded on commons since November of 2006, with no contributions elsewhere. I doubt that any more information could be gained, because he did not specify an email address, either. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a beautiful bird. I really like how silky its feathers look. Nice photo. Tiptoety ^talk 07:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wonderful picture of an interesting bird. — Coffee // have a cup // 06:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Enallagma cyathigerum 4(loz).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 17:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Loz -- Loz (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Loz (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp with nice colours and transparency of the wings. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know we feature a lot of these, but they're so beautiful! --99of9 (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, I changed my mind based on composition issues raised below, and by the fact that this particular species is already featured 3 times. --99of9 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice macro! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. The colour of the background is bit dull, but IMO still FP. —kallerna™ 14:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikopol (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but unimaginative composition of a subject I feel I have seen too many photos of. I also find the twig in the background distracting. I miss Richard. --Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Slaunger. I also miss Richard. --Böhringer (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smirk  Richard  [®]  01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good quality, but unfortunate distracting background. --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:P1140409 Hepatica nobilis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 07:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors and composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 12:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, poor quality / posterization. It´s quite obvious on the leafs underneath the flower. Would be nice otherwise :( Nikopol (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lovely light, colours and subject, but not so high resolution and overall technical quality. --Slaunger (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:P1170085 Coenonympha glycerion.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 07:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This butterfly photographed in the early morning (see EXIF), which all still sleeping. I was lucky, because the morning dew was abundant. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing and stunning. Support! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kallerna, I think this image has the wrong name. The right name of this file could be "Dew on the Coenonympha glycerion". The right name is important for FP. Would you say "the file has good quality" if it would have this name?--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't. The problem is the posterization and unsharpness. —kallerna™ 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --•Teroses^{je t'écoute} 13:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some posterization, but the subject is really beatiful. However, the description is quite short. I'm willing to support this if you elaborate a little bit - e.g. why there is water etc. BTW, is the EXIF time stamp (04:33) correct? Add some text about that as well, please. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EXIF time stamp are correct. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for adding the info to this page, but I actually meant the actual file page. That's the place where it benefits the end users. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Now OK ? - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support Yes, now the search engines also find it based on "dew". Thanks for the wonderful photo (and waking up for it rediculously early :))! --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't agree with kallerna. Amazing picture with good quality. --Simonizer (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Oppose per Kallerna! I really like this picture (like the most of Darius' pics) but IMO the quality isn't compatible to our macro standard. There is posterization and nothing is really sharp. Maybe its because of noise reduction and then sharpening to much, I dont know... If you compare them to already featured macros like these for example, I hope you will see what I mean. If it's possible I'd like to see an completly unedited version of this. Best regards Leviathan (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Leviathan is right about the technical issues, but for me the wow just overrides the flaws. But I´d like to see an unedited version, too. Perhaps a little overprocessed? Nikopol (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be right ... Edit:-1EV exposure correction, noise removal, sharpening weak. Photo, until editing, was a bit too bright. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Torn between wow and technical issues. Seems a bit Overprocessed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't agree with Kallerna. This is really an awesome picture! Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kallerna, I asked you something (look above). --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eastern Grey Kangaroo Feeding.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 23:30:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9. Inspired by the affectionate tigers, I decided to release some affectionate kangaroos of my own. -- 99of9 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Partly bit overburnt, but... awww... —kallerna™ 14:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Emotionally good ;-) --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I move my support to alternative version --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a nice image but, would not be better if you use ISO200 instead of ISO400 in that image? --すけ (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your comment. It was an 80mm lens, so I probably couldn't hold it still enough (hand held) at 1/80s. --99of9 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are lucky your 400iso ones turn out this good :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! They don't always :-). A little selective Gaussian blur helped along the way. --99of9 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lošmi (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate edit[edit]

Comment Hope you don't mind I took the liberty of doing this. Great moment; a bit hard to distinguish the important part from the original. Durova (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good Durova, thanks. I liked the highlights on the fur in the original, but you've definitely improved the background and how much the animals contrast.--99of9 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edited version is far better. Wow! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work both the photographer and the edit --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Cayambe (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work --Phyrexian (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much contrast on the fur has been lost with this effect. --Lošmi (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Nice picture! --Schnobby (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Eastern Grey Kangaroo Feeding edited.jpg

File:Isophysis tasmanica.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2010 at 17:42:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by kaʁstn
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors, good composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice composition, colours and light. I am not too keen though on the tight crop on the left hand side. I think it should be given a little more breathing space so to say. --Slaunger (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, nice isolation of the subject, nice DOF. --Eusebius (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 12:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Eusebius --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Cayambe (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Slaunger. ■ MMXX ^talk 22:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 11:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Eusebius . Nikopol (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:KunaWomanSellingMolas.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 23:23:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leuo - uploaded by Leuo - nominated by Leuo -- Leuo (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Leuo (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent portrait showing also the context. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --NormanB (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent portrait! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 14:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Candid portrait, fine view of the molas. Durova (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice colours, quality and subject, but I find the pose of the woman too arranged for the photographer. If the photo had shown her in action interacting and selling her goods to a costumer I would have supported. --Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine colours, etc. --Cayambe (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Phyrexian (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Bucegi mountains panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2010 at 18:15:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of positive things can be said about the technical aspect of this photo, but it has one serious problem in my opinion; there does not seem to be a clear idea with the composition, which does not really catch my eye. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. --99of9 (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheet Lightning over Mt Wellington.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 10:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some fireworks for the new year. The sky is lit by sheet lighting hidden in the clouds. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great picture, but not categorized yet... Nikopol (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed that. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thanks. Beautiful light(n)ing. Nikopol (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality image...as a matter of interest (to me, at least, since I would like to try sometime), how do you take pictures of lightning? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just found the right exposure by trial and error, then shot continuously (this is possible at 3.2 seconds per exposure) in burst mode. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition, wow colors --Pjt56 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! ■ MMXX ^talk 23:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please fill in the date field on the image page, and if it is not a problem concerning privacy I would like to ask you to geocode it. Adds value. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have been away from some time, by I just noticed the CC-BY-SA license. As I recall you previously used the GFDL-1.2(?). I'd just like to say it is great you are now using the CC-BY-SA as it is a much more useful license . Cool. --Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taken from my garden, so no geocoding. Date is in the exif but I will add it. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The own garden argument is certainly a valid reason for omitting geodata. The nice thing about the date field is that if the correct format is used it will be displayed in language-localized form for users depending on their selected lang. So it is always a good idea to fill in that field although it may seem redundant considering it is in the EXIF. --Slaunger (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty. I really like the sky. Tiptoety ^talk 01:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Patriot8790 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Odd I thought I'd voted for this one but apparently not :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this really the true colours?? --99of9 (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so - making the white balance more magenta makes the street lights look odd. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Hohenzollernbrücke Köln.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 17:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Hohenzollernbrücke in Cologne, Germany
Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --High Contrast (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a stitched image? camera exif is missing. ■ MMXX ^talk 22:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a stitching. -- Der Wolf (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice colours and composition --Korall (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Thanks. But there is an existing featured picture... Takabeg (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, of course --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 11:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sharpness and contrast are astonishing, composition is also working. On the other hand the highlights are plain yellow, which is very salient given their size. Nikopol (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good sharpness/DOF/light/colors. There are a few minor blown areas, but I can accept that. It is a pity that there is no EXIF information regarding camera settings. I was curious to see which settings were used to capture this one. --Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the EXIF information manually in the description;) -- Der Wolf (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Tours - Cathédrale Saint-Gatien - voûtes de la nef.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 09:00:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aesthetics and Unusual --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ <-- Only until the 1px wide red border is removed. Otherwise, fantastic. --99of9 (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, it's Photoshop's marvellous CA correction. I'll solve that. --Eusebius (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Eusebius (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the fix. --99of9 (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support HDR when it is well made, I must say. Very nice. --Slaunger (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well crafted --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pjt56 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting look --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 22:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 11:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view and composition. Nikopol (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare look, fine picture --Schnobby (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:8827 - Venezia - Arsenale - Cannoni sec. XVIII - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto, 10-Aug-2007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 12:01:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by G.dallorto - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These cannons have an interesting story behind them.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is an interesting story behind these it might help if it was on this page? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think an FP should be self-explanatory to a great extend, and I find it very hard to figure out what is going on in the photo without looking at the image page description. The composition does not seem to have a clear idea either. --Slaunger (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality, historic value and I love the composition. I disagree with Slaunger about FP should be self-explanatory, there are a lot of impressive pics that are incomprehensible without a description page... --Phyrexian (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phalaenopsis cultivar 15-01-2010 9-45-04.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 15:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the ~~nomination page~~ nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Paul Hermans - uploaded by Paul Hermans - nominated by Paul Hermans -- Paul Hermans (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Paul Hermans (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC) -- most of all interested in comments of experts here, to be able to improve quality Paul Hermans (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful lighting, but the left crop - right through the middle of the flower - is strange. Can you change that? --Pjt56 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are absolutely right :-) Crop has been changed. Thanks for commenting Paul Hermans (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support after a gentle denoise. --99of9 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Denoised and curious for any further comment and/or support Paul Hermans (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The denoise certainly helped, but there is still some speckled patchiness in the petals. Perhaps it is not possible to solve post-processing. --99of9 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somehow I liked the original crop more than -the current one. It used to be an interesting forest of orchids and now it is just an orchid. (Macro standards for single flowers are really high here.) That said, both crops suffer IMO a little from central composition (see en:Rule of thirds or en:Golden ratio). The lightning and the DOF are quite good IMO and create a nice feeling. If you are going to reshoot you might want to increase DOF slightly and lower the ISO setting. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Opinions, of course, are different. A forest of orchids... that's possible... focusing on one also, interesting enough I think. More DOF, less DOF... The remark on the composition helps! I'll go for one more picture here. Lowering iso setting... 50 is this one. Paul Hermans (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The same plant, a reshoot with more focus on the golden ratio and DOF Paul Hermans (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lighting is great and I like the composition, but it seems a little oversharpened to me (certainly these are not jpeg artifacts?). Do you have suitable processing software? If not, I´m shure someone here will help you out. I would support a version with better sharpening. [That´s the problem with asking for opinions: you get a lot of them :)] Nikopol (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your comment, Nikopol. This picture was taken, not as a jpeg but it is a raw image, imported in Photoshop CS3 and saved as a png. The aperture f9, already sharpens the picture. I had it sharpened more in photoshop and denoised because of previous remarks. Don't tell me now it is too sharp :-)
Comment May I propose that the different versions made during the review would be uploaded with different file names and promoted here as alternatives since it is now quite confusing to know which comments apply to which version. (Actually, we really should be having this discussion in Commons:Photography critiques instead and just the end result should be posted here.) Anyway, my comments regarding the fourth version: the white balance is off and the right crop is too tight. My personal favourite so far is the first version (with denoising). --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New comments for a new alternative with the black background[edit]

Comment I looked at the photography critiques page, ther was no entry for december 2009 and I created the possibility to make entries for 2010... So, I give it a new try here, my last one. Paul Hermans (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The "nomination page" -link above was broken. That's why you didn't get any comments anymore. :) I think I managed to fix it now. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - DOF doesn't cover the front flowers. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Alternative[edit]

Info improved DOF Paul Hermans (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Grainy due to heavy sharpening, Sorry. Nikopol (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF doesn't cover the front flowers and no postprocessing can help that unfortunately. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aebnistettenflue entlebuch 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 14:02:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Simonizer - uploaded by Simonizer - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoView from Finsterwald to Äbnistettenflue, Entlebuch region, Switzerland.
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good, but IMO not outstanding enough in terms of subject and composition / crop. Nikopol (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is it so small? —kallerna™ 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nikopol --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nikopol. --Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:La pista Valon sopra le nuvole.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 12:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by RimOrso - uploaded by RimOrso - nominated by RimOrso -- RimOrso (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RimOrso (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, image is a little noisy, composition not very interesting, subject lacking wow. Nikopol (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This media file is uncategorized. —kallerna™ 16:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skarbin Laerchen Mischwald 17112006 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 14:12:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Autumnal larch forest on the mount Skarbin in the community of Ebenthal in Carinthia, Austria.
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the subject is not so original nor interesting -- Rimorso 14:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but I think this kind of subject would require a very sharp image. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MattiPaavola. Sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australian Magpie Digging Grub.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2010 at 01:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture, catching "the moment"... Perolinka (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info My high school physics tells me that since it went about 2cm off the ground, I had about 0.12s to capture it in flight. Basically I was just lucky! --99of9 (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Good moment, good composition, but sorry, I find the colors a little boring: the grass should be greener. (I even tried tweaking it a little (offline), but didn't manage to get both the bird and grass nice at the same time with small effort.) --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The grass should be greener" sounds like something my forefather European settlers must have said when they originally came to Australia and all their crops failed :-P. If you see green grass in my photos it's an anomaly - we're still in a bad drought. Perhaps the manicured lawns around buildings are green, but out on the headland it is certainly not. --99of9 (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - :-) Actually, in your first version the grass looks fine to me (but then the bird becomes too dark :-/ ). (Says a person who has never visited the southern hemisphere! :) ) --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unsharp and dark --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info In light of the comments above, Nikopol has produced a nice alternative version for consideration. --99of9 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --99of9 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It is a good action shot of the magpie, and this edit is an improvement as compared to the original. I would have been glad if I had taken it myself. Notwithstanding, the light is unfortunate - a bit too harsh and the part of the bird facing the observer is too much in shadow for my taste - too many details are missing due to that IMO. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I also had to think about the light, but in the end for me the "capture of the capture" is just enough (I have never myself accomplished a shot like this). Wow makes up for flaws for me... BTW, with my firefox colors and lighting look very different (harsher contrast and more warm tones) when viewed at this page than when I click on the picture. Any idea why? Is firefox capable of color management in "full quality view"? Nikopol (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reposaari.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 19:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kallerna - uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp & noisy. I could reshoot it with better camera. Btw, the same place, same wind turbine & IMO better composition. What do u think? —kallerna™ 22:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent composition and good light, but unfortunately unsharp. Kallerna, I find this much more interesting shot that your alternative one because of the stormy sea and nice "late" afternoon winter light. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per MattiPaavola. It would habe been nice, but sadly it´s really too unsharp. Nikopol (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, too unsharp, otherwise would have had a chance. Elekhh (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Early in the morning in Grand Canyon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 00:27:00 (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) 00:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice composition, but a bit too noisy. Tiptoety ^talk 22:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Tiptoety, what do you mean by that? I made grain- and noise reduction three times: with Silver fast Ai Studio (Nikon M), with Dfine 2.0 from Nik Software and at last with Adobe Photoshop CS 3. Every grain- and noise reduction damages the pixels and the sharpness of the image. I think, I made enough. The Dfine 2.0 from Nik Software shows today no noise in the image, not even in the sky. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - noisy and dark. Also it seems that the attempt to reduce the noise has to led to image being quite blurry and soft.--Avala (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark and soft. —kallerna™ 14:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has some great light, but low detail level, too dark in certain areas. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mountains & Clouds.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 09:32:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by rachel_thecat - uploaded by Tiptoety - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 09:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiptoety ^talk 09:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWhat a landscape! --Patriot8790 (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good image, but the resolution is too low for FP. Also, the location is not documented. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and "ec". Any information at all about where in the world this is? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the photo was flickr tagged as being in the Alps. (Added the info to the image). Tiptoety ^talk 19:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice mood, impressive landscape. But both resolution and size are below FP requirements. --Cayambe (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Overdone HDR and fairly strong chromatic abberation. Diliff (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size. —kallerna™ 11:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, very overdone tone mapping effect. --Aqwis (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rally Dakar 2009 9.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 09:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the Dakar organization - uploaded by Roblespepe - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High Contrast (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the left crop is a bit distracting. If the whole plant was cut, I think I would support. Interesting setting for sports. --99of9 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice light and scenary. But the crop of the helicopter and to a lesser extend the crop of the plant is not good. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger --Pjt56 (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. —kallerna™ 11:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Featured picture candidates/ Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Support edit by --Böhringer (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the edit. --99of9 (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bush is still there + it's uninteresting without the helicopter + the motorcycle is now too small part of the photo, as it is the main subject. —kallerna™ 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2[edit]

Support Let's try this version. Wider crop on the sky, distracting parts of the plant removed. I didn't want to remove a whole plant. It's nice to see some life in the desert. --Lošmi (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool --Böhringer (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is getting better and better! No apparent artifacts. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/ Question I agree this is getting better and better. I have a question. It appears to me that in the original source the rotor blade is cropped. How did you manage to avoid that? Did you rescontruct it and realso recontruct a lot of sky. In that case I must say it is well done, and I think you should mention more details of what you have done on the image page. Next, there is something wrong with the license on the image page as there is a warning. I think you should fix that. Finally, it would really be nice to know a little more about the location. Could it be geocoded or could some location information be added to the description - as much as is known? If these issues are addressed I am happy to support. --Slaunger (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't know where to start from :) Yes, I reconstructed a lot of sky, and a rotor blade as well. Basically, I was just using clone and healing tools. I added more info in the description. I'm glad you like how it came out. I don't have more details about location, because I'm not author of the photo. I uploaded a file using "derivative file from Commons" option, as many times before. It shows the source (original photo), so I don't have a clue why this warning appeared. Maybe someone has an idea? --Lošmi (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for adding the information about the processing done on the photo. Isn't that template warning simply a missing author field in the licensing template? maybe the Dakkar organization would be interested to know about this soon to be promotion, and would have more info on the location? --Slaunger (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. You were right. I added an author in the PD template manually. I don't get why this wasn't copied automatically, but anyway, now it's ok. Thanks for the tip. --Lošmi (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. I am letting my conditional oppose be here, still hoping that at least an approximate location can be found and added. (I am still impressed but the reconstructions you have made, I really think it is very well done!) --Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you very much for the compliment. As far as we know, approximate geolocation is this. Considering that the image is in the desert, I guess it's Atacama Desert, because it's the only desert that they mention in the route description on the official Dakar website. But, that's only my assumption. --Lošmi (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Interesting. I tried searching for photos from the Atacama dessert. I wouldn't say that the kind of sand seen on the photo seems to be representative, but I did find a few photos, where the sand look just right, like Moon Valley. So plausible, yes, but an assumption as you say. Of course stating that the location is possibly from the Atacama dessert in the file description would be better than nothing I guess. Linking to the route already on Commons would also add value I think. --Slaunger (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I linked the image in the description, also providing a link to Dakar's website map with possible locations. --Lošmi (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. I think you have done what was possible to address my concerns. --Slaunger (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional oppose~~ until above issues are addressed. --Slaunger (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Issues resolved. --Slaunger (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be better as square (without the plant). —kallerna™ 14:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

The chosen alternative is: File:Rally_Dakar_2009_9-2.jpg

File:Santa Fe Super Chief.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 10:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Liesel, ElHeineken - uploaded by Liesel - nominated by ElHeineken -- ElHeineken (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Santa Fe R.R. streamliner, the "Super Chief," being serviced at the depot, Albuquerque, New Mexico on March 1943.
Support Historical value and good color reproduction (esp. regarding its age) -- ElHeineken (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Would prefer it cropped landscape with less sky/trails --Leuo (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral nice picture, historical value, but the sky needs cleaning, and I'd prefer a tighter crop (not necessarily landscape) --Pjt56 (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC) sorry, I hadn't seen Matti's version --Pjt56 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version[edit]

File:Santa Fe Super Chief colors adjusted and sky cleaned.JPG

Info photo by Jack Delano, retouch by Matti Paavola, nominated by Matti Paavola --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I decided to try to clean the dust from the sky and tweaked also the color curves a little bit. Not really Durova-quality, but I'm interested to hear comments since this was my first "restoration" try. --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info good restauration job, Matti! IMO the crop could still be tighter, especially on the left --Pjt56 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for its historical value, for lots of details to look at and I personally find this subject interesting. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree it is a historically interesting photo, but it does not have the wow for me. The main subjects are too remote to be interesting. The centered composition does not help either. --Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bildeiche bei Albertshausen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 22:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
Info One of the largest oaks in Germany.
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it could be further cropped on the left and lower side, plus the signs are distracting. Besides: Why / How did it take 13 pictures for this shot? Is it an HDR or High-DOF panorama? Nikopol (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Da ich kein Englisch kann ;-) Das Bild habe ich aus 13 einzelnen Bilder mit Hugin gestitcht. Und wäre dieser Beschnitt besser? Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich denke schon, aber natürlich wird er so etwas eingeengt und das mittlere Schild könntest du höchstens rausretouschieren. Du kannst ihn ja mal als Alternative anbieten. Nikopol (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ich habe es unten mal als Alternative reingesetzt. Das Schild in der Mitte hatte ich schon mal versucht rauszubekommen. Da es aber teilweise in den Zaun hineinreicht, habe ich es nicht hinbekommen. -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Engerer Beschnitt.
Oppose First of all; My compliments for the stitch. Stitching photos of a tree with so many details at this distance without parallax errors is challenging without very good camera control. At least, I find it hard to do. As a consequence of the stitch you have very many details in the branches and twigs of the tree. Having said that, the centered composition is really too uninteresting for an FP. The light is rather flat too, and I find the sign in front of the tree mildly distracting. --Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown pelican splash.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2010 at 23:26:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Brown pelican created by, Everything by Korall -- Korall (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but while I understand that it's technically fine and the subject is interesting, I still can't see the wow. The problem is the angle, you can't see almost nothing else than the back of the pelican. —kallerna™ 11:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can hardly tell what it is. Tiptoety ^talk 07:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kallerna and Tiptoety. --Slaunger (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Commons refers to the wikipedia for file guidelines; "For uniformity, lower case file name extensions are recommended." as quoted from Image titles and file names on the English wikipedia. I think that a file that does not follow the basic guidelines should not attain FA status. I think that the image does not show the dynamics of the fishing process - I am not sure if it has dived or or was swimming on the surface. Perhaps this sort of action shot may be been better illustrated as a video, or caught on a still at a critical revealing moment. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English wikipedia is not commons. Commons is not English wikipedia. This file was not uploaded primarly for use on English wikipedia, and Enlish wikipedia is not my "home wiki" so I do not really care about their guidelines in this case (Its totally possible that there are som good stuff in there but they do not override the guidelines on commons in the commons FP process). It is possible that a lot of local wikipedia projects have different guidelines about files. I dont know all those languages so I cannot tell which they are.

As already pointed out for you, several times, by different users, there are no specifications of the case of the file extensions for uploading on commons. If you would like to see guidlines about that on commons, please start the discussion on the guideline talk or some other suitable place. The FP candidates is not the right place for that kind of discussion. Please respect that for nominations in the future.

Yes there are file specification for uploading to commons. See Commons:First steps/Upload form - "You should use a descriptive name and follow the draft Commons language policy and/or the Wikipedia naming conventions for the language used, which give guidance on capitalisation, non-alphanumeric characters, etc." Snowmanradio (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pelican was photographed in California - an English speaking region - so it would be a good idea for it to follow the English wikipedia naming conventions. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brown pelicans typically dive from the air head first into the water. The image was taken after a dive. What generally happens after a scene like this is that they empty out the water that was collected with the fish with their heads up on the surface before they swallow the fish. --Korall (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See Commons:Image_guidelines#Image_page_requirements - the scientific name should appear in the file name or description. This is easy to correct, but this documentation of this file is not currently up to FP standards Snowmanradio (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiffel Tower 20051010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2010 at 19:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tognopop - uploaded by Tognopop - nominated by Tognopop -- Tognopop (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tognopop (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - tourist snapshot.--Avala (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too many people cut from the middle. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We've got better images of the same subject. —kallerna™ 14:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We already have a Commons FP of the Eiffel tower of significantly better quality and composition. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors did not convince me this picture should be FP. --Aktron (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only upper half of people in the foreground seen, and a little more foreground might have helped the composition I think. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petrified wood in Petrified Forest National Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 00:24:26 (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) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting picture, but not a wow to me. --Patriot8790 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quality enough for a featured picture. --Djuneyt_tr (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support :O Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something about the colours or lighting is hard on my eyes. Sorry I'm not more specific, I'm not sure what it is. --99of9 (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made a sunshine update. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting photo and subject, but ackward/busy composition and I personally dislike the messy mix of colors and textures in the nomination. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crepuscular rays over Plymouth Sound.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 13:15:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nilfanion - uploaded by Nilfanion - nominated by Herby -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Crepuscular rays spreading out from the sun over Plymouth Sound, UK. Plymouth Breakwater, with its fort and lighthouse, and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship are also visible.
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Patriot8790 (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really spectacular sky, uninteresting foreground (and the patch of grass somehow distracts me in full sreen). Therefore neutral.Nikopol (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The foreground is really distracting. —kallerna™ 16:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, either version (obviously)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blaksems mooi Kleuske (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop[edit]

Info An alternative crop?
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm convinced by this version. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, either version (obviously)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Horizon is now quite low, but I think it´s still worth supporting. Beautiful. Nikopol (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb image. --Cayambe (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version is nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version. Jonathunder (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~tending towards oppose.~~ This is a very nice image of crepuscular rays, but the competition is hard for FPs with this topic, and I do not quite think it is on par with more recent CR FPs.
- Superior to the nominated image IMO:
- On par with the nominated image IMO:
  - File:Indre Fure, Stadtlandet.jpg
  - File:Crepuscular rays over the steam from hot spring.jpg
- Not as good as the nominated image (I will nominate these for delisting)
  - File:Sunset clouds and crepuscular rays over pacific edit.jpg
  - File:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg

--Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree the competition is getting hard on CR imagery. That said, I think that this picture (as well as File:Indre Fure, Stadtlandet.jpg and the 2 you have submitted for delisting) are quite different from the other images you mentioned. The CRs in Mila's images that are the result of tree shadows in mist/steam relatively close to the camera. On the other hand, the CRs in this picture are the result of cloud shadows in haze several miles from the camera (IMO the more frequent formation mechanism). Given the different origin of the rays, I wouldn't really say the existence of FPs of one type should exclude FPs of the other.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknolwedge your point about different formation mechanism, so I have striked out my "tending to oppose" remark. I still maintain my slightly upstream neutral vote though. The reason being that I would rather see contributors trying to contribute with new subjects and display a little more ingenuity in what they nominate. I think we have many gaps in our FP gallery concerning subjects, espcially concerning topics related to people, history, science, society, culture, politics, etc. Topics were getting images, which the magical wow is perhaps a little more challenging than CRs . For me, the CR images, though nice and educational when not overdosed are starting to be a bit like the notorious sunset/sunrise images, which are all beautifull, but of questionable value. This is not meant as criticism of your photo (which is very nice). More a general comment regarding the distribution of FP topics with CRs FPs taken as an example. --Slaunger (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah fair enough. I don't think CRs are as bad as sunsets (yet), though I didn't really go out of my way to take this picture it just happened :) I wish we would get more FPs on "valuable" topics too, but some topics are always going to be easier than others (anyone say macro?) - in any case that's a discussion for somewhere other than here...--Nilfanion (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I support the original version. /Daniel78 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.snoopy. 12:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Crepuscular_rays_over_Plymouth_Sound_crop.jpg

File:CargoNet El 14 on Dovrebanen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2010 at 21:46:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info CargoNet El 14 with a container train on the Dovre Line, near Dombås, Norway, about one second before transforming us into snowmen :) I quite like the light and the dark background in this picture.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llorenzi (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image well caught --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Dferg (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 14:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 17:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Duch.seb (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is quite badly posterized on my screen. Is this my screen's fault? If not, can this be fixed? --99of9 (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems to depend on the screen. Might also be JPEG artifacts. I'll see if I can do something about it. --Kabelleger (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I checked a few cases of clearly visible (!) posterization and in most cases the two colors differed only by one bit in two of three color channels. So at the moment I think that no, this can't be fixed, because it seems that a resolution of 8 bit per RGB color (a limitation of the JPEG file format and the screens everybody has at home) is just not enough in this case. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm using a Apple iMac with LED-backlit display, and on that screen no posterization is visible. -- MJJR (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've viewed this on a different screen and there's no problem at all. Sorry for the bother. --99of9 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Herby. Think I can see what you mean about the sky, only on my screen it´s not that bad. But to me the first version without the rotation appeared more natural (you can see it when looking at the trees to the left). I think instead of just rotating it, a slight correction of the perspective would produce a slightly better result. Nikopol (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the issue here is that the catenary masts are far from vertical; I tried to find a good compromise, but still, some lean to the left, some to the right... --Kabelleger (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I just uploaded a new version. I corrected the perspective a bit, because after Nikopols comment I noticed that the masts of a power line in the left background were not vertical as well. Moreover, I used Photoshop's highest possible JPEG export quality, hoping that it might mitigate the posterization issue somewhat (however, on my two screens, S-PVA and TN, I don't see much change). --Kabelleger (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Visual caviar! Great scenary, light, action, mood and composition. --Slaunger (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I really like it. --Kjetil_r 11:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. A train in motion with snow dust. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.snoopy. 12:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gyps fulvus at zoo Salzburg-0001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 15:37:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:MatthiasKabel - uploaded by User:MatthiasKabel - nominated by User:MatthiasKabel Pretty sharp, nice colors, fine resolution, no distracting background. Three versions from one raw-file and exposure blend from gimp.-- MatthiasKabel (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- MatthiasKabel (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A great picture and I´ll love to support, but I have a question beforehand: To me, it looks as if you blurred the foreground (and background?), whereas the animal has had a heavy share of sharpening, which creates a hard visual contrast. Do you think a version with a bit less strong / obvious postprocessing would be possible? Nevertheless I really like your image (lighting, posture of the bird)! Nikopol (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used a very fine sharpening for the feathers, and I blurred the background to avoid unnecessary noise in the dark background which would increase the file size without any informnation. But there is no blurring to avoid any structures in the background.. This from the lens (300 mm plus 2x extender, resulting a 600 mm lens on a fullframe sensor, so a very narrow depth of focus. You can see that in the bird itself, the "farest" parts of it start to blurr also. But I would be able to produce a version as you described. I will wait for further comments. (Hope you can understand my english) MatthiasKabel (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very good image, but I agree with Nikopol. Currently there are e.g. noise drops falling from the mouth against the very smooth background. :-) --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No noise drops anymore, thanks! --MattiPaavola (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a version which muc less blurred in the background and has no blurring in the foreground. I think this picture needs a little blurring in the background otherwise you are able to see the structure of the camera sensor. MatthiasKabel (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better without blur. It looks more natural now. --Lošmi (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice bird, although the pose covers up a fair bit of the shape. Processing artifacts are still too obvious. The line between head and background is spotty on one side and smooth on the other (if you really want to do this differential processing, perhaps you need to blend it at the edges). The leaves below are too noisy (sharpened noise?). --99of9 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Per 99of9, but I´ll support if you manage a denoised foreground and work a little on the edges. Is it possible you sharpened all of the picture and then blurred the background? I would suggest sharpening only the bird with help of a mask and selectively denoising fore/background. Nikopol (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for the tips. So I tried to follow them and made an new approach Created a version with only a small amount of noise reduction and a version with the old sharpening. (Each version from three different aperture levels from the raw file.) Blended these versions with a smaller blending on the left side an a wider on the feathers at neck an head. Blending was done with individual pencil strokes on a mask not with a fixed radius to prevent the contours of the feathers as far as possible. Smoothed the beak, reduced the colors a little bit. MatthiasKabel (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The leaves are greatly improved. The whole image now has normal-looking noise, so I think your noise-reduction is now too small :), but am willing to overlook this given the high-res file size. I've struck my oppose, and will change it to a support when you clone out the dust spot I've marked. 99of9 (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked another dust spot for now. Just reviewing it 1:1. There is also some fringing of some sort on the right hand side of the bird? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I´ve also struck my oppose, it´s much more natural-looking now. IMO noise is OK, and if you look into the things mentioned by 99of9 / Herby, I´ll support too. Nikopol (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you for fixing the rest. Nikopol (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice work. I notice a few processing artifacts on the edge between bird and background, but it is nothing serious. I guess that all the editing and blending, the EXIF has gone as well? Would it be possible for you to add manually some details about camera setting, lens used, and postprocessing steps on the image page? I realize quite some details are given here, but this page is not the natural place for reusers/interested users to look for it. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Removed the dust spots and added the exif-data. MatthiasKabel (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for working so hard on resolving the issues with this unique photo. I have no further objections. --Slaunger (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good resolution although noisy in places. It looks like the photograph was taken from below the captive vulture, and I think the view should be better for a FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image description was disappointing for a scientific illustration, so I have put in some more details in the image description to help to bring the associated documentation to this file up to a basic standard. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I had to correct one point of your corrections ;-) Yes, the photo was below of the bird, which is the natural point of view for an human watching a bird on a tree. There are some other pictures of these vultures from different point if view, perhaps also better for scientific purposes, but not such good colors as this picture. Gyps_fulvus_at_zoo_Salzburg-0002.jpg - Gyps_fulvus_at_zoo_Salzburg-0015.jpg MatthiasKabel (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately humans on the ground do not get a good view of birds that are perching high in trees. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:San Sebastian at night from Monte Urgull.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 18:11:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nikopol - uploaded by Nikopol - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info San Sebastian seen at night photographed from Monte Urgull.
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --すけ (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination! I just uploaded a version with denoised sky and sea.Nikopol (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice look --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Looks a bit tilted CW to me, would support it if corrected --Leuo (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Much better now. --Leuo (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've looked at this a couple of times now. I like it but I think I agree with Leuo --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I´ll look into it when I´m home. Nikopol (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done The lines are not parallel, but I didn´t want to overdo it since I was afraid to hurt the composition (especially the triangular shape). I think it should be OK now. Nikopol (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good image now and thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, too noisy, unsharp. —kallerna™ 14:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Well, in full resolution, light and image quality is not that impressive, but it rarely is in night shots. In 1:1 it looks pretty good, but it does not quite make it over my bar. I suggest you geocode it. Adds value to the image page. --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I started uploading images, I tried it once, failed (though maybe it was just a problem with my firefox), and now I am a little unmotivated. Maybe you now a foolproof tutorial? Yeah, I know I´m lazy ;) Nikopol (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link made it fairly easy for me to tag my images (works in FF ok). Just point to where you took it and copy the {{location template}} info. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I´ll try it some time around! Nikopol (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --.snoopy. 12:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Kampa sníh 2010 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 22:01:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilt? Basar (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite tilt to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite the tilt, there are mores technical issues like some CA, and also too much contrast because of applied normalization. But even if they all were fixed, the composition would not really strike me for a FP. --Leuo (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per tilt and distracting foreground. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmm the buildings are leaning, the snow in the foreground is nothing really nice (especially that gradient grey→white), the corners of the picture are darker than the centre... --Aktron (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Odd perspective effects which should be easy to correct. The snow in the foreground seems to spoil the view. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground snow has no point in the composition. Light is flat, and I do not find the scenario that interesting. --Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fraxern, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 21:30:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully image. - Verwende bitte Bildnamen ohne private Zusätze wie 06. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice with the framing of the tree.--Korall (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought about it a long time, but the composition does not quite convince me. IMO the path visible to the right side of the image is spoiling it. It´s a good atmospheric image, but for me not outstanding enough for FP, sorry. Nikopol (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tree, instead of keeping the composition together, obscures the quite nice view. CA on the tree. --Leafnode✉ 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for composition reasons. The tree is too dominant in the composition. Especially the thin branch partly obstructing the view is distracting IMO. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger. The part where the branch "touches" the forest in the background spoils the composition. --Pjt56 (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pinus Radiata Resin.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 18:08:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tony Wills - uploaded by Tony Wills - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Resin bead on Pinus radiata tree stump. Beads of resin ooze from the stump in hot weather. Initially soft lumps of jelly like this one, they dry out and crystallise like the remnants in the foreground.
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Commons refers to the wikipedia for file guidelines; "For uniformity, lower case file name extensions are recommended." as quoted from Image titles and file names on the English wikipedia. I think that a file that does not follow the basic guideline should not attain featured status. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, but this is not one of the criteria for featured pictures. We vote for featured pictures mostly for their quality but not for their file name extensions. --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My earlier point and shoot used upper case for jpg extension. Frankly at the time I would have had no idea how to alter it and would have/did upload files without any thought on whether the extension was upper or lower case. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have linked to a recommendation for lower case file extensions with added explanatin that the guideline was written with the intention of enhance uniformity within the project. I see no reason why FPs should disregard these recommendations. It is easy to inadvertently upload with uppercase JPG, especially if a camera uses uppercase JPG; however, when editors become aware of the guidelines then the file extension can easily be changed simply by typing in the lower case. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If only we were as precise in terms of quality as we are something so unimportant as this. Additionally I see that is an en wp policy. As such it has no actual standing here on Commons, Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This does have standing on Commons, which refers to the language wikis for guidelines on file naming and specifically links to the en wiki guidelins. See Commons:First_steps/Upload_form#4._Set_an_appropriate_file_name where is says; "You should use a descriptive name and follow the draft Commons language policy and/or the Wikipedia naming conventions for the language used, which give guidance on capitalisation, non-alphanumeric characters, etc.". Uniformity in format is important in wikis. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Refreshing topic, good color, light, overall quality and fair resolution. But it is not really eye-catching enough for me to be FP, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The hidden fires of the Flame Nebula.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 10:44:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the ESO - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Flame Nebula, or NGC 2024, in the constellation of Orion (the Hunter) and its surroundings.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question When I want to view the file, Firefox is telling me I can´t, since it is "containing errors"? Nikopol (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The resolution may be too large for most browsers to handle. Instead, download the picture and view it with an image editor --Muhammad (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although it is extremely large, it is a very nice photo. --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Dferg (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heavy file which can bring about some uploading problems. But scientifically an extremely interesting picture. -- MJJR (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Audi e-tron.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 15:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info world premiere of the electric car Audi e-tron at the International Motor Show 2009 in Frankfurt, Germany
Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice image for a car magazine, but not for FP. Kleuske (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A good image, but I feel it to be too commercial for Commons' main page, sorry. (Maybe after 50 years once it has gained some historical value. :-)) --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't knock commercial!! Wouldn't it be amazing if every commercial was under a free licence? This one is, and it's got EV, and it's one of our best pictures. Therefore FP to me. --99of9 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral After thinking this a little more, let me set my words differently. If other manufactures notice that there is a great product picture of an Audi in the main page with lots of visibility, they might start contributing free high quality images of their own cars here. I agree that it would certainly be a positive thing. However, while this particular product image is technically perfect, I would prefer to see the car in action for it to be an FP. Or, if it was an exhibition shot like this one, a nice catch in the composition, e.g. related to a person presenting the car, would make it FP IMO. Therefore, I decided to keep my Neutral vote, sorry. Don't get me wrong, this is certainly a valuable contribution to Commons - I just don't think it is an FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kleuske/MattiPaavola --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically perfect, with encyclopedic value and you might even attest it some wow, if you like cars. I would myself never take pictures of cars, but this is not the MOMA, but an encyclopedia. So IMO there is no reason not to feature this. Nikopol (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Korall (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is an excellent and useful image. That it is the product of a commercial enterprise neither adds to nor diminishes that. --KenWalker (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can somewhat follow MattiPaavolas argument, that it would be cooler seeing the car in some kind of interaction, with a road, a driver or something else. On the other hand, another important state for a car in a parked state, and here the exhibition state is excellent because getting an accurate and detailed representation of the car in a parked state is optimal under these circumstances. And I think, that in its form, which could be presented in a car magazine, it is an excellent piece of work as a good representation of these kinds of staged photos. It reminds me of the argumentation and controversy that took place when this model photo was promoted. I would not support a flood of such images though, but it introduces some pleasant diversity in the FP gallery. --Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Coffee // have a cup // 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:From O Pupers last light-3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 15:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Looking due South from Outer Pupers on the southern edge of Dartmoor in Devon, UK. It shows the southern edge of the moorland as it changes into agricultural land. Taken stood on a tor for which Dartmoor is well known in the last light before sunset and giving a sense of scale (and some cows!).
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This picture has a really good mood. I have ended up watching it many times once I have browsed through the candidates. The light is awesome! I don't like the horizon being in the vertical center, but I Support this anyway because of the excellent feeling in this photo. (Herby, would you be willing to make an alternative version with some sky cropped away (and maybe or maybe not also a little bit from either left or right for not to make the aspect ratio too wide)?) --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image, but I agree with MattiPaavola on cropping out, about 1/3 or 1/4 of sky. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Prefer the other version. Tiptoety ^talk 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop?[edit]

I'm inclined to agree - this is maybe better :). I could take a little more off the sky maybe but not much more.

Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, even slightly better now. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting and atmosphere. Perhaps the composition could still use a little less sky, but the more you crop, the more of it´s color it looses. Nikopol (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support thank you for the edit. ■ MMXX ^talk 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, colors like painting. Good composition now --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting view and light, but I get a little dissapointed when viewing it in 1:1. Has some kind of combined smoothening/sharpening been done to this? For instance, to the left where there are two cows, the texture of the grass looks very soft (too much noise reduction?), and I also wondering about the colors. Has the saturation knob been given a hrmph to make it more colorful, the two aforementioned cows have colors, which seem unnatural/oversaturated for me? Finally, I would have preferred if a few of the cattle had been much closer by, as they would have been more immediately recognisable for what they are when seeing the image in smaller size, by which the eye could extrapolate to the smaller cattle in the background and deduce what they were. Would have given a better feeling of the (very large) depth in this photo. --Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do appreciate the time taken to comment at length. A number of issues I do understand (& maybe agree with :)). The only thing I would say is that the saturation on this image has actually been turned down a bit as the original looked rather unbelievable! The light quality that evening was quite remarkable. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for not being annoyed by my pedantic comments . Yes, light conditions at dawn can sometimes be very surreal and deceiving and I take my suspicion about turning the saturation knob back. That time of day is my favorite hour as well due to the unusuals sights you can be lucky to find. --Slaunger (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:From_O_Pupers_last_light-3_crop.jpg

File:Egyptian camel transport3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2010 at 22:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by American Colony Jerusalem - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Egyptian camel transport.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Egyptian camel transport on Mount Olivet near Jerusalem, 1918.
Support -- Durova (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the type of historic image I love to see --Muhammad (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am happy enough to support this, evocative and well worked image. At the risk of encountering vast arguments is it worth downsampling at little as 1:1 the quality (understandably) is lower? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikopol (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Instead of just opposing. May I ask, what is so particularly interesting about a 1918 photo of a caravane of camels, where nothing much but contours are seen of the camels and people? Due to the light, only a rough idea about the clothing (which could be historically interesting) and building in the background is seen. Evidently I am missing a point. What is the point? I am willing to listen and learn. --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Esthetics, mostly. It's a lovely composition. Durova (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm. First of all, Duraova, if you think this rather lengthy post takes too much focus away from the nomination feel free to move it to a subpage... I agree it is esthetically pleasing in the FPC preview but seen in full screen I think it has a dissapointing detail level - also considering that it is a 1918 photo. I am also curious to know more of the location of the photo. "Olivet" is mentioned, and in searching for that I had a look at The History of the Canterbury Mounted Rifles 1914-1919 Chapter XV. How the Regiment Went Up to Jerusalem and Through the Wilderness to Jericho., where I found the following quote:
    Bethlehem was reached at 5 o'clock on the morning of the 23rd, after passing through the village of Bethany and on round the shoulder of Olivet, where on the clear dawn of a winter's day there burst upon view, with her long battlemented walls and her towers and domes silhouetted against the sky, the city of Jerusalem, seated upon her hills. This view, above all seen of the Holy City, will our men ever remember.

- - According to the English Wikipedia, Bethany, today known as al-Eizariya is located on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives. Apparently, Olivet can also refer to the Mount of Olives. If anyone can confirm that, it would probably be worthwhile to specify a location of about 1 km to the East of Jerusalem in the image page.--Slaunger (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The photograph was taken by an organization called American Colony Jerusalem, which consistently captioned the Mount of Olives as Olivet (Olivet is one of its alternate names). Compare to this caption in the same handwriting where "Olivet" is adjacent to "Mount Scopus". Mount Scopus overlooks Jerusalem. Durova (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, Ok. Thanks for the reference to that other caption. Given that I used quite a long time figuring out what Olivet meant, and assuming for a moment that I am not the only historically ignorant user here, unfamiliar with this (for me peculiar) synonym for an in fact very notable place (the photo is more than just esthetics for me now), who could be confused as well, would it not be worthwhile to add this explanation explicitly to the file page including some wiki links to save others from doing the same investigations? --Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Feel free to add to the file page if you think it can be improved. Durova (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Done --Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Has some esthetic qualities and is from an interesting location and time. However light obscures historically interesting features such as clothing and features of buildings, and overall image quality somewhat dissapointing in full screen - even for a 1918 photo IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rare historical shot and good restoration --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great silhouettes --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:The Mountain Exhaled.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2010 at 20:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by laszlo-photo - uploaded by Tiptoety - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 20:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiptoety ^talk 20:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vignetting on the left corners looks a bit extreme. Otherwise the thumbnail looks great. --99of9 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vignetting, unsharp. —kallerna™ 21:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely image. I can fix the vignetting on the right but the left side has defeated me without rather radical work sadly :( --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might just come down to cropping it out. Tiptoety ^talk 09:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite early - brain now in gear :) I'll look at trying that a little later - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too tried my luck yesterday, but also failed on the vignetting lefthand. But instead of just cropping it out I might try to clone it out a little later (I was too tired yesterday), since the composition might suffer otherwise. Nikopol (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do do cloning but I am not particularly good at it. This image does deserve the work I think, if you can do it that would be good. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Here it is: Nikopol (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support That´s been quite a bit of work. I also sharpened it a little. Nikopol (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that is a nice image and many thanks for your work Nikopol :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting and atmosphere --Llorenzi (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done all. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very impressive. Thanks Nikopol for doing that, I don't quite have the technical knowledge to do so myself. Tiptoety ^talk 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good result, nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version. Jonathunder (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (this one) — Dferg (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Did the Canadians sell and move Alberta to Russia? Excerpt from the object location stating ..116|11|27.17|E|region:RU..??? My guess is that we should just flip the sign on the longitude here to W. Can anyone confirm that? --Slaunger (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version - great feel and composition. But agree with need to fix longitude from E to W. Dcrjsr (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do as you wish, I don´t know enough about it at the moment to do it myself. I appreciate your help! Nikopol (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my mistake from the original upload it would appear. I will fix it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I´ll work out how geotagging is done when I find a little free time. Nikopol (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --.snoopy. 12:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:The Mountain Exhaled edit.jpg

File:Heinrich Heine 1837.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2010 at 00:40:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tony Johannot and Jakob Felsing - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jytland.Limfjord3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 14:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Strokin.ru - uploaded by Strokin - nominated by Strokin -- Александр Строкин (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent picture in terms of composition, colours, lighting, sharpness and mood (though I would probably crop away a slight part of the bottom sea, but this is a highly personal opinion). --Cayambe (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the quality could be better. Colour, light and subject are very good --Böhringer (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are a few spots that are a bit unsharp, also I would crop out a bit of the water near the bottom. Tiptoety ^talk 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is some CA and vignetting, but the composition is excellent. (I would even prefer leaving the bottom crop as is.) --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some second toughts after reviewing with another monitor: the highlights are burned. Is there any change the author could lower the exposure or just the highlights from the original raw file? Also, any volunteers to lower the vignetting after that? :-) I think it would be worth it for this excellent composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a look at this. Most of the vignetting went quite well but the bottom right was persistent. Care would also need to be taken with lower exposure only as there are already some clipped areas at the other end too. Throw in the ca and while I agree it is a nicely composed image there is quite a bit to do to really get it to an FP standard maybe? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support very nice --AngMoKio (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vignetting. Its a nice scene but I think we should expect very high quality for FPs. --Korall (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Korall. --99of9 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think in the absence of being fixed this image has too many issues with quality to be FP for me sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Herbythyme. —kallerna™ 14:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Herby. Tiptoety ^talk 17:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image has a slight CW tilt. I would like some more location info on the image. The Limfjord has a coast line of about 1000 km, so specifying nothing but the Limfjord is a too unprecise specification of the location IMO. Good light and composition, but not too impressive overall image quality. --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:360° Schalzbachvorsäß Panorama 1.jpg, featured[edit]

nomination page

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Simonizer (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The detail is lovely --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice being-there feeling because of good sharpness and natural light. --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice work! I enjoyed using the 360° panoramaviewer for this as well. Since it is 360° and sunny, the sun sort of has to be an element of this, despite the ugly side effects this gives for areas in vicinity of the sun disc due to imperfections in the optics, etc. I guess it is impossible to try and repair some of that damage, or that a repair would not look natural? I also enjoyed the thorough image page description, geocoding, annotations and thorough categorization of this photo. Something which is too often not given the attention it deserves. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image and good information. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Matti. Of course, a bit less trails in the snow would have been even better, but that´s not a fair demand. (BTW, I have been snowboarding on the Diedamskopf a couple of times :P). Nikopol (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sí — Dferg (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality and well chosen scenery!--Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exquisite --99of9 (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corvus monedula-0001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2010 at 16:11:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MatthiasKabel - uploaded by MatthiasKabel - nominated by MatthiasKabel Pretty sharp, soft background, the snow gave a little light from the bottom, so even the downside is not too dark, you can see the structure even of the black feathers. -- MatthiasKabel (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- MatthiasKabel (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very sharp, but I'm opposed to the present composition. Basar (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you prefer? closer or wider crop? Or anything else. MatthiasKabel (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is excellent for scientific illustrations in biology pages. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I presume that it was free-flying in the zoo grounds - can you clarify this in the image description? The image description was disappointing for a scientific illustraion, so I have put in some more details in the image description to help to bring the associated documentation to this file up to standard. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info You are right. I tried to clarify the image description, feel free to correct my english. MatthiasKabel (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have rephrased it a bit. I have seen Jackdaws and crows in Whipsnade Zoo, England - I think Jackdaws tend to live in family groups. Would you say that the flock was large or a group of about 10 to 20 or so? I would like to quantify the number of Jackdaws in the flock a bit better. Why not add an image description in German (or your native language)? - it is a Austrian zoo. Incidentally, have you got any photographs of the parrots in this zoo? Snowmanradio (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not very good ones, but I can create some on my next visit. MatthiasKabel (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The shadow, which is cropped of a little bit distracts me somewhat. IMO the shadow should either be entirely in the frame, or cropped deliberately, so to say. (Hope you get the idea, I have difficuties expressing precisely what i mean in English). --Slaunger (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will wait for more comments and and depending on them crop the image. MatthiasKabel (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point about the shadow, and perhaps a little more foreground might help place the bird in the centre of the image and let us see a bit more snow (but not too much). When the shadow is included the bird might be too far over to the right, so some extra space might be needed on the right of the bird. another option is to do a tight crop focusing on the bird, but I suspect it might not be so clear what the bird is doing. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerning a tighter crop and a centered composition, I agree that is a good path for use in, e.g., a taxobox. Encouraging photos well suited for online display on Wikimedia projects is the focal point of the Valued Images program, for which this photo, when cropped as you say, may be a very good candidate within the scope Corvus monedula. However, the focal point for COM:FP is a little different IMO with more emphasis on the esthetics, technical quality, resolution and composition, and here a centered composition with a tight crop would be the wrong avenue to follow IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erdfunkstelle Fuchsstadt.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 23:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Nikopol -- Nikopol (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Field of antennas near Fuchsstadt, Germany (stitch "of a couple of images").
Support -- I saw this on the german FP. Rainer, I think this will get more support than your unfortunate tree ;) Nikopol (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear and effective image. Yes FP to me I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The foreground is really blurry. —kallerna™ 14:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? Where? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Herbythyme --Pjt56 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive :) --Leafnode✉ 11:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo has two great assets. The composition and the light. It is really eye-catching, especially the light on the largest antenna to the left is exquisite. It almost looks like something from a science fiction film, only it is for real. It would be great if a de-en dual-language user could make a translation of the German description to English.--Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info done --Pjt56 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Pjt56! --Slaunger (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llorenzi (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Schubbay (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Tepic fruit stand.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 23:40:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I wonder if the graininess we can notice throughout the picture is caused by .jpg compression artifacts. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question There is CA visible at the fruits in the upper right corner. Can you remove it? --Simonizer (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colours but far too noisy. —kallerna™ 14:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is grain unacceptable in analog photography? Could grain be an element of design? Could there ever be a scale of acceptable grain or will it always be a subjective evaluation? Did critics of analog photography put a magnifying glass to every image looking for grain? When choosing a car does one look at the underside to see if it is aesthetically appealing? Does an out of focused part of an image ruin the entire image? It could, or it could not. A photograph is a collection of elements, and very, very seldom will they all be at their technically best. Noise is the digital version of grain. Grain/noise is a result of ISO. ISO is a result of light conditions most of the time. There has always been grain/noise, there will always be grain/noise. Whether it works or not will largely depend on the degree of magnification/reproduction and viewing distance. Even the most grainless/noisless image will show grain/noise at certain magnification. Let´s throw Robert Capa´s work into the trash... too grainy ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, Grain is fine. Especially in analog photographs. We sometimes added grain to digital images to make them look less sterile (in print). There is really no point in zooming to 100% and then to say, ahh, but it has grain. This image, downsampled to 3000x2000 px has grain directly comparable to digital images. But it makes no sense to downsaple it just that the "grain comments" stay away. --Amada44 (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really like the colors, and I don't mind the noise in this case. --Lošmi (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welcome back, Tomas! I have missed your photography! Especially i am hoping to see more of your people photography in the near future. I really love the idea with the composition in this photo. It seems for me though that the colors have been tweaked, for instance, that the fruits have an increased stauration or that the background has been selectively desaturated? If something has been done to tweak it, i think it would be relevant to mention on the file page. I don't know what has happened but the fruits look a little too colorful IMO. Concerning noise, it does seem a little excessive, although I actually perceive a lot of it as texture. I was wondering if an overall better photo could be acheived by selectively desaturating the BG elements quite a bit, and then also decrease the saturation a little on the fruit to remove some of the perceived articifiality that I get from it - that would probably also reduce the noise problems to a more reasonable level? --Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger: Thanks for the welcome! This is the scoop on this pic: light conditions low, hence ISO 800, hence noise, hand held camera; autolevels in PS, middle tones adjusted for more saturation, background as is, not unsaturated, sharpened and added contrast. Normal darkroom procedures, 45 sec adjusting all. The original capture of the camera, due to chip bias, WB, etc., etc., is not a true reflexion of the scene, and even less of what the brain sees. So I adjusted image to reflect what my brain saw, my vision. Color fidelity in anycase is never right, too many variables. Image is as I like it noise and all. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks for explaining what you have done. Now, I did you a favor by correcting a spelling mistake in one of your categories. Now, would you be so kind to add the editing details in a {{Retouched}} template to the file description, because that is where they belong. As I recall you are usually, let's say, quite laid back concerning the image descriptions and categorization of your photos, thus I am asking you kindly hoping to motivate you. Meanwhile, I will consider your reply and think about my vote... --Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing on my talk page that you do not consider your edit a "retouch" - which I can follow - it is of course OK just to add a description of the editing steps in the description, such that others curious to understand how this photo was realized could learn about it. --Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Ok,... done...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice colours, but too much noise. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, there's too much noise and the composition is not great enough; but good colours --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the colours but I agree with the above comment I think, sorry. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ggb by night.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 08:57:37

Info This is an unsharp, noisy photo of the Golden Gate Bridge promoted back in 2005. Also, the lights on the bridge are horrible. I can say with certainty there are better pictures of this bridge on commons. (Original nomination). Tiptoety ^talk 08:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Tiptoety ^talk 08:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Unsharp, perspective not corrected, all in all IMO not enough for FP.

Oops, is was not logged in. That is my vote. Nikopol (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Tiptoety. --Cayambe (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. Elekhh (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Tiptoety and Nikopol --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Aktron (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geirangerfjord LC0188.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2010 at 23:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Info The fjord is one of Norway's most visited tourist sites and has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The fjord is deep enough so that it can be navigated even by cruise ships. So for example the right one of the ships in the pic is the Queen Elizabeth 2.
Support -- LC-de (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I would not enjoy the combination of heights and edges if I were the man in the picture! Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Noisy on dark areas and partly bit underexposed - but fantastic result! Love it! —kallerna™ 12:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Simonizer (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Ks0stm ■ MMXX ^talk 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail with the man on the cliff. --Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, definitive --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: wow. Jonathunder (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. I forgot how to speak english for a bit there :) NativeForeigner (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hoverfly on flower edit.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2010 at 13:42:04

Info Noisy, unsharp, quite small. (Original nomination)
Delist —kallerna™ 13:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 20:23:51

Info 1.5 Mpx resolution, noisy and not crisp by current standards. We have several superior FPs of crespuscular rays. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Resolution no longer meets requirements. On its own that's not enough for a delist vote from me, but when we have FPs of sufficiently similar subjects, that is a killer blow. --99of9 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist low quality --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Resolution, per 99of9. --Cayambe (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset clouds and crepuscular rays over pacific edit.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 20:31:47

Info Considering the borderline resolution, the image is not sufficiently crisp by current standards. So is the noise and composition. We have several superior FPs of crespuscular rays, especially from the creator herself , so I think we should clean out a bit. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LightsVintageMBTruck 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 21:02:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by --Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC), - uploaded by --Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC), - nominated by -- Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Lights on a vintage Daimler-Benz truck (Mercedes-Benz Museum, Stuttgart, Germany)
Support -- Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp foreground (main object is not in focus). Compare it with top part of radiator. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMO the radiator, the fender, and the parts in between are equally sharp. Other opinions? --Pjt56 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top part of the radiator is less unsharp than some other parts of the image. I like the idea/composition however at 1:1 it is not sharp enough for FP for me I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition and the harmonious colors are nice, but the others are right about sharpness... Do you think you can improve it without bringing in too much noise? Nikopol (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have uploaded a sharpened version. If this one is still not good enough I have a reason to visit the museum again (and ask for permission to use a tripod) ... --Pjt56 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this version, since the sharpening is done well (except for some haloing, but IMO it´s not grave) and because I love the colors. But there is one thing: This time, you did not correct the perspective. It is only a small change, but in comparision, I think like the composition of the old version better ;) Nikopol (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next try :-) Your point is valid from an aesthetic point of view, but when I look at the raw picture I'm afraid that the parts on the probably hand-build truck are far from being really vertical and/or parallel. I did my best to correct this in the image. --Pjt56 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already imagined that the correction might maybe not be completely realistic (though pleasing in terms of composition), and I think you found a good compromise there. On this version, with the decrease of halos you again reduced overall sharpness (I would have recommended selectively taking out only the halos in a mask, since the rest of the image was desperately longing for sharpness). But as it seems, all your fine work will not convince the rest, so maybe you really should try reshooting if you want to return to the museum anyway. But thanks a lot for your work! Nikopol (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the arrangement of the two lights and unusual subject, but somehow, it just does not induce significant readings on my wow-o-meter. Overall quality is OK. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sellers translating along truss during EVA-3 on STS-121.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 16:41:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Pline - nominated by Pline -- Pline (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pline (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice background :-), but can someone please get rid of that ugly black thing at the bottom left? --99of9 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nikopol (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --99of9 (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jonathunder (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Don't fall! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I´ll also Support. It´s evoking awkward felings, seeing him hanging there above the earth, just as if he really might fall if he let go. And nice quality, BTW. Nikopol (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy