Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2012

File:3D sonogram of fetal spine.tif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 14:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is a refreshing topic and type of image, which I think we should be open for. I think that the metadata, which are shown in the screen dump would be better captured in the file page. That is, I would crop the image, such that we only see the image from the scan and the remaining data are transferred to the file page. Yes, I know this will tecnically decrease the resolution of the image, but I trust (hope) the reviewers can see that it does not change the informational value of the image. One could add a scale to the cropped image such that the proportions are directly available. Also to present it in a form where the information is more broadly understood. For instance I see a length scale of 6.7 cm mentioned. But which proportion of the image does that correspond to (length or height)? Quite some other numbers and data are mentioned but their interpretation is not self-explanatory. Moreover, to increase the value of the image I think it would be worthwhile to describe on the file page in greater detail what kind of equipment has been used, if any kind of special processing has been applied to generate the image. Last but not least, the nominated image is closely related to another image, and it is my feeling that in combination, they can be used to provide a three-dimensional view of the fetal spine. However, it is not clear for me how that works, and I think there should be some kind of guidance for the viewer. I showed the image to my wife, who has a medical background and some experience with ultrasound, and she tells me it is a very good image, especially how well the individual spine taps(?) are resolved in the fetus. --Slaunger (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will support iff better technical information is provided on the file page, essentially per Slaugner. --Claritas (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InfoThe image has been cropped and technical information is now provided on the description of the image --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The description states "Focal Zone position at 6,7 cm." 6.7 cm from what ? --Claritas (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is from the array of cristals --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thus from the ultrasonography machine ? --Claritas (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the distance from the probe surface - maternal skin interface and the focal region--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per above discussion. Very educational and unusual picture. --Claritas (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you upsampled it to make it reach the 2 Mpixel guideline? Please do not. Upsampling does not add any information. Regarding crop, my personal preference would be to remove all of the black frame only keep the actual image frame. Yes, I know this means fewer pixels, but the information is the same. --Slaunger (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as stated in the retouching template. This has been requested in a former discussion about this image on the size of the image by some reviewers. I was not very happy to do it as I know that FP is not strict about the 2 MP rule as is QI. To tell you the truth I do feel that there is not much understanding from the reviewers for medical images. I think IMHO reviewers should judge the images for their visual impact and for the information value they provide to an encyclopaedia.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that. Where has that been discussed for this image?? If someone has really asked you to upsample the image, it is something I strongly disagree with. I think you are right that we reviewers do not (yet) have much understanding of medical images. Please do not give up, and give the community some time to understand the domain. Do you know COM:VIC? That is a forum focusing on the value of an image and less on the resolution. I think you should have kept the cropped revision by Wetenschatje. -Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting, new, unusual and with a very high encyclopedic and educational value. We must never forget to keep our minds open. The original size should not be a problem in this specific case ("mitigating circumstances" or something like that...). In my humble opinion, the better version is the very first one, which shows the image as it comes out from the "tool", because that's part of the whole picture and of the "subject" (a medical image), and it gives special informations, not only technical, but visual too "So looks a picture made by an ultrasonography machine" (encyclopedic informations), regarding this specific point I disagree with Slaunger. After that, the uploader is free (and encouraged) to give explanations and other informations/translations in the file description page. Anyway, I really hope a promotion for this one, which is really -at least- different. --Jebulon (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Childs1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2012 at 00:14:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zigomar - uploaded by Zigomar - nominated by Kohelet -- Kohelet (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kohelet (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unattractive lighting IMO. --Claritas (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Insufficient information given IMO. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting, with very strong shade randomly obscuring subjects. --ELEKHH^T 00:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange background, bad lighting. –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polyconchal Basilica Ohrid. Floor mosaic 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2012 at 01:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brams - uploaded by Brams - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too grainy (oversharpening of a blurred picture?) / Achird (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's unattractive at full resolution due to noise. --Claritas (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, to noisy. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpening i don't see. Not sharply, it is noisy. --Aleks G (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Обледенелая береза.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 06 Jan 2012 at 13:23:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G --Aleks G (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:360° Tilisuna.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2012 at 20:22:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info 360° Grad Panorama auf der Tilisuna in den Alpen. c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose heavily oversharpened with well visible sharpening halos; I'm also not a friend of the harsh light with the strong shadows (nicht unbedingt dein Schatten, sondern die übrigen im ganzen Bild). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (until sharpening issue is fixed) I'd like to give you support for Xmas ;) but I'm per Carschten on the overshapening issue. I'm fine with the nice horizontal lighting and thinks it emphasize nicely the landscape. You could have gotten rid of your shadow though (cropping it away should be fine as the left part doesn't really add value IMO, it doesn't have to be 360°). - Benh (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of over sharpening haloes and the photographer's shadow + strange black "things" in the sky at the upper edge (left and center of the picture), to be removed IMO (due to the stitching ?). I like the light very much though-Jebulon (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photographer's shadow is an absolute nogo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image. –ElmA (Talk – My files) 09:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gabrielle Cot 1890.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2012 at 11:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William-Adolphe Bouguereau - uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Claritas -- Claritas (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claritas (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am impressed --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High quality photo, but no wow factor. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kohelet (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lava-espanola-male.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2012 at 01:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Microlophus delanonis in Española Island

Info created by Benjamint444 - uploaded by Benjamint444 - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 01:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 01:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the resolution is really borderline for a featured picture candidate, but there is high EV, attractive composition and reasonable technical quality, so I'm willing to support. --Claritas (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1.8 megapixels is a borderline?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, yes. I'm really not willing to support anything under that, but there's no absolute rule that all FPs have to be above 2Mpx.--Claritas (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small.--Jebulon (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. As Jebulon--Miguel Bugallo 20:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Size is close enough, and the image is very nice. InverseHypercube 07:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image. –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit "too small", but also missing the EXIF data and a GEO tag. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ilia Efimovich Repin (1844-1930) - Volga Boatmen (1870-1873).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2012 at 02:15:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Илья Ефимович Репин; uploaded and nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Famous painting Barge Haulers on the Volga by Ilia Repin from Russian Museum. Perfect quality. Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although resolution could be significantly higher due to the large size of the original painting. --Claritas (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but now need to put a link to the source of high quality image. --Sasha Krotov (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Impressive color management. Great job keeping the palette warm and sunlit without getting oversaturated anywhere. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Memory of my childhood. Good luck! --Zoe bird (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --J.M.Domingo (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berngat Berggut 61 Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2012 at 20:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Berngat Berggut Panorama 360° c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI support if you add an English file description. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)--88.69.156.131 22:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

en

Done --Böhringer (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose oversharpened, too --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info komisch, hier wurde gar nichts nachgeschärft! --Böhringer (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mit welchem Programm hast du denn das Bild gestitcht? Hugin zum Beispiel schärft und skaliert auch von sich aus nach... Und bei 1/320s und f/8 schließe ich auf ISO 100, und das Himmelrauschen muss ja auch irgend woher stammen... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mit PTGui --Böhringer (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Boring landscape. --Kohelet (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trace (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the sinusoidal curve of the foreground. Not boring IMO. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is one of Wikis best works. Only thing, it looks a bit underexposed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened. พ.s. 01:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a minor stitching error at spruces on mountain at 1/3 from the left. --Ximonic (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Says heaps about the current FPC standard พ.s. 01:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kannst du deinen Schlusskommntar etwas genauer spezifizieren du weiser Knabe oder Weisenknabe? --Böhringer (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:CTA Loop Junction Detail.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2012 at 08:49:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - simple but attractive composition, high technical quality. --Claritas (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the composition --Dirk Van Esbroeck (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P0lyzoarium (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent, let's celebrate minimalism! Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fantastic. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amazing ! Trace (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great! --Dэя-Бøяg 20:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Hurricane Katrina Eye viewed from Hurricane Hunter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2012 at 18:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NOAA - uploaded by Tom - nominated by TropicalAnalystwx13 -- – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support InverseHypercube 07:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose simply boring composition. Perhaps a VI image, but not a FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impo not featurable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - high educational value, but aesthetically uninteresting and lacking any "wow" factor. --Claritas (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bad crop and composition, but it is really impressive, with huge EV. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palace-of-tsar-Alexey-Mihajlovicha-in-Kolomenskoe-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 06 Jan 2012 at 13:23:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Palace of tsar Alexey Mihajlovicha in Kolomenskoe-2, Moscow, Russia. It is constructed in 1667-1671, it is consecrated on August, 27th, 1672. In 1767 because of decay, under Catherine II order, after the made measurements and drawings, has been disassembled. Restored in 2010 under drawings. A palace total area 7230м ².

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G --Aleks G (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose InverseHypercube 07:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Christmas Comet Lovejoy Captured at Paranal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2012 at 02:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by G. Blanchard/ESO - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Ras67 (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ras67 (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claritas (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish this comet were seen from the Northern Hemisphere.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aleks G (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry guys but I'm not fond of the extreme geometric distortion and poor image quality. Yes, it might be considered a VI because of its enc value, but I see nothing featurable here. The comparison with this similar photo, which won POTY 2010, illustrates what I mean. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your arguments, the POTY has more distortions, less resolution and less technical quality (JPEG artifacts). The arrangement of Comet Lovejoy and the Paranal telescopes here is not featurable enough? Other see the wow factor. --Ras67 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose full ack Alves. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with Alvesgaspar. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alves--Miguel Bugallo 23:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but Alves is right in my opinion. Also I think it is very dark on the edges. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:0 Moulbaix - Moulin de la Marquise (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2012 at 14:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor image quality: it's very noisy (ISO 10.288!!) and very pixelated: straight lines are cornered. Incomprehensible why/how/that it gets the QI status. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Carschten. --Claritas (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –ElmA (Talk – My files) 08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very poor photo --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gnorimus nobilis side.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2012 at 17:17:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Siga - uploaded by Siga - nominated by TrebleSeven -- TrebleSeven (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator-- TrebleSeven (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support-- While the subject is excellent, the bright background of the flowers is somewhat distracting--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gauravjuvekar, I changed your vote template from Weak support to weak support as the the weak support template is not allowed according to the guidelines nor recognised by the FPC bot.
Oppose The white flowers truthfully represent the habitual environment preferred by this beetle species. The image itself looks a little overexposed to me. It also has too much noise for my taste of a FP. Sorry, but I have to say no this time, even though I like beetles. --Ximonic (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, oversharpened, overexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, overexposed. / Achird (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is noisy, aberrations, white stains instead of colors. --Aleks G (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - over-sharpening, overexposed. --Claritas (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed. --Aktron (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination TrebleSeven (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foto sprong sloot.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2012 at 15:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Pieter Geerts - nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tsaag Valren (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Messy composition. พ.s. 09:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Could you be more precise please ? Any other suggestion ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Difficult. higher view point, not upfront, less clutter to the left? พ.s. 23:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...--Jebulon (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ccw tilted --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Done Tilt now corrected, thank you.But I'm afraid the current image is not the last upload (frame corrected), something goes wrong (cache issue ?)--Jebulon (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, messy image. –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- QuestionIs this above vote valid ? The users seems to have had less than 50 edits when voting...--Jebulon (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is not messy, it's unique and seems nice to me. --Aktron (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - really nice shot. --Claritas (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Hornviper Cerastes cerastes.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2012 at 10:50:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good. Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support InverseHypercube 19:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files) 08:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claritas (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Makele-90 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MyCanon (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 04:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lesser Coat of Arms of Russian Empire.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2012 at 22:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Orange-kun - uploaded by Orange-kun - nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support InverseHypercube 23:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic quality and detail russavia (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good svg-image. –ElmA (Talk – My files) 08:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - high educational value as evidenced by the vast number of pages it is used on. --Claritas (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support GreyHood ^Talk 19:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Claritas --Schnobby (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request Very nice indeed. Maybe a description (with annnotations ?) of the small coats of arms could help and make the whole design more understandable and educational ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can add annotations in Russian --Sasha Krotov (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ugu --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zalophus californianus 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2012 at 07:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 23:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Stu Phillips--Str Photo 00:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image needs scale. How big is the object? --WikedKentaur (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info About 2 m. I added this information at the description page. --Llez (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claritas (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job! --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Царское-село,-Екатерининский-дворец.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2012 at 00:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tsarskoye Selo (Pushkin), interior of the Catherine Palace (has been put in 1717 under the direction of Johann Fridriha Braunshtejna, Bartolomeo Franchesko Rastrelli is reconstructed in 1752-1756). An Arabesque Room (Charles Kamerona's furnish), it is restored and opened in 2010.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G --Aleks G (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the room and think it's a properly taken architecture shot. I don't see so many good quality interior pictures over here. - Benh (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- MJJR (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality. Selbymay (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support schickes Wohnzimmer... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 23:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! –ElmA (Talk – My files) 08:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice--Miguel Bugallo 23:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MyCanon (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Istanbul Süleymaniye Mosque.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2012 at 21:20:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Benh (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ggia's nom below reminded me of this shot, which I think captures well the atmosphere of that part of Istanbul. -- Benh (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even do not know what to start with: either with a noisy sky with some dust spots, or with an unfortunate lighting, or with a bad crop, or with a cut-off main subject. Benh, you're opposing so many good images, how could have you supported this one... Oh, I see, you are the one who took it :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image being good or not is matter of taste, and you're right that as author, I will always be biased. But if I nominate, it means I like it, so I support. On objective criterias, this one is noisy, but it's unscaled down 18mpix pic, which is mitigating IMO. But maybe I should do something about that. The lighting is not unfortunate in my opinion. Although we can see the sky is dark, sun did lit the scene, giving some contrast and a dramatic atmoshphere. Maybe the cut off boat is an issue. I will propose a landscape format alternative, which I have at home. By the way, you have the right to oppose (even though I would prefer the other way). - Benh (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did you try to make a horizontal panorama of the place? Since here is not the main subject the Süleymaniye Mosque but also "Eminonu - Galata Bridge and fish-bread selling shops" I think that a panorama gives a better overview of this place. Ggia (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I took a bit long to answer Ggia. I didn't took a panorama of it. Maybe I was too lazy to set up everything. But I have a landscape format version of it. I'm not sure if it's worth nominating it. Will try to work on it if I have time... (which I'm short on miss these days). I'm not sure if a panorama would have been a benefit, I really wanted to catch how busy it is, and at same time, have that iconic shape in the background, so this needn't being extended to the right in my opinion. Happy new year by the way!- Benh (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Oppose - I love the color, but I wish for a less restrictive crop on the right. Jonathunder (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd support if not for the over-tight crop. --Claritas (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot, but closeup view is noisy for me. --Aktron (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - Benh (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bûche de Noël chocolat framboise maison.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 10:49:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- attractive and unusual subject, no technical problems as far as I can see. --Claritas (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bonne année et bon appétit --Llez (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files) 08:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as photographer and uploader. Many thanks for this very unexpected nomination and for the votes --Jebulon (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 23:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting subject. Tiptoety ^talk 04:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very Christmassy, I love it! TrebleSeven (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Many thanks for Mrs Jebulon, she will surely be very proud !--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Montane Birch forests in Torkilstöten (winter).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2012 at 19:40:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created , uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the overall composition appears random to me. Also, the trunk in the foreground unattractively subdivides the image into two (sub)equal parts. --Cayambe (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though the tree in the foreground is there, and I see what you mean about it splitting up the picture, this does not necessarily decrease the value. I like the focus, however, and like it. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Cayambe. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It needs more closeup view to have a bigger focus distinction of the main subject from the rest of the forest. At least that's a way how I'd like the picture. :-) Aktron (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artistic, but too messy for an encyclopedia. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lack of sharpness. Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:The judgement of the dead in the presence of Osiris.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2012 at 07:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ancient Egyptians - uploaded by InverseHypercube - nominated by InverseHypercube -- InverseHypercube 07:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- InverseHypercube 07:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - nice picture, but the full text of the inscription should be be available on the description page along with a translation. --Claritas (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to a lengthy explanation by E. A. Wallis Budge. Is that good enough? I can't seem to find a direct translation of this particular version, but the linked work discusses various versions, including this one. InverseHypercube 19:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Claritas (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estatua no frontal do Mosteiro de San Salvador de Celanova - Galiza.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2012 at 23:06:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 23:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 23:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure, perhaps not wov and I think that the shade is not disturbing, but...--Miguel Bugallo 23:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I do not like the lighting, it is rather distracting. Tiptoety ^talk 03:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - shadows are too prominent. --Claritas (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the reviews. I am learning--Miguel Bugallo 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malta Wignacourt Tower BW 2011-10-09 15-19-03.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2012 at 17:47:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - nice double rainbow over the old building and the sea, but I don't particularly like the crop on the right, which cuts a modern building in half. Jonathunder (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Big wow, uncommon place, but crop is not optimal imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Nice, realistic rainbow, but I agree with Paolo Costa and Jonathunder, the crop on the right could be longer. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stagmatoptera supplicaria MHNT vol.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2012 at 11:16:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Illustration of sexual dimorphism in mantidae. created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 113:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is good material for sure. But I believe you should try to provide something more like "studio shot" instead. I miss the shadows. They do help to get a better idea of the shape of an object in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's always difficult to find a compromise between artisits photography and scientific photography.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice!--Miguel Bugallo 23:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Stu Phillips--Str Photo 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claritas (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Ordinary composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have an idea for a extraordinary composition? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Think about it, you're clever. What could be an "extraordinary composition"? TrebleSeven (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no irony in my question, we are here to learn from each other, and I am always very attentive to all the improvements I could bring in my work. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Croissant-newspaper-and-tea.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 13:06:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A croissant for breakfast, with newspaper

Info created by Petr Kratochvil - uploaded by User:Lobo - nominated by User:TrebleSeven -- TrebleSeven (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- TrebleSeven (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like it, but unfortunately it's too small at just over 1 megapixel (see Commons:Image guidelines). —Bruce1ee^talk 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it significantly below the minimum 2mpx resolution. --Claritas (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination TrebleSeven (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rome Saint Peter's Square view from the dome of Saint Peter's Basilica 3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 17:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by G CHP - uploaded by G CHP - nominated by G CHP -- G CHP (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- G CHP (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp, heavy noise --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Claritas (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--G CHP (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cuicocha, Ecuador.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 21:20:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tequendamia - uploaded by Tequendamia - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 21:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 21:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the file is significantly below 2Mpx. --Claritas (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Melancolía 001.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2012 at 01:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Albrecht Dürer - uploaded and nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the most famous old master prints in original. True colours, high resoluton. -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image, high resolution. –ElmA (Talk – My files) 13:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love that piece. There are three fairly high res versions of the file in the category, but I do think this one is the best. It has the widest crop, and the other look too overly thresholded to make them more b/w with higher contrast. I feel this yellowish version is more trustworthy in its appearance. However, the files pages on some of the other version in the category are more detailed and also in English. I recommend adding the English translations as well to the file page. --Slaunger (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the image needs to be cropped down to the page (cream border is unattractive). I am not convinced by the technical quality of this reproduction - the resolution is reasonably high, but there is some minor colour deviations, and a sharpness lower than that which is achievable. --Claritas (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not so sharp, I prefer there to be colour with FPs. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:RhB ABe 8-12 Allegra between Lagalb and Ospizio Bernina.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 07:37:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 14:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition, exposure, colors, quality. But mostly composition. Little CAs could be corrected. --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, setting etc. - Benh (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that recently the FP bar of "trains in winterscapes" have increased, and although this photo is very nice concerning all technical aspects (light, colors, composition) I miss some of the action feel of whirling snow seen in related FPs such as this and this and this. --Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter of the bar of "trains in winterscapes" have increased, so what? It has nothing to do with this deserves FP. This picture doesn't has any kind of whirling snow, which make it really beauty and better than other pictures in my opinion of course.Trongphu (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respect other users opinion in this nomination, and if you and other users think it is best without whirling snow I have no problem with that. Opinions differ. But should I suppress how I see the nomination just to follow the majority of opinions? --Slaunger (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is too clean and perfect, so it doesn't feel natural. It feels like a toy train standing still. / Achird (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC) / Changing to Oppose. / Achird (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice -- MJJR (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trongphu (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ support Good and nice, but a bit of chromatic aberrations IMO. To me, improvable--Miguel Bugallo 20:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made an alternative because I don't like the colors in the original. I also tried to fix the CA issue. I think the alt is considerably better, but I'm still not 100% satisfied. --Kabelleger (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.--Miguel Bugallo 11:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ALT. --Claritas (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT. -- Trace (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:RhB_ABe_8-12_Allegra_between_Lagalb_and_Ospizio_Bernina_alt.jpg

File:VFT ne1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2012 at 02:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NoahElhardt - uploaded by NoahElhardt - nominated by Pteronura brasiliensis -- Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support InverseHypercube 07:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Part of the subject is out of focus (the part closer to the camera), distracting background, too tight crop. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small depth of sharpness, motley background. --Aleks G (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's meant to illustrate the trigger hairs of the plant. I also like the "motley" background, as it shows some of the rest of the plant. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Motley background. –ElmA (Talk – My files) 08:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others.--Paolo Costa (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support -- The blur in the background doesn't really help me to give full support. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frankenstein's monster (Boris Karloff).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2012 at 04:12:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown photographer (promotional photo) - uploaded by The Man in Question - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Impressive portrait =) Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is significantly smaller than 2MPx.--Claritas (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Djembe, Ghana.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 11:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by ZSM; nominated by TrebleSeven -- TrebleSeven (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- TrebleSeven (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ZSM (talk)16:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Featured Pictures are among Wiki's best works. In this case I don't see it as FP because there are many problems... for example, there are very big CA's, noise, quality is so-so, angle is not optimal imo (would prefer to see the upper part as well), background is not ideal, crop is too tight on the bottom. --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - top right and left are overblown, odd angle. --Claritas (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination TrebleSeven (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info The nomination was short lived, but thank you anyway. I respect your opinions. I am not a photographer, just like to take pictures. About the odd angle: I wanted to show the beautiful design on the side of the drum and the real size ratio between the top and bottom part. Yes, the space at the bottom is too small, but unfortunately it is not cropped. That is how the picture was taken. Thank you all. ZSM (talk)19:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:20111225 Suleymaniye Mosque Istanbul Turkey Panoramic.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2012 at 17:11:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like IMC sign in the right bottom.. but it is not my fault that it is inside this photo ;) . While trying to crop over the IMC sign.. I found that the image seems too tighten cropped. This image has high EV not only because the mosque important.. and but also the surrounding social complex (buildings around the mosque) which is called Külliye in the ottoman architecture. -- Ggia (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK, although I won't ack it, I'm certainly biased because I nominated a similar shot of mine... This one has good quality, nice lighting, and I trust you on the encyclopedic point. But those leafless trees give a cold atmosphere to that picture. I'm not so keen on the composition either, with much more room given to the sky than the rest. - Benh (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info the date of the image is 25 December, and it is winter time.. so the trees are leafless.. in the composition I tried to avoid a centered composition.. so some part of the panorama to the left side has been cropped (in order the main subject - the mosque not to be in the center). Concerning the sky, I don't believe that it has too much sky for the composition not looking like vertically-centered aligned.. but if people don't like so much sky.. it is very easy technically to have a new crop with a little less sky. Ggia (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info - I'm going to photoshop out the IMC sign. It's really irritating. --Claritas (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you.. I tried to find an angle to make the photo without without this annoying sign.. but I didn't succeed. I don't know how to make this clone-job/patch.. it seems difficult to clone the texture behind. Ggia (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is very difficult. I'll upload my attempt when it's done.~~ --Claritas (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: it is impossible - don't wait for me. --Claritas (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice and original shot. The lighting looks good --Aktron (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I would have gave it a bit more support if the "MC IMC" sign was cropped off. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ворота в Петропавловскую церковь (Московская обл. пос. Ильинское).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2012 at 22:58:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G --Aleks G (talk) 22:56, 02 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dэя-Бøяg 20:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Przykuta → [edit] 10:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claritas (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trace (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Very nice color and contrast. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I haven't checked if things have changed, but a user is limited to two actives nominations as far as I remember... probably this will be OK for this one as the oldest is being promoted. - Benh (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support But shame of the lamp pole, and Behn is right, we were not careful enough... But there is no harm.--Jebulon (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Might have been better if it was landscape, but is quite a nice image. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might have been even better with a slightly less tight crop, but still a good quality image as it is. --NJR_ZA (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful scene, lighting, contrast... and good quality as well - Benh (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kongkokking-photo-wallpaper-leaf.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2012 at 22:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hazmat2 - uploaded by Kongkokking - nominated by Hazmat2 -- Hazmat2 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hazmat2 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality (DOF) and 1,024 × 768 pixels--Miguel Bugallo 03:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is significantly smaller than 2MPx.--Miguel Bugallo 04:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Assateague foal.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2012 at 13:18:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ben Stephenson - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 13:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The legs are cut. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar.--Miguel Bugallo 04:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar comments. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 20:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination —Bruce1ee^talk 06:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dawn in Puerto Encantado.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2012 at 23:47:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa Baldi -- Paolo Costa (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info last time I nominated this image it got 6 supports and 2 opposes, one for CAs and sharpness, one because caption and geotag were not good. I was traveling at the time and could not do anything, but now I have fixed those issues, so I'll give it a second try. Happy new year to everyone! --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very therapeutic. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sharpness could be better for a panorama, but very nice image nevertheless -- MJJR (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{o}}~~ Sorry, perhaps I don't understand (If someone can explain to me what happens...), but to me it's too violet: non-natural colors--Miguel Bugallo 00:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Miguel, I can understand your oppose since the sky looks almost unreal. But that's pretty much how the sky looked like (I can send you the RAW file on request). Should we manipulate an image only to make it look more "realistic"? I don't know. Color temp of the raw file is 6600K, maybe a bit warm, but I think that's ok for a dawn picture. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I believe you. I've never seen anything like this color--Miguel Bugallo 16:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't be sorry Miguel, instead, do leave your oppose vote: I don't wanna sound like I wanna change people's votes. Your oppose is 100% valid. I only wanted to tell you that skies rare like this, do appear from time to time, and that the picture is pretty faithful to the original. Best regards --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really amazing--Miguel Bugallo 20:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning setting with amazing colours. We occasionally see bright, almost unreal, violet and orange dawn/dusk here in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, but I have never been able to capture it anywhere near as well as this was done. --NJR_ZA (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support reminiscent of several similar scenes I witness during my trips in south west asia. Very nice mood, well emphasized in this photo IMO ! - Benh (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Casa Milà - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 12:15:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Elekhh -- ELEKHH^T 12:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ELEKHH^T 12:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice architecture. But the composition does not work: crop is very tight, the car in the bottom left corner is disturbing, the whole image is very busy. And why a night shot? At daytime, it would look much more impressive, I'm sure. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image illustrates typical nightlife in the city. It certainly looks different during the day and that could be a separate FP. --ELEKHH^T 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - motion blur on the car, bottom left corner. Otherwise, a very nice QI. --Claritas (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO the car does not need to be sharp, is better blurred since is not the subject. --ELEKHH^T 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The motion blur on the car in my opinion distracts the viewers attention from the main subject. --Claritas (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support good general quality Cathy Richards (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –ElmA (Talk – My files) 08:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Elekhh regarding the blurred car. --Cayambe (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Casa Milá is spectacular, but very difficult to shoot. Too many cars and people over the place, with many trees in front of the building. Maybe an aerial shot would do, but this one doesn't look featurable to me. Agree with elekhh too. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are technical possibilities to avoid the problem of crowds in front of subjects of interest: either a long(!) exposure in the order of several minutes, half an hour or more, maybe using a neutral density filter (thus, moving objects do not interfere with the data registration of the static scene) or a stack of enough single captures in "Median" stacking mode in Photoshop. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Miguel Bugallo 23:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For starters I am curious why this wasn't taken during the day time, the lack of lighting and shadows are distracting. Also, I do not care for the crop or the blurry car in the corner. Defiantly QI worthy though. Tiptoety ^talk 04:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The blurred car does actually show a bit, for an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I fail to get how an image taken at dusk is necessarily worst than a daytime shot... Night shot can be more pleasing, and not least detailed (the subject is lit). The comments on car and crowd can be justified, but these are mitigated by the fact that the dusk slot is short and, well, if the place is busy in real life, I see nothing wrong with having people on it. It's not like they detract this much from main subject when looking the picture as a whole. On the cons side, I think crop is tight and size is a bit small. And maybe composition could be better (more centered). - Benh (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakhota Lake Museum.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2012 at 20:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rangilo Gujarati - uploaded by Rangilo Gujarati - nominated by Rangilo Gujarati -- Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it a pity that the castle is almost centered and the statue is set aside, almost like an afterthought. I believe the picture would've been way more balanced had it less empty space on the right hand side and a bit more breathing room around the statue. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 21:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I agree with Maurilbert. The statue on the left seems really confined by the composition. But otherwise, a very nice picture. --Claritas (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but, crop is bad, with too much sky and little space on the bottom and the left side. Also strong vignetting is visible. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Crop. Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- Can be a bit noisy. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grempen - Schweizer Jura im Nebel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 17:57:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very bad exposure: most of the landscape underexposed (nearly black!) and the fog is overexposed and blown out. Unpleasing colours. Too much boring space at top with centered horizon. We have better images on Commons and better FPs, cf. e.g. this landscape in fog image. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no significant difference between your favoured fog-picture and this candidate concerning the criticised point. Beside of this: over- and underexposure can also a stylistic device if the image impression is aesthetic. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I agree with Wladyslaw about the exposure. It gives the landscape a nice dreamy effect. --Claritas (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excessive use of tonemapping/shadow highlights tool. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I like the view of the mountains, the bottom-left just disappoints me. TrebleSeven (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kremlin Clock chimes in 2012.ogv, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 21:58:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Russavia - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The video is very high quality (just under 2000px wide), the sound is perfect. The video is technically a picture (albeit moving), so I see no reason this couldn't be a candidate under our current guidelines. russavia (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support GreyHood ^Talk 18:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 04:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The chimes aren't really supporting the image/video. I would suggest for it to be uploaded as an image without sound. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JelMak (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Chvalkovice castle 2011 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2012 at 21:02:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- Not very striking for an FP, but is a nice image. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should the focus be now the castle or the statue? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fireworks in Lappeenranta.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2012 at 10:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ElmA - uploaded by ElmA - nominated by ElmA –ElmA (Talk – My files) 10:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files) 10:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you even see the photo in full resolution? –Makele-90 (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry to me--Miguel Bugallo 23:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too unsharp Cathy Richards (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. –Makele-90 (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blurry. Tiptoety ^talk 04:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. Just another firework. / Achird (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough for an FP, looks out of focus. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - simply nothing special, unsharp at full resolution. --Claritas (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gul tre skilling banco.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 13:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Posten AB (design by P.A. Sparre) - uploaded by Claritas - nominated by Claritas -- Claritas (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claritas (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 04:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Achird (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- If only there was a proper background. TrebleSeven (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain what you mean by "proper background" ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - From a philatelic point of view, a simple black or white background is best, as it does not distract the viewer from the stamp. --Claritas (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok I agree, but I don't see here any technical problem, regarding the Category:Stamps uploading guidelines. But IMO there may be a copyright problem, as it seems that Sweden claims copyright on all designs ever issued (quote).--Jebulon (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It does indeed seem that Posten AB claims copyright over the stamps' designs eternally. However, there is no mention of this exception to the copyright duration of 70 years in the Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (1960:729). --Claritas (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image of the world most vauluable stamp. Ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not wov to me--Miguel Bugallo 06:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lake Edith Jasper.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2012 at 12:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Smackaay - uploaded by Smackaay - nominated by CRRaysHead90 -- CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 12:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 12:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine for me! --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! GreyHood ^Talk 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this image has several dust spots in the sky (they can be corrected), also seems it has a stitching error at the top right part, there are some parts which are too dark for me.. but the major problem is that in the image there is a big amount of distortion (barrel). BTW the landscape looks very nice.. and looks like a nice place to visit. Ggia (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose please see the image notes. After a correction I can change my vote. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even though the place is spectacular, there are stitching errors, the sky has an error too, there're dust spots, and many dark areas. As Ggia. Sky looks oversaturated. And finally, horizon is not straight. Too many issues for FP status imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - the stitching errors are really the only issues with this image for me. I'd be happy to support if they were fixed. --Claritas (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per image notes. But the place is a beautiful. --Stryn (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful scenery. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see my note above. Ggia (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Miguel Bugallo 01:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the stiching errors --High Contrast (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 22:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Miguel Bugallo --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all the comments above. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image. –ElmA (Talk – My files) 15:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nintendo Gameboy.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2012 at 09:19:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Oppose Resolution 5,5568 megapixels. Good graphics, but nothing special. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 14:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Pictures should be in some way special". This is just a good quality point-and-click shot of a gameboy. I'd suggest nominating for valued image status instead. --Claritas (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Claritas Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - As suggested, I've taken it to VIC. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johan Barthold Jongkind - Rue Notre-Dame, Parijs.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 22:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Johan Barthold Jongkind - uploaded by Ophelia2 - nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting work by a lesser known artist. --Claritas (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 22:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed and clear --Stu Phillips (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!Trongphu (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superior reproduction quality. -- MJJR (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lama 3 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2012 at 13:50:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Lviatour - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great composition. --Claritas (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 17:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Honestly, I donna think the composition is that good. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trongphu (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the lama without legs in the back. bamse (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Man with a Saluki.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2012 at 10:39:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Shayk Muhammad (?) - uploaded by Claritas - nominated by Claritas -- Claritas (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claritas (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 17:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Not striking, but has a good historical value. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trongphu (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files) 15:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, high ev --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mug Humboldt HBP 2011-12-22.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 21:52:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Grand-Duc -- Grand-Duc (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as photographer. -- Grand-Duc (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wov? Why?--Miguel Bugallo 02:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support purposive depth of field Cathy Richards (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Copyright ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. Poor DOF (f5)--Miguel Bugallo 04:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I usually don't use the no-wow argument, but in this case, this is a very common, easy to take image. Crop is tight on the bottom and background is distracting. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor photo quality. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 20:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor photo, not special. –ElmA (Talk – My files) 14:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Фрагмент-ворот-Храма-Христа-Спасителя.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2012 at 13:23:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gate in the Temple. Temple of the Christ of the Savior. The temple project belongs to architect Konstantin Tona. Temple building was conducted about 44 years. On May, 26th, 1883 the Temple has been consecrated. On December, 5th, 1931 the Temple has been destroyed blown up). The present restored Temple has been consecrated on August, 19th, 2000.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G --Aleks G (talk) 22:50, 01 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like to see a better geometry.--Aktron (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geometry is mostly OK, just no symmetry. GreyHood ^Talk 19:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great quality.. may-be a new crop can make the image completely symmetrical (it is horizontal-symmetrical but to be also vertical-symmetrical). Ggia (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I'd like to see a better geometry--Miguel Bugallo 23:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support But lets try а symmetrical crop too. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer the asymmetry. --Claritas (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 18:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good as it is, IMO. Remembers me this from Florence Cathedral, mutatis mutandis (but this one is far much better). By the way, does somebody know who those venerable guys are?--Jebulon (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- I like FP's to have a sense of colour, but it does have a good historical value. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment repair pincushion distortion Przykuta → [edit] 15:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Cayambe Vulkan w.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 21:14:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kryptonit - uploaded by MGA73bot2 - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 21:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 21:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support--Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 22:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - slightly grainy at full resolution. --Claritas (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy and poor quality --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice view, colors and location. But sky looks overprocessed, and noisy. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality, low contrast Cathy Richards (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Cathy Richards - anyway, nice picture. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 19:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too hazy day. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination David C. S.

File:Coenobita clypeatus - Caribbean hermit crab.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2012 at 14:21:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I can see this as an Fp, but only very slightly. It's hard to differentiate the pebbles from the crab. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per TrebleSeven, bad subject isolation. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clark Humphrey 01A.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2012 at 07:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jmabel - uploaded by Jmabel - nominated by Jmabel -- Jmabel ! talk 07:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jmabel ! talk 07:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose -- Not much to look at this image, nothing really special about it at all. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC) (no double voting, please) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it hasn't got any significant value, and I don't think it meets the featured image criteria. This image might be better off to be nominated at the English Wikipedia, as it does have a little bit of encyclopaedic value. TrebleSeven (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Sorry, but the FPX template is supposed to be used in objective and clear circumstances usually related with poor image quality or size. But the reason invoked here is subjective. I suggest you withdraw the template, otherwise I'll do it with a support vote. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting portraiture. I like the composition, and although the technical quality could be better, I can see this as a FP. --Claritas (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAs TrebleSeven. Is it wov?--Miguel Bugallo 01:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Out of focus, distracting background. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad background, bad focus etc. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any special about this? If anyone picture can be FP then we would have 7 billions of FP pictures.Trongphu (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad background. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The teeth yield a WOW factor to some extent but the background is too disturbed. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coimbra December 2011-16a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2012 at 19:57:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Minimalist composition showing the interior courtyard of the National Museum Machado de Castro, Coimbra, Portugal. Other depictions here and here All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is special about this?Trongphu (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please don't hate me Joaquim ;) but I tend to agree with Trongphu. The other minimalist pic below had minimalist composition but eye catching lighting and texture. This one doesn't. Also, it has some geometrical structure with horizontal lines which clearly separates areas with distinct colours. Here I can't find any "guidelines" (not centered, not a single vanishing point, no parallel lines, or anything else) - Benh (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I feel the crop is too tight at the top for a balanced composition. --Claritas (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose problems with composition Cathy Richards (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find this as an example of minimalism, neither the subject has high EV. Ggia (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- If only it was zoomed out a little bit.

Request -- Do you have an alternative to this image with it zoomed out a bit? TrebleSeven (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info Please see my first post above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Claritas (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Déformation Péruvienne MHNT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2012 at 17:43:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky
Support --Stu Phillips (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^talk 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Claritas (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. Focus stacking ? How many pictures ? --Jebulon (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Focus stacking of 2 pictures, but above 3 images I do more reports and I did not included in the category focus stacking because practical all images in studio are in Focus stacking. Future cameras, will incorporate this feature. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Undeniable!Trongphu (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral We had a talk about shadow, but that one seems added afterwards. This isn't the kind of shadow I meant. I'd also like to see more of the front of it, but I guess the subject here is the stretched skull. Very good encyclopedic picture otherwise IMO (hence my non oppose). - Benh (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support What an egghead! -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image, detailed skull. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Sport by Eduard Bargheer 1962.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2012 at 14:09:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the visual artist Eduard Bargheer, the manufacturing company Werkstätten August Wagner and the photographer Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info The download takes time, but it is funny like a paper chase. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support gute Arbeit --Böhringer (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - really nice reproduction. --Claritas (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 17:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 03:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Very good image, but see note: Is this a graffiti--Miguel Bugallo 13:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Miguel Bugallo, you are right, at the bottom of the image is near the right corner a small strip of a graffiti. On the pedestal below the glass mosaic is the other part of this graffiti. You can't see it on this image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice art of sport. TrebleSeven (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there seems to be graffiti on the bottom right, as Miguel has pointed out. --Claritas (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a cropped version cannot be used, then Oppose per Claritas. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good image to me but not usefull: Graffiti (see above)--Miguel Bugallo 00:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Removed offensive comment and vote. @Kohelet: please repeat your vote in proper terms. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please avoid defining artistic works with bad words. Everyone has its opinion and someone can be offended by yours. Even the most awful picture in the world should be opposed politely: From FP guidelines: Above all, be polite. Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. พ.s. 13:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Taipei101 amk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2012 at 14:06:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by AngMoKio - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 17:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trace (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, as description states, just a view to the north. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - attractive, good technical quality, educational value. --Claritas (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Good composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice quality and EV...Amazing place to take a picture from. But compo is kinda messy (not the photographer's fault but...). Another thing; I would have preferred a panoramic view. This image makes me feel like I wanna see some more. --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, as Yikrazuul--Miguel Bugallo 07:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not all city pictures can be FP.Trongphu (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 15:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. พ.s. 13:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 23.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2012 at 18:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice. --Claritas (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Ordinary composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support well-exposed image Cathy Richards (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiisk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2012 at 19:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tiit Hunt - uploaded by Tiit Hunt - nominated by WikedKentaur -- WikedKentaur (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - a bit noisy at full resolution for my liking. --Claritas (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I don't like the blur in the background. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why only the front of the fish is in focus, when showing the whole fish sideways? –Makele-90 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info The file now sits here: File:Gymnocephalus cernuus Pärnu River Estonia 2010-01-06.jpg, rationale: "Bioname correction", cf. Google translate and ruff. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent image! Kruusamägi (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is extremely difficult to photograph fish in Estonia. For example water has lot of organic material in it (still being very clean) and so it is not clear at all. Usually the bottom is covered with mud and as fish move around near it then there is no visibility. So this is a very professional photo. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support What can we ask for more?Trongphu (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technical problem : the contour zone of denoising around the fish is visible - --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lest.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2012 at 18:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tiit Hunt - uploaded by Tiit Hunt - nominated by WikedKentaur -- WikedKentaur (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- I do see something a little bit special about this image. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Citron (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A proper scientific identification is required in the file description page at least (not only in category). Please add it. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info The file sits now here: File:Platichthys flesus Vääna-Jõesuu in Estonia.jpg, moved with the rationale of COM:FR 3: "lest" is a meaningful word in at least English and French ("lest" on the FR-WP) and is thus not a sensible filename for a fish. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another cool looking fish!Trongphu (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition does not work IMHO, because the lower part of the flounder interleaved with the stones. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture, steady background. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical problem : the contour zone of denoising around the fish is visible --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Archaeodontosaurus. + The sharpness is not good enough for FP, imo. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Madinat Jumeirah-Dubai3303.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2012 at 09:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Poco a poco - present version of image file by NorbertNagel -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Superb image. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice.. but are you sure that this image has no problem due to the Freedom of Panorama in UAE: FOP#United Arab Emirates? If it is ok.. I am willing to upload some image from UAE too.. Ggia (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That´s a good point. To be honest I am not 100% sure. I lost a lot of pictures from the UAE and have always hoped that I can keep this one because the landscape is mostly made out of simple items and the Burj Al Arab helps the composition but is a minor element. Plan B would be to include use rationale information, hopefully that is no issue for this nomination. Is there anybody who can confirm these aspects? Poco a poco (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

conditional Support... if the FOP issue is made clear. --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have discussed that deletion requests should not be confused with FPC.. also if the image has a deletion request (ie. FOP), the deletion process argument "the image is already featured" is not valid. Ggia (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ggia, Poco a poco (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looking good.Trongphu (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 07:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many shady areas, could and should be sharper --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I allowed to vote here? If yes, I support. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Solar corona above statue of El Cid SF CA.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 12:00:44

Info Low quality (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No rationale is given. --Claritas (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please only use {{Delist}} or {{Keep}} in delisting discussions. --Slaunger (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quality issues mitigated by topic and composition. Then and now. --Slaunger (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Slaunger --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Low quality --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- I don't see anything special about the image. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quality not that bad imo... Many pixels are just black. Solar corona is pretty hard to shoot unless you get smooth cluds or fog. This is a good example of a corona. The picture without the statue would have been too plain. I'd keep it. --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gray hotel de ville.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 17:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by G CHP - uploaded by G CHP - nominated by G CHP -- G CHP (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- G CHP (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 22:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice buiding but poor quality picture. Framing looks wrong, the camera position is not the best and the verticals on the right are tilted. Close to FPX really. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is the main problem here. Requires rotation and persp. correction too. --Paolo Costa (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special, strange perspective. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The cars aren't really helping you succeed with this nomination. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iceberg Antarctica.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 11:16:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ben Stephenson - uploaded by Hike395 - nominated by Hike395 — hike395 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the photograph illustrates the shape of the iceberg with the dramatic lighting. I think the color of the sea is also quite striking: I suspect this was taken in polar twilight. — hike395 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Good composition, the sea is just a little bit strange though. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support best what the camera can give, good composition, perhaps the colour of the sea could be changed a little bit but I wasn't there --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this a natural color of the sea? Ggia (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I can see penguins ? (See my annotations) --Citron (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unnatural colours. --Claritas (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Non-natural colors (as Claritas), dust spot (see note), noise and color noise--Miguel Bugallo 17:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Lmbuga. Water looks more like plow field or mud. Version 2 looks more natural, but it have same broblems noise and color noise. Sorry. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are valid criticisms: the "wine-dark sea" may have been due to image manipulation. I attempted a color rebalance. What do you think of the edit to the right? Note that I am a novice at image editing --- if someone with more expertise can make an attempt, I would appreciate it. — hike395 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It does not add up. I have marked what I would think is about 1 meter on the iceberg, based on the structures in the snow. Thus, the "penguins" would be waaaaaay too small... and the waves as well. Then there's the background and water's color that absolutely does not fit to the iceberg. If you ask me: That picture is totally fake. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a fake picture to me.Trongphu (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Non-natural colors. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Menton-Basilique-Saint-Michel-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 16:29:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Menton (Alpes-maritimes) France. La basilique Saint-Michel sous un coucher de soleil

Info created by G CHP - uploaded by G CHP - nominated by G CHP -- G CHP (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- G CHP (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but the sky is really very noisy, and the clock tower (left) needs a perspective correction because it looks leaning. All correctible.--Jebulon (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit noisy, non-natural colors (the sky is strange and the image too yelow): I don't like the image. To me overexposed zones--Miguel Bugallo 04:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the meanwhile. Per Jebulon, this requires a lot of processing before it's featureable. --Claritas (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info - I tried to sort out some of the issues with Gimp. --Claritas (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thinornis rubricollis - Orford.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2012 at 23:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison Both subspecies of the Hooded Plover are classified as Endangered. There are about 3000 of this subspecies left. The habit of laying eggs on the edges of beaches in the summer months is the main cause - the same beaches are often popular for dog and human recreation, often resulting in trampled eggs. Fortunately Tasmania, at least, has plenty of largely abandoned/inaccessible beaches. -- JJ Harrison (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture, resolution is 4,1675 megapixels. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - really nice image, and a difficult shot due to the rarity of the subspecies. --Claritas (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Also, great picture.
Support Crisp and clear, beautifully focused and composed. Great! SteveStrummer (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a bird shot (challenging IMO) of rare specie (trust author) and subject is beautifuly isolated in a minimalist environment. Nice exposure and composition. - Benh (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely excellent! -- MJJR (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compliments --Llez (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 14:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow !--Citron (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and valuable. Congratz. --Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support -- I do really love the image, it's just the strange green line that concerns me. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully--Aleks G (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:British army, Afghanistan.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2012 at 17:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Desertsky85450 - uploaded by User:BetacommandBot - nominated by User:TrebleSeven -- TrebleSeven (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- TrebleSeven (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not representative of British military action in Afghanistan. --Claritas (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But does that have anything to do with the picture? TrebleSeven (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, because we shouldn't be featuring propaganda. --Claritas (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition not clear enough, e.g. lamp too close to head... --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination TrebleSeven (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Panther.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2012 at 03:37:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leo za1 - uploaded by Leo za1 - nominated by Sasha Krotov (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice composition, but the crop isn't very good though. TrebleSeven (talk)
Oppose because the crop. --Llorenzi (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Shallow dof, tight crop, distracting background. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Funivia Rote Nase alt.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2012 at 18:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Stefano Massa - uploaded by User:SteGrifo27 - nominated by User:SteGrifo27 -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not bad, but you should crop the image at the bottom (too much boring white, unnecessary shadow in the lower left corner) and fix the white balance (snow should be white, not blue-ish). If you have cropped the image at the top, you could also add a little more there (more space, that is). Also, I would have preferred it if the front of the cabin were lit (maybe 2-3 hours later). --Kabelleger (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe like this? --Kabelleger (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a lot for the correction. Only a question: how did you correct the photo? -- The image isn't cropped on the top. SteGrifo27 (tell me) 19:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open in Gimp. Select crop tool (the cutter thing), choose fixed aspect ratio of 2:3. You may need to switch to landscape. Choose crop, make sure that it is locked to the top image border and try not to cut things in half (e.g. stones, mountains or the building on the mountain in the background). When you're done, right-click, choose colors -> levels. Choose red channel from drop-down. You now see a b/w diagram, which shows the brightness distribution of the red color. On the extreme right side, it is 0. Below it, there are three sliders. Move the white one on the very right towards the left as long as the diagram shows zero. Do the same for the green and the blue channels. The snow in the image should now be white (note: this way of fixing the white balance only works well for images that have a lot of snow in them). Click ok. I also played around with colors -> curves (you might want to adjust the black point a little to make the darkest parts of the image really black) and colors -> hue/saturation (in this dialog, select the red color to give the dull red paint on the cabin a little more punch). When saving, enable preview and choose the jpeg quality such that the file size is about the same as before or a bit larger.

Note 1: If you made an RAW file, you should start again with that one and do these adjustments in your RAW import tool.

Note 2: I'm not the image manipulation expert. Don't get the idea that this is a good or even the best way to do this. It just gets the job done, more or less. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ALT, much better crop. --Claritas (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 22:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 13:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Not bad. Not bad at all. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fontaine fleuves Concorde detail Gechter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2012 at 17:42:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Detail of one of the two fountains of the "Place de la Concorde" in Paris. It is the personification of the Rhône River, in the "Fountain of the Rivers" -- Jebulon (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 06:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally think that the short exposure time wasn't appropriate. Numerous frozen drops which distract from the subject. - Benh (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand what you mean. It was my choice, and maybe a matter of taste ? "Non frozen" drops could have been fare more distractive IMO. It is a fountain, and drops are unavoidable... Anyway, I'll try another day the same picture with a longer exposure, for comparison.--Jebulon (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought droplets were distracting too... But at full size the effect is actually not bad. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this water drop curtain. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Benh, the exposure time used is too short. --Claritas (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange effect... but very nice though -- MJJR (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- The image is actually quite nice. It's just the black dots that disappoint me. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Hemerocallis Lilioasphodelus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2012 at 18:56:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Paolo Costa (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support not bad.Trongphu (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Paolo, but although the colours are very nice, I don't think it's amongst the best flower shot we have over here. It's not tack sharp and the background is too distracting. Little wow overall. - Benh (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it would be worth the try comparing to other Hemerocallis pictures, no problem. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Benh. --WikedKentaur (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cultivate Hemerocallis and also Hemerocallis Lilioasphodelus for decades. Therefore I can say: this image is very good. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. ■ MMXX ^talk 23:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - it's a nice photograph of the species, and perhaps our best, but I tend to agree with Benh about the technical quality. --Claritas (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 18:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Benh --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I actually really think this image has potential. I wouldn't be surprised if it became an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aigle anneau charles quint grenade.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2012 at 13:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- I like the structure a bit. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Irrelevant reason and poor quality IMO--Miguel Bugallo 01:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't understand. What reason? Tomer T (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow". --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...But thank you anyway !--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2010 0515 rama 4 and sathorn 22a.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2012 at 16:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Takeaway - uploaded by Takeaway - nominated by Claritas -- Claritas (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very difficult shot - in the middle of a conflict situation, and although the technical quality isn't great, I think it's a really valuable photograph. Claritas (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Blurry scenery, bad composition of the background. Only the tire stands out. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken in rather difficult circumstances. Seeing as the main subject is sharp and stands out, I think we can forgive the blur on the left. The background is alright to me - this is a quality image. --Claritas (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality image doesn't always equal to a featured image. We cannot forget / forgive elements of an image with an FP. Not an Fp for me. Sorry. :) TrebleSeven (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can understand where you're coming from. --Claritas (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend nominating it at the English Wikipedia. You've got a better chance there. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do it for me if you think it stands a chance. I can't, 'cos I'm banned there. --Claritas (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- Sorry but the only "Rama" I know is the alien spaceship of Arthur Clarke SF novel. An explanation of the context in the image file would be welcome. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file description states that it's a street in bangkok. --Claritas (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Maybe it has chances to become a valued image (VI). -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it is already. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 80% is missing. พ.s. 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All in all it's not above average. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - --Claritas (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darts in a dartboard.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2012 at 10:39:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by en:User:PeterPan23 - uploaded by Harris Morgan - nominated by 관인생략 -- 관인생략 (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 관인생략 (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - subject not in focus. --Claritas (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting angle of view but careless composition with partially cropped arrow and wrong focus. I think that a dart image from this angle with the focal plane centered right on an arrow placed in the bulls eye or the triple 20 field would have been more appropriate emphasizing the special meaning of these high score areas. The light is also not so good. Overall snapshottish. --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I think the subject is good. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Miguel Bugallo 01:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose problem with focus and composition Cathy Richards (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:José Ramón Bauzà2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2012 at 15:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by CAIB - uploaded by Miguelazo84 - nominated by Mmxx ■ MMXX ^talk 15:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 15:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - studio shot. A featured picture of a politician, should, in my opinion, show him or her "in action". --Claritas (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose -- Studio shots shouldn't become FPs. A more original shot would be much better. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- there are many studios shots already FP its just those arent of people, getting people of note is more difficult than some gadget or rock. Gnan garra 04:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral would really love to support but the shadow on his left arm is really distracting . Gnan garra 04:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kuressaare piiskopilinnus - Põhjabastioni suurtükitorn.JPG, not featured[edit]

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

Info created by Kruusamägi - uploaded by Kruusamägi - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed Cathy Richards (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 19:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Atmospheric and picturesque, but most of the image is underexposed -- MJJR (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I do actually like the image a bit. Good use of colour and lighting. :) TrebleSeven (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - exposure is poor, but otherwise good quality, and a nice composition. No "wow" factor for me. --Claritas (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Georgez (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The same as MJJR. Per others--Miguel Bugallo 21:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the light had fallen on the whole front wall, it would have been spectacular, and featurable. Nice mood, but doesn't quite make FP for me. --99of9 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose personally i don't like the light.Trongphu (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Merivarblane.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2012 at 19:03:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cyclopterus lumpus near Vääna-Jõesuu in Estonia.

Info created by Tiit Hunt - uploaded by Tiit Hunt - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I find the composition unattractive. While it's an unusual picture, I think a more conventional presentation would be more effective. --Claritas (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that's not the best angle to show this animal. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy and too many blurred areas--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Funny looking fish, very unusual. One of the reasons why I had to make it a Neutral. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münchner Residenz Kaiserhof.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2012 at 21:54:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by M.L.Watts - uploaded by M.L.Watts - nominated by M.L.Watts -- M.L.Watts _{Air Mail ✈} 21:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- M.L.Watts _{Air Mail ✈} 21:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually do like the minimalist composition, the light and dramatic sky and the pattern on the building. Hope for you I won't be alone ;) - Benh (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an example of something ordinary but can be seen as beauty. There are a lot of beautiful things around us but we usually can't see them.Trongphu (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like that kind of light and the minimalism. --WikedKentaur (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too strong useless shadow in foreground, needs a crop IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a cropped version, just to see what it looks like; however, IMHO, the grey shadow in the foreground isn't totally useless, since it's symmetric with the grey sky above. I believe the balance and composition of the first version is better, but I'd like to know what you think :-) --M.L.Watts _{Air Mail ✈} 17:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am not convinced about the crop. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - crop too tight on the left. I'd suggest cropping more from the foreground per Michael as well. --Claritas (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dislike the sky, the crop, and the distracting shadow on the foreground. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I am not really convinced, bad crop I'm afraid. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Miguel Bugallo 21:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The foreground seems necessary to provide space around the subject. Side-to-side I imagine it would work fine wider... however, this emphasizes the verticals, including the painted "columns". Since the painting is the most unusual part of the architecture, I think the crop helps focus the viewer's attention. --99of9 (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I like minimal compositions. But this one has two disturbing elements: the lack of verticality on the left and the shadow in the foreground. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rokko Tenrandai Night View.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2012 at 03:13:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Laitr Keiows - uploaded by Laitr Keiows - nominated by Laitr Keiows -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge wow, congrats. Very very good work, I'm only unhappy about noise in a sector of the sky, and Chromatic noise. But it is not relevant in such a high quality image. Didn't find stitching errors either (only saw a minor problem with some reflections in the water). The effect of the stars is pretty cool too. Totally featurable imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 19:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! -- MJJR (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't really see the picture with its maximum resolution since my laptop sucks. It's absolutely a really high quality picture.Trongphu (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not so appealing to me as a whole because of the foreground and extreme format, but superb to browse ! - Benh (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSuperb to browse, but not so appealing to me because of the foreground and extreme format.--Jebulon (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --Dr.Haus (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The foreground is just a black silhouette, exposure is weird. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What does 'neutral vote' means without a comment? if you're neutral and if you don't have anything to say, it's better if you just don't vote, your neutral vote will affect the result just same as an oppose. ■ MMXX ^talk 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, neutral votes on FPC are truly neutral. Only {{Support}} and {{Oppose}} actually matter in the vote count. So {{Neutral}} is from a vote counting point equivalent with, e.g., {{Comment}} or {{Info}}. See also the voting section in the guidelines. That said, it is of course always a good idea to state a reason as a reviewer to provide feedback to the creator/nominator/uploader. --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please add a {{Panorama}} template to the file page to keep a record of the method of stitching as this is where it really belongs. And considering that the EXIF has been lost in the stitching process, please also add some details about the camera used, lens as well as settings (exposure time, ISO, etc.) Adds value and is instructive if others want to do something similar for another city. --Slaunger (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Done, except for the details about the camera: if someone wants to do something similar he needs a good tripod and a remote release first of all, not these details. Laitr Keiows (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. พ.s. 13:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A fine example of a city skyline at night. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose many parts are totally black and it is in general to dark for a good overview over the town, good image but not excellent --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20110711 Pierre Loti hill view Istanbul Turkey Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2012 at 22:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice panorama; good detail. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Georgez (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 19:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I guess it has more than enough votes but well i just vote too for fun :D.Trongphu (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hl Ottilie (Oberfallenberg) 4.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2012 at 21:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice minimalistic photo -- Tomer T (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree regarding the composition. It is really nice, but I think the church tower is underexposed, even considering its black tiles. --Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I agree with Slaunger, the composition isn't that great. But in my own opinion I think you could lighten up the image. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request -- Try and lighten up the image. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have image-editing skills. Can someone maybe lighten up the photo? Tomer T (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've brightened it. --Claritas (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The light can be better and i think more background on the back will make it better.Trongphu (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whistlers Mother high res.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2012 at 03:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by James Abbott McNeill Whistler, uploaded by Whoisthemother, nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 03:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 03:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Claritas (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture, high resolution. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, really amazing to have this high res version, brings tears to my art history eyes! Absolute support; it's a classic and a beautiful quality true to painting image. SarahStierch (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing!--Kippelboy (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive!--Paolo Costa (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, not one of the best images by the community. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you see noise, specifically? 75.41.110.200 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice arrangement --WikedKentaur (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice art work!Trongphu (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good picture--David საქართველო 11:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good. Jonathunder (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mehndi Macro.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2012 at 06:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bandan - uploaded by Bandan - nominated by Bandan -- Bandan (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bandan (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is very noisy at full resolution, and too much of the photograph is blurred. --Claritas (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment -- Thanks for your remarks. I think I see what you have pointed out. Can I just remove my nomination ? Bandan

The FPX template will remove it automatically in a few hours. --Claritas (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thalassoma bifasciatum (Bluehead Wrasse) juvenile yellow stage over Bispira brunnea (Social Feather Duster Worms).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2012 at 13:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but there are CAs around the head of the fish and at some arms of the worms, neither the fish nor the worms are sharp. --Llez (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- There are some strange yellow-white dots in the image... I think exactly the same as Llez does. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Remember that underwater photography is very difficult! The yellow-white spots are completely normal - particles in the water that reflect the flash. I think the head of the fish is not CA, but instead motion blur (the flash caught the main image, but exposure lasted longer and caught a later position of the fish). --99of9 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Gate 2009 amk.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2012 at 15:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by AngMoKio - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo looks fine for me. --Katarighe (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - nothing special to me. Centered composition, lighting could be better. --Claritas (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor lighting, funny looking sky. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Alvesgaspar. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems to be underexposed Cathy Richards (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor composition. The image just doesn't attract me. Plus the people and vehicles around are pretty distracting too. Try to time it when there are less vehicles and people around.Trongphu (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama of Paris from the top of UNESCO.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2012 at 19:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Richard Munckton ()Flickr - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Balance the white inexact for FP. --Aleks G (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any problem Trongphu (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Minimal tilted, the white balance could also be corrected a little bit warmer. ---donald- (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated sky, very dominatant and disturbing foreground (maybe of a gallery or some such thing), low details (too soft). Excellent lighting conditions though --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:STS-134 International Space Station after undocking 6.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2012 at 04:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Ras67 - nominated by Craigboy -- Craigboy (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of few images of the USOS-complete ISS that is not covered with window reflections.-- Craigboy (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, quite valuable, but not featurable imo, since the whole station isn't shown. The crop is not good. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - crop on the left is too tight. --Claritas (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- As much as I love the ISS, this picture just doesn't seem special enough. I'd like a better crop. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request -- Try and get an alternative of the image with a better crop. :) TrebleSeven (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not cropped, this is the best framing of the bunch.--Craigboy (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Doesn't seem special enough --Katarighe (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looking bad to me.Trongphu (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Claude Mellan - Face of Christ - WGA14764.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2012 at 19:04:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Claude Mellan (1649) - uploaded and nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting engraving, excelent quality -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good quality. I've made some minor edits to remove the pencil markings on the bottom left and some dirt. --Claritas (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – very nice image. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting painting technique (only 1 (!) spiral line, beginning at the tip of the nose). Never seen before. --Llez (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm sorry, but I have to say no to this one. It's a bad crop and I don't see it as an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How could the crop be improved ? --Claritas (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Maybe a good candidate for a valued image, but not as FI. No Wow factor to me. Is the white balance correct? It appears slightly red/pink to me, more pronounced at the borders. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very valuable historical picture. Cool technique being used to draw it.Trongphu (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Did somebody notice that there is only one line running from the center of the nose ("Formatur Unicus Una") ? Wow !--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)---(Euh, Sorry, I did'nt read Llez comment !!)--Jebulon (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Conolophus subcristatus (North Seymour 5).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2012 at 21:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Haplochromis - uploaded by Haplochromis - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 21:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 21:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head is not sharp enough, it seems overexposed--Miguel Bugallo 01:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lmbuga and missing tail! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The face is overexposed. And part of the tail is missing. We need a full image of it. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- David C. S. 22:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Creagrus furcatus -Galapagos Islands-8.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2012 at 21:22:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by suecan1 - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Color noise--Miguel Bugallo 01:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chromatic noise is huge. also some CA on edges. --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- It looks great without being enlarges. But as Lmbuga and Paolo Costa said. Some colour noise. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad colours--David საქართველო 11:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- David C. S. 22:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greenfinch Carduelis chloris.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2012 at 09:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Merops - uploaded by Merops - nominated by Merops -- Merops (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Merops (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that the noise down? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that is a part of the birds wing. This part is yellow.Merops (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This fragment is very diffuse, it seems that this is a foreign object in the foreground--Sasha Krotov (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Good quality... good bird! TrebleSeven (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I have changed my mind a little bit since yesterday. I didn't really look at the image properly. The yellow blur does stand out, and the completely blurred background doesn't really help. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- The 'bird bar' on FPC is quite high and this image hasn't got enough quality to pass it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too much blur in the foreground. --Claritas (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2012 at 17:03:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Pteronura brasiliensis -- Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great image ! --Claritas (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support What picture! Great blue. Good perspective. Resolution is 4165000 pixels. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 18:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 19:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 14:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 15:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This must be an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm very impressed by the very detailed white parts--Jebulon (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very nice. Jonathunder (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, uncommon bird, but sadly lacking wow. Composition is too trivial. พ.s. 23:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support same as all per above.Trongphu (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hydropotes inermis inermis Whipsnade Zoo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2012 at 14:57:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 14:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 14:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 18:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the light around the edges of the head. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is an interesting image with nice light, but where is the focus? Is the focus on the right place? - The back is overexposed. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The issues mentioned above (focus unsure and overexposition) are sufficient for justifying an opposition vote for a FP. Nice and cute however.--Jebulon (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Funny looking animal, it's just the blurry background that disappoints me. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Jebulon--Miguel Bugallo 01:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i don't like the background, looks to blurry to me.Trongphu (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See image notes. Also straight on like this is quite awkward. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morning, Interior - Luce.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2012 at 17:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Maximilien Luce - uploaded by Claritas - nominated by Claritas
Support -- Claritas (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 18:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Noisy, over-exposed. TrebleSeven (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - can you explain why you think this ? I can't see any noise or overexposure. --Claritas (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info -- Lol,this is pontillism, a painting technique, not noise! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Facepalm - I assume the light flooding through the windows is the "overexposure"....--Claritas (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - Exactly. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm striking your vote for the meanwhile, because you need to look at the image at full resolution first. Then you'll realize that this is a photograph of a painting. There is no "overexposure or noise". --Claritas (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Do not remove my opinion. I stick to it, and I still oppose the nomination. TrebleSeven (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You can't oppose an image if you haven't looked at it....there's no overexposure, this is a painting. --Claritas (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I agree with Claritas here. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I have unstriken the oppose vote as nothing allows a user to eliminate the vote of another user. Please note that it is not even absolutely necessary to justify the votes, according to the rules. But I strongly suggest TrebleSeven to reconsider his position. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Just for info the picture of this artwork totally looks like Maximilien Luce's style for me. PierreSelim (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The poll was restored to last version before the play. Please abstain from deleting the comments of other users. If you want to change your vote or comments, just strike the previous versions and replace them. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't quite get the problem of the mentioned ”noise” and ”overexposure”(?). The documentation of the painting looks good to me. Also does the technique in this painting look quite impressive. --Ximonic (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. The best "noisy" and "over-exposed" photo ;) Przykuta → [edit] 10:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the painter did it on purpose to make it noisy and overexposure. This is indeed an awesome art work.Trongphu (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Irish colleen with green plaid shawl, 1890s.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2012 at 16:17:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I don't really see anything good or bad about this image. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info This restoration by trialsanderrors is overexposed. See the TIFF (29.2mb) download by the original version. Compare the apron. The original version has the better exposure. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - watermarks, badly restored. --Claritas (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looking pretty nice to me!Trongphu (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louvre museum by night panorama.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2012 at 14:56:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Matter of taste ? I dislike very much the unrealistic deformations and the asymmetry. + we have already a featured picture (by Behn) of this place, much better IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Louvre seems to be a spooky place. There are "ghosts" both here and in benhs (excellent) pano. --Slaunger (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only a very touristy place ;) Benh (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Assymetry. -- -donald- (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, non vertical, non aesthetic projection here, and asymmetry was a bad idea here in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kentrosaurus aethiopicus 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2012 at 07:32:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The depicted skeleton is unique worldwide. For detailed information see [1] and [2]

Support -- Llez (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The subject is good, the bones are extremely detailed and clear. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Good enough technically but I would prefer another angle so that the head of the beast weren't in the back. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is a mounted Museum specimen and unfortunately it was not possible to take a similar photo from the other side (I tried it). --Llez (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great EV. Good background job. These kind of works make the wikipedia awesome. But for FP, I am disappointed about sharpness, and I'm not a sharpness freak. I will certainly support a more sharpened version, if possible to get. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment. In my opinion, there is too much space under the feet, the beast seems "floating". Maybe it could be better with less black at the bottom. + The sharpness is not optimum...--Jebulon (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bottom cropped. --Llez (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support after crop, The (relative) unsharpness is not a big issue, and is mitigated by the high EV of this rare skeleton.--Jebulon (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is one of those pictures that took a lot of time to take.Trongphu (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful, interesting, detailed and well executed in my opinion - Benh (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower at Night.jpg

File:Entenhäuser von August Haake.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2012 at 00:16:49 (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) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info August Haake painted "Duck houses" over a period of 1911-1914 in Fischerhude near Bremen in Germany. The duck houses stood in the river Wümme. On the right side goes a path and a footbridge over a branch by the Wümme. Oil painting on cardboard in the size 72x50 cm. The painting is not dated and has no signing. August Haake used to ride his motorcycle from Bremen to Fischerhude. His painting was hanging on the way behind his back. This is the simple reason that the painting has two holes on the top. August Haake pulled a piece of string through both holes and made a knot. Therefore both holes are regarded as the signing by August Haake. He died with lead poisoning in the age of 25 years. I wrote his biography in the German Wikipedia and took this photograph. The colors are equal to the painting. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality, and very valuable. --Paolo Costa (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very similar to Van Gogh. But how did it happen that the article is available only in German Wikipedia? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sasha, I hope, the article "August Haake" will be translated in some time from German into English and published in the English Wikipedia. Several artikels in the German Wikipedia written by me are translated in English and in other languages and published in Wikipedia such as Han van Meegeren written by me 2002 and Sven Hedin written by me 2004. Both article are later on translated as well in your Russian language and published in Меегерен, Хан ван and Гедин, Свен. Maybe you will read my article "August Haake" in some years in the Russian Wikipedia. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely - I was about to nominate this for featured picture status myself. --Claritas (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- It is quite a nice image / painting. Really empathizes paint. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice.Trongphu (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 11:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction -- MJJR (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Stu Phillips (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk

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

Image:Thalassarche bulleri in flight 2 - SE Tasmania.jpg, featured[edit]

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

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by NorbertNagel -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - resolution is a bit on the small side, but it's got fantastic composition and obvious educational value. --Claritas (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Not a huge WOW factor, but a nice snapshot. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The WOW factor to me is, that the bird is flying with it's left wing just a few centimeters above the water surface. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've collected the points of my phone GPS, so it is now geocoded. I think the other version File:Thalassarche bulleri in flight 1 - SE Tasmania.jpg probably has more wow. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not too much wow factor but it's a nice image. I agree with you though JJ. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support i think this is a really hard image to take. Consider the quality and sharpness.Trongphu (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per TrebleSeven. 16:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grüttpark - Winter3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2012 at 16:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the "Winter Wonderland" feel. Nice image. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow awesome and so beautiful place. I wish i can be there.Trongphu (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion, snow is always very difficult to take, and I'm fascinated here by the details of it, no overexposure, good light an reliefs, and composition is very good, even with some lack of crispness of the tree between the bushes. Next time, please build a little igloo around the disturbing trash bin !--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Miguel Bugallo 18:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thalassarche melanophrys - SE Tasmania.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2012 at 17:43:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Pteronura brasiliensis -- Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just so people know, this one is a Black-browed Albatross, the other one I posted was a Wandering Albatross. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nothing wrong with this image. I'm surprised it's not an Fp already. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I agree there is nothing wrong with the image quality. But that isn't enough for making a FP imo. A touch of magic is needed and that, I don't see. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the water is pretty noisy. Sorry it is not a FP to me but very close though. It is pretty.Trongphu (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JJ Harrison (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good quality, but nothing special about this picture --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:STS-135 final flyaround of ISS 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2013 at 23:16:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Leebrandoncremer - nominated by Craigboy
Info An image taken by the final Space Shuttle crew as they departed from the completed International Space Station, the station has been called the Space Shuttle's legacy. The space station is also seen as a stepping stone to even grander goals, such as lunar colonization.

--Craigboy (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-result-comment This nomination was added to Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list at 2013-06-06T10:43:02, which is only 1.5 days ago. The nomination however is much older. Something went wrong there. I thinks someone should re-nominate this and add it immediately. Other opinions? --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble renominating it.--Craigboy (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do this within this nomination, you have to create one as Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:STS-135 final flyaround of ISS 1.jpg/2 I think. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That worked, thank you.--Craigboy (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piazza Venezia - Il Vittoriano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2012 at 00:28:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Very nice, yet, I'm not completely convinced. I feel that it could have been larger especially given it's a panorama... or it could have been more crisp and detailed. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not intended to be a super-detailed pano. I actually took only four pictures, which were merged and then cropped; therefore the "low" size. Just in case; it was not downsampled. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no issues. Could be more detailed, but this is fine for four photos. --Claritas (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fantastic imagery, scenery. Good job. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but I have to agree with Maurilbert. I don't like the low pov and the shadows either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Claritas --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job, nice, and high EV. FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor light and low sharpness (blurry) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Vittoriano faces north and a bit to the west: it never gets direct full light from the sun. I was there in the morning and afternoon. In google, you'll notice the best light it gets is in the late afternoon, always with a similar shade. Do you see blur in the whole image? Imo it is not a blurry image... but of course, everyone can judge differently. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is some trivial blurriness in the bottom left quarter, you can perhaps see it clearest on the red flowers. --Claritas (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - it never gets direct full light from the sun: ok, but that doesn't matter to me. I want to see a pleasant, natural light with an ideal illumination of (almost) all objects in the photo, and you will (almost) never have this with sunlight. Use cloudy weather, use clouds in front of the sun. Then you won't have shadows and the image would look much better, I'm sure. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I must have that alternative too, somewhere in my RAW files. I might upload it if I find it. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I've improved the sharpening in this image. It is more detailed now. Claritas: thanks for the hint. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support After being fixed i think it deserves FP now.Trongphu (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building is white, it is famous for beeing white and in an encyclopdia it should be white. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Berthold Werner. --Karelj (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:A young wild boar in his environment.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2012 at 23:32:40 (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) 23:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too much dirt particles ;-) --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply swinishness. Eine große Schweinerei kann ich da nur sagen. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 19:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I wouldn't say it was horrible, but I wouldn't say it was extraordinary either. Although the quality made me give a Neutral. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are some visible post processing issues, please see annotations.--Jebulon (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Jebulon, I made a better update. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but I still see some results of digital manipulations, near the legs in general.--Jebulon (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon Banangraut (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great ! New version seems to have sorted most of the post-processing issues. --Claritas (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes there is something beauty in an ugly thing.Trongphu (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please reconsider those supports. There are still very strong artifacts of digital manipulation. Even in the thumbnail you can tell that there are two colours of mud! --99of9 (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks 99of9, I felt a bit alone (with Banangraut)...--Jebulon (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Eto shorcy (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Jebulon and others. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dry Etosha Pan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2012 at 00:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Paolo Costa (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the stripes and the position of the tree. However, two minor points. There appears to be something (a poly bag?) on the tree at the top right. If this is litter, it would be nice to erase it. Also the few branches at the far left centre are distracting. That big could be cropped out or cloned away IMO. --Colin (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info It isn't a bag, it is a bird's nest on the top right on the tree :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tones are very brownish and dark, and the tree is too small in the frame for the composition to work for me (though EXIF tell you likely were far away). Quality is also poor. Tree put aside, it pretty much VanGoghish. Because of refraction due to the heat ? - Benh (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the bands behind exactly ? - Benh (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info the bands: dry bottom of the lake, incl. salt-encrusted areas, dry loam areas. And yes, there were refractions due to the high heat = very shimmering and dusty air. The tone: small areas are burned out. Other grass areas are simply dry and parched. And a last a nice comparison with the most expensive photo --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the comparison is good for you ;) - Benh (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- The composition is okayish. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice composition. The tree reminds me of this. Quality isn't a big problem to me - probably best achievable considering the conditions and the equipment used. --Claritas (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{o}} Nice, but as Benh and what is really sharp at full resolution?~~ The bottom of the image is to me a bit underexposed--Miguel Bugallo 01:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Miguel: if you ask me this really: "what is really sharp at full resolution?" then here my answer: except for the foreground, "simply all"! Do you read my comments? It is a 300mm telephoto shoot in a hot, very shimmering and dusty air! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, sorry. But is the ground dark? What do you think?, please. You can be sure of this: I like the image (sorry, poor english)--Miguel Bugallo 21:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. But please take the half tree on the left border away. There is a bad crop. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty compo, but very poor quality considering the conditions and the equipment used. พ.s. 22:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like it!Trongphu (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I only see a naked tree in a blurred environment. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right! The Etosha pan looks so! Please read my comments. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but the dof is too shallow, as a result of a poor exposure choice (imo). Why such a high shutter speed: automatic mode? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alves, you asked me, I answer you: you don't understand this image too. For you again: it was hot, very shimmering and dusty air .... the DOF at f/8 is full OK for this shot. And this is an telephoto 300mm image. Think about it! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, before posting my comment... What I don't like is the out-of-focus herbs nearer the camera and wonder if a larger f-number would solve the problem (even with a 300 mm telephoto). That is not for sure the result of the atmospheric conditions. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Claritas (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Раменское. Церковь Троицы Живоначальной.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2012 at 22:03:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Not bad, I like it. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good quality but I'm not sure because there is nothing special--Miguel Bugallo 21:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Sasha Krotov (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good quality, but no wow factor for me Cathy Richards (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 11:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above - relative good image, but noting special. --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kukenan Roraima GS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2012 at 19:03:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Paolostefano1412 - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support please add gps info for this image. Ggia (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent --Moonik (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some more information about the location is needed. And yes, geocoding would be great. Yann (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Tomer T, thank you for nominating this image. @Yann, info and geocode have been added. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this shoot. --The Photographer (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic picture. great nature--David საქართველო 19:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Achird (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jovian Eye _storm 05:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good, especially the hazy atmosphere and the way it affects the background. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support no wow. Kidding of course ;) Nice light at atmospheric conditions. Huge wow to me. - Benh (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. PierreSelim (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice light and atmosphere. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. Nice atmosphere, outstanding composition. This will be a Featured Picture, I promise you. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon style!!! thank you, thank you, thank you!!! But you did not sign in, and your vote will not be valid, I promise you. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, right. I'd get onto adding my ~~~~. I hope my vote will be valid now. TrebleSeven (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice landscape. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful view and colors. --Ximonic (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support can't deny even if someone pays me a billion dollars :D! HAA.Trongphu (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 22:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Námafjall in summer 2009 (2).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2012 at 13:40:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chmee2/Valtameri - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tlusťa (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Good composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support looking good!Trongphu (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral if you eliminate the visible CA then I change my neutral to support, otherwise a nice image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well, I tried but I did not succeed. All my results were really horrible. Honestly, I'm not really strong in image post-processing so I'm afraid that I'm not able to fix it :/ Sorry --Chmee2 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried again minimize CA. Please, have a look. I am not sure if is it better or not :) But at least, I learned something new in more deep way :) --Chmee2 (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mercy (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shepherd, Chambal, India.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2012 at 14:32:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impo, nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photo has nothing special --Katarighe (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not special, or outstanding. Bad quality. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is bad quality exactly? FYI it is a quality picture. Yann (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthodox Monk at Treskavec.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 01:16:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Raso mk - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below size requirements, no sufficient mitigating reasons IMHO. -MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per Maurilbert. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The size is to small, minimum 2MP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose Just 1,070456 megapixels. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wooden house - Zermatt.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2012 at 23:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch My eyes are sore. I don't want to sound rude, but... it's not even an acceptable picture. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose L'immagine é sovraesposta, c'é troppo contrasto (zone nere e zone bianche), bassa qualitá fotografica, l'immagine non é a fuoco, i lati sono ancora piú sfuocati. L'idea non é male anche se la composizione va migliorata (magari un pó di zoom), il posto non é brutto. Ma ci sono troppi problemi. Sará bene comprare una migliore camera fotografica per ottenere risultati di maggior qualitá, altrimenti avrai sempre molti voti negativi a causa della camera. Un saluto. --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too unsharp at full resolution --Claritas (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose--P0lyzoarium (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine, but too unsharp at full resolution. Sorry. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madis Eek.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2012 at 09:50:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Meeli Küttim - uploaded by Kruusamägi - nominated by WikedKentaur -- WikedKentaur (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I like where the man is sitting with his dog. Nice composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I see nothing extaordinary justifying the FP status either in the subject or in the image. A fine snapshot but no more than that imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo has a nice composition and a man enjoying a laptop. --Katarighe (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is valuable to use dog in the illustration of Madis Eek? Przykuta → [edit] 10:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support superb – excellent composition and light --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeDust spots and as Alvesgaspar--Miguel Bugallo 21:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC) The uppon part of the leaves is too blue. Why?--Miguel Bugallo 21:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like this picture has some licence issue.Trongphu (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think there is some wow factor. The image is quite interesting. But for FP, I think there are some problems: dust spots (many), tilt (minor problem here), licensing, blown parts in the sky...--Paolo Costa (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - wait for OTRS confirmation of license, please. --Claritas (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the best is the dog's head, IMO. Tilt, License problem, notability issue in enWP (ok, does not concern 'Commons'), colors problems, dust spots. And above all, nothing 'magic' (wow effect). Nice advertising for Apple anyway, and not politically correct because of the smocking man !--Jebulon (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm sorry, but I really don't see anything remarkable. Apart from the dog's rather weird collar. MartinD (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I do not understand the value of photography. --Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose funny picture --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aussichtsturm Frankenwarte.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2012 at 16:19:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Carport - uploaded by Carport - nominated by Carport -- Carport (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Carport (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Nice composition. Good sense of colour. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice colors and very interesting, but I find the sky and the dark parts a bit too much noisy and pixellated...--Jebulon (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Slick (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose a bit too dark Cathy Richards (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Cathy Richards (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this image needs more light.. it is too dark.. you can see that also from the level curves. Ggia (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ It's very dark. I think this crop can be improved. On the top it is a bit too tigh and the image is very tall. I'd like a wider image. Also I'd like to see a part of the ground. --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've just brightened it up, I hope the brightness is OK now. @Paolo: I created the image as a vertical panorama out of 4 images. Due to that, I can't create a wider crop. The ground has been cut off on pupose, simply because it isn't spectacular at all (in fact, it is a roof and a bush). If you want, I can upload a photo of the place where I took the photos that you can get a picture of it. --Carport (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support As Jebulon. Too much noise, but 38 megapixels--Miguel Bugallo 18:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château Malartrie.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2012 at 13:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Château Malartrie is a gothic revival castle built in the 19th century, in Vézac near La Roque-Gageac in Dordogne, France.-- Jebulon (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lighting, ev, quality image, nice castle. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Nothing really wrong with image (see image notes), might become an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand your annotations. One can see the results over the roof of the corrosion of the roof finials, but for the other note, I don't know...--Jebulon (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It needs airbrushing. TrebleSeven (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality and exposure Cathy Richards (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per all above.Trongphu (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claritas (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks good as a thumb, but quality is not up to par. พ.s. 12:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Corrosion? It's normal. --Sasha Krotov (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 18:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. --Moonik (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bitte stelle die rechte Kante des Gebäudes senkrecht. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry not to join the bandwagon, guys. Correct picture, good quality but little excitment. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Miscalculation and bad bargain, guy. Because of your vote, the 'little excitement' of this picture will stay in this page some days more, my dear friend .--Jebulon (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was on purpose, of course! I want my friends to feel happy despite my voting! Because I opposed it is likely that some users will support ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...And no cognac during the service, Almirante ! --Jebulon (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:USSArizona PearlHarbor 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2012 at 05:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown - uploaded by Tango22 - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - needs some restoration using photoshop or gimp - see the tagged areas. --Claritas (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose -- It really needs restoration techniques for it to succeed. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome historical picture. What more can you ask for the image was taken in 1941? This is already really quality for old images.Trongphu (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historical image--David საქართველო 10:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is apparently already a Featured image! (?) -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"only" in the english language Wikipedia. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is this edit? ■ MMXX ^talk 00:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notophthalmus viridescensPCCA20040816-3983A.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 18:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cotinis - uploaded by Cotinis - nominated by Pteronura brasiliensis -- Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nice but:

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The size is to small, minimum 2MP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trichoglossus haematodus -Jurong Bird Park, Singapore -Dec2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 13:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Benjamint444 - uploaded by User:Benjamint444 - apparently nominated by User:TrebleSeven -- TrebleSeven (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Support -- TrebleSeven (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 13:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--P0lyzoarium (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose below minimum size requirement! (image has only 1,7 MP) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten.--Jebulon (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. Yann (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, good picture, but too small. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone try and increase the size using a special program? TrebleSeven (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to add any extra information just by scaling the image. So Oppose. --Claritas (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Too small, minimum size 2MP. Sorry about that. TrebleSeven (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- See FPX. TrebleSeven (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playa Mono Manso - Chuspa - Venezuela.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2012 at 03:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Paolo Costa (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very beautiful picture--David საქართველო 10:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good quality and I would support it immediately at QIC. But nothing special for a FP to me, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose True: beautiful does not make it featurable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, just another tropical image, nothing special. Sasha Krotov (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 13:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Nice atmosphere, but I don't think it really could be an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is a beautiful image, but not special enough imho to be an FP. Tomer T (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emirati Mirage 2000.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 04:34:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael B. Keller, U.S. Air Force - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by Sammyday -- Sammyday (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sammyday (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight at bottom. Yann (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: strong vignetting, blue colour balance, extreme crop with no lead room --99of9 (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose Too tight crop and skewed. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:French Mirage 2000 finishes refueling from KC-10A 2009-12-06.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 04:32:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Staff Sgt. Michael B. Keller, USAF - uploaded by BrokenSphere - nominated by Sammyday -- Sammyday (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sammyday (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture indeed, but composition is not ok, too tight crop on the empennage. PierreSelim (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Pierre Selim. Yann (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, dark on the left.Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: strong vignetting, blue colour balance. --99of9 (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ixobrychus minutus 2 (Marek Szczepanek).jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 08:41:05

Info Exceptionally low resolution (650 × 420), I should be able to zoom on a featured picture. Unfortunate crop on the top left. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Even at the time they questioned the resolution. The distracting elements make it an easy delist vote for me. --99of9 (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Yann (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Interesting bird, yet quality is too low. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info it is not a featured picture, so I cancel the nomination (see here and [3]) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abondance Louis Petitot Pont Carrousel Paris.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2012 at 15:44:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- I'd prefer the sky was sunny. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 17:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes, sunny skies are boring... A cloudy sky like this one seems to me more interesting, with some blue only around the head of the statue...--Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Too much grey in this image. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --David საქართველო 08:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A short explanation for a negative vote is always appreciated...--Jebulon (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info correction of colours, contrast and tilt by User:Carschten.
Support excellent light and composition, nice background --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks to TomerT for this surprising nomination, and many thanks to Carschten for great improvement job. I'm proud of this friendly cooperation about one of my images. I support this one, far much better than my first image.--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great, thanks Carschten. Tomer T (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you zoom in, you see that it is oversharpend. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Improvement for the sky, but not for the statue. The statue looks quite artifical now.-- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I really don't know what to think about this image. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad proportions, cloudy background and statue looks very unnatural --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cloudy background ? --Jebulon (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and colour scheme, the break in the clouds behind the head makes it really stand out. --ELEKHH^T 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad picture. I don't like photoshop effects--David საქართველო 21:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may say you dislike, but not bad picture. Moreover I don't use photoshop, but GIMP--Jebulon (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...but I used Photoshop ;-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh yes, sorry, My comment was for the original version...--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clouds seem drawn from another picture. The statue is seen with an unnatural effect --The Photographer (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, time is over.--Jebulon (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Abondance Louis Petitot Pont Carrousel Paris-CN.jpg

File:Boat bateau Panormittis Symi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2012 at 15:55:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little fishing boat in the harbour of Panormitis, island of Symi, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, almost like a painting. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support nice! but I would lighten up the sky a bit (so you don't blow the white parts), cos it looks underexposed. And I would also add a bit of contrast. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tight crop in the bottom.. make the composition no featurable for me. Ggia (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Ggia. --Llorenzi (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ggia --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Ggia. I know the weather isn't in your control, but a blue sky would have added more contrast. --Jovian Eye _storm 20:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The crop is okay for me and I like the composition. But sadly the lamp is not as sharp as should and could be --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose arguments already said --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not sharp enough. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kamal Abbas (cropped).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2012 at 14:47:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hossam el-Hamalawy - uploaded by Jbarta - nominated by The Egyptian Liberal -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - I like the colors, like the focus. I also like face reactions, it just represents humanity! Very nice --عمرو (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. --99of9 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I cannot see anything special in that photo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing really special about this image. I can't see it as an FP. Some noise particles. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Aesthetically pleasing, expressive, high-resolution April 2010 photo of a longtime Egyptian dissident who the following year was one of the key opposition figures in the 2011 Egyptian revolution, a major historical event. Boud (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 22:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Yann (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure what qualifies an image to be featured, but this image has high resolution, good colors, an epic focus and is clean. Bahraini Activist (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Yikrazuul. --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unneccessary BW usually reduces encyclopedic/educational value. Otherwise a good portrait in a good context for an activist. I would consider supporting a colour version. Portraits have a tough time getting through FPC. --99of9 (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Same as Bahraini Activist -- --Ircpresident (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. --99of9 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the B&W objection: I have talked to Hossam and he looked everywhere to see if he has a color version of this image but he couldn't find one. This this only version he has of this photo. He took it in black and white (If you look at this work, he mostly takes B&W photos, rarely colored ones). As for this image, its not same one, as you can see the mouth is a bit more open in it. Hossam has been kind kind to release some of his images so we can use them on wikipedia (even though his photos are his main income) that we wont be able to find under a free license anywhere else. As for the historical misleading issue that the B&W version might lead to, I dont think it will happen; This is picture of Golda Meir in B&W even though colored photos existed in her time. The reason Hossam takes a lot of his photos in B&W is because he feels it capture the subject much better and it shows more soul then the colored ones but that's his POV as an artist (Photography is a form of art). Some artists like to use colors while others like to draw with a pencil but they are beautiful in their own way :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not worried about "historical misleading" - the date is clearly marked. My main issue is with the educational value, and on this issue I think art and education often diverge. It is unfortunate, but since this is a site primarily concerned with educational value, I usually oppose BW images unless there is a special reason for it. And please do not read me as saying that I do not appreciate this photographic donation, I think great portraits are essential to the wikipedias, and I am very glad Hossam licensed it freely. PS I think that coloured pic you linked to has heaps of soul!! (and would make a perfect taxobox portrait) --99of9 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Although B&W, the picture does speak. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. --99of9 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Support B&W photos, especially portraits are often better because of the starkness caused by lack of color; mood and expression become more striking in b&w. Marrante (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Time is over.--Jebulon (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Tour St. Jacques La Boucherie à Paris ca. 1867.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2012 at 16:08:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Charles Soulier - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent 19th century image, putting to shame all the 21st century ones we got. The rate of use of the benches is amazing. --ELEKHH^T 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating detail when you zoom in --Stu Phillips (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Stu Philips --Paolo Costa (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Stu Philips --Achird (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support holy cow! WOW is one word i can describe it! Very nice timing when this picture is taken. This is absolutely one of the most excellent picture of 19th century. The resolution is excellent too compare to 19th century pictures.Trongphu (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicely historic. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice. Only real problem is the motion blur caused by the long exposure. --Claritas (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 20:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent! The b/w balance is a little warm, but I think that's quite natural for a photo of this era. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, fantastic scan of old photo.Sasha Krotov (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find. --99of9 (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Large Magellanic Cloud.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2012 at 17:49:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESA/NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow--David საქართველო 08:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very well centered IMO. --99of9 (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - amazing resolution, really attractive and educationally useful. --Claritas (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Too tight to me--Miguel Bugallo 21:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC) and as 99of9--Miguel Bugallo 21:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Outstanding. The cloud is really good to use whenever in projects. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Claritas --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm one of the guys that love astronomy but the picture itself looks like it has been glued with some other pictures.Trongphu (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome picture, looks like the fist of god. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Suresnes - Écluse de Suresnes 001.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2012 at 14:54:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Moonik -- Moonik (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moonik (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good cityscape, nice to look at. But could use some sharpening in some areas. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a crop (please see annotation)...--Jebulon (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support this crop. PierreSelim (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info new croped version as suggested --Moonik (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support better crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support better now. PierreSelim (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, far much better with this crop. The picture looks completely different to me, and very good.--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice!Trongphu (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original nomination didn't catch my eye, but this indeed looks good. Tomer T (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 23:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one --Chmee2 (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition and interesting. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better crop. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

The chosen alternative is: File:Suresnes - Écluse de Suresnes 001 crop.jpg

File:Tulipa cultivars Amsterdam.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2012 at 15:07:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rob Young - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 15:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 15:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- The tulips give a nice atmosphere. But expect some opposing votes. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed, sharpness and composition (distracting). --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- A very nice picture, good enough quality. But the camera position could (and should) be more carefully chosen as to optimize the composition and avoid the cropped flowers in the foreground. I see no significant sharpness issues. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PanellusStipticusAug12 2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 17:41:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ylem - uploaded by Ylem - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small Cathy Richards (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Below size requirements. Please read guidelines before nominating.--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose Small (0,96 megapixels). –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buland Darwaza Backside.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2012 at 16:39:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Srinivas -- Srin ivas 16:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Srin ivas 16:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted and disturbing people on the foreground. Yann (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, light and contrast. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 16:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed and unsharp Cathy Richards (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Bad quality, cannot be an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dull colors, to unsharp, to noisy for an FP-image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per SteGrifo27, Yann, TrebleSeven and Alchemist-hp (as all the above). –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per all the above. Sorry --Katarighe (Talk) 16:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this image is aslope, disturbing people in front of the main object, bad quality --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Wladyslaw (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Image et le Pouvoir - Buste d'un homme cuirassé.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2012 at 07:13:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown author - uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by PierreSelim -- PierreSelim (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PierreSelim (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top quality image of impressive art. An English file description would be appreciated. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added en description to the file. PierreSelim (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too much space above IMO. Needs maybe a crop.--Jebulon (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will support if crop is improved. It seems not to have been cropped carefully. Left side is tighter, top is a lot larger, than the right side, which would be about the right amount of space to leave on the three sides.--Paolo Costa (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for your remarks (both of you Paolo Costa and Jebulon), I'll try to improve the crop tonight. PierreSelim (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info new crop by PierreSelim + Support the new crop PierreSelim (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support as before -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better! --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fantastico! TrebleSeven (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe the DoF a bit short, but nice details.--Jebulon (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support problem solved!Trongphu (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:L'Image et le Pouvoir - Buste d'homme cuirassé-2.jpg

File:Metsatöll-2006-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2012 at 08:16:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Indrek Galetin - uploaded by Raul6 - nominated by WikedKentaur -- WikedKentaur (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The cropped top part of the guitar is annoying. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Well, the man does seem to be enjoying himself. It's just his guitar and background. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC
Oppose I don't see anything special about this picture. --Georgez (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Füssen - Lechfall2-retouched.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 21:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Taxiarchos228 - edited & uploaded by Tomer T - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose your stitching method resulted in a convex shape of the cascade, which of course is not the case in reality. compare this edit by User:Any1s. the viewing angle is useful to see the depths of the Lechfall, yet this is harmful to the crop at the horizon. having a glance of sky would have been nice. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that I'm not the creator of the file. I only edited the colors. Tomer T (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peter Weis --Achird (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peter Weis --Chmee2 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Peter Weis –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Airways Concorde G-BOAD.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2012 at 20:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rob Young - uploaded and nominated by Cloudbound -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cloudbound (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh man, I always loved those things. Also, good picture! Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh man, please don't forget to sign, as it is anonymous, your vote is not valid !--Jebulon (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Laughin' out loud!!!! --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont like the crop on the left side. --Llorenzi (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop at left.--Jebulon (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The crop on the left needs to be expanded. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too tight framing on the left. --ELEKHH^T 22:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mojanda2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2012 at 22:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kerem Ozcan - uploaded by Kerem Ozcan - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 22:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 22:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition, I don't like the technical details (clouds are burnt out, some CA, some artifacts, etc.). PierreSelim (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 13:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Same as PierreSelim. -- -donald- (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Oversaturated, blown sky, CA fringing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversharpened & overexposure in the white cloud. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I also like the composition. The sky needs a bit of work though. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Look really nice to me! But well as many people said above. It is just too bright, i can't really admire the picture as long as i want like other beautiful landscapes picture.Trongphu (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice composition, but blown out lights and quite artificial. --88.69.140.66 22:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you. Cathy Richards (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 4 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phyllomedusa vaillantii (Yasuni).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2012 at 22:43:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by Concerto - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 22:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 22:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too little depth of field. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice motive --H. Krisp (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I see an unwanted blur... TrebleSeven (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis 1080i.ogv, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 15:56:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Raeky - nominated by Pteronura brasiliensis -- Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This file is already featured, but in smaller resolution (original nomination). I think this should be voted as delist and replace. --Lošmi (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When they nominate FPs, why don't they make them FPs in all resolutions? Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vue officielle a vol d'oiseau de l'exposition universelle de 1867.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2012 at 14:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eugène Cicéri - uploaded and restored by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wonderful quality. I will support, but first it needs to be lighten up a little bit, and most importantly, some info about the place has to be added. I only says it is an exposition in 1867, the place is not mentioned anywhere. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not WOW lighting at all, anyday. A real image of the place would be better. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Eugène Cicéri spend a week to "take this picture" and he had no a camera.--Paris 16 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A 'real image' of the place would be a "photograph". This is an "engraving". Yes, it is true that hand made pictures (drawings, paintings, engravings) were often used at those times to depict the 'material world' as faithfully as possible (still are, in some fields like zoology and botanics!) Should we trash those pictures (some of them works of art) just because we now have cameras? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice historical picture!Trongphu (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good scan of a nice 19th century chromolithograph. Very interesting historical document. -- MJJR (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MJJR. พ.s. 21:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, unusual and interesting view of the "Champ-de-Mars" in Paris at the end of the Second Empire, before the construction of the Eiffel Tower !--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mushroom and a half in Timna Park in 2011 (2).JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 22:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry and unsharp, CA, bad light (too dominant shady areas on main motive IMHO) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Well, if is it so and there are so many "bugs" how Carschten suggested, I withdraw this nomination. Thanks Carschten for feedback and ElmA for support! :) Regards Chmee2 (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basel - Pauluskirche1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2012 at 21:23:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good in scope --Katarighe (Talk) 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some artefacts in the sky, by 100%. But the total impression is undisturbed --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will erase the artefacts soon. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Tomer T (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- An adequate building. Crop could be improved though.

Comment -- Can you go to the same place again, but create a panorama of it? TrebleSeven (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What shall the panorama show? This picture is already a panorama, otherwise it would be not possible to show a 71 MP image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The light is nice and the overal quality is very good, but I don't see what is featurable here. Even if notable church in Switzerland, I don't think this building is particularly remarkable, and it is not very beautiful nor "magic" for my taste, among other pictures of same religious buildings. The picture is technically almost flawless, but the subject is not exciting enough (IMHO). Could be a very good QI nevertheless, if the tilt cw (and the sky artefacts of course) were corrected.--Jebulon (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can not find it: where in the FPC regulation stands that the object has to be notable? This church is very a very distinguished example of historism style. But for sure a fishing boat in the greek outback is much more notable than a church. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please learn to read. And please stop this kind of soft terror every time somebody dares to oppose one of your picture. I'm not scarred by you. I've no problem about the notability of the church, I just say I find it very ugly ! And you just opposed to the greek boat only because you are not happy of my current opinion--Jebulon (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I give a measly long argument but this argument is not your contra-argument? Come one. And I opposed the boat because I already criticize that you campaigned an unsharp picture. Don't get me on my nerves. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As Jebulon. High resolution and good quality (despite the unsharp angel) but little excitment. Big and correct is not necessarily beautiful and featurable.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Imo a good church photo has to be taken from a certain angle, or, from the exact middle. The 'almost symmetry' of this picture is what bothers me and makes it not featurable for me, despite its correctness. I think it is a beautiful church despite previous comments. But I just don't like the angle. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Passage Brady verriere.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 04:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sammyday - uploaded by Sammyday - nominated by Sammyday -- Sammyday (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sammyday (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed part in the picture: brady is hardly readable. PierreSelim (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per PierreSelim. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thalassarche bulleri in flight 1 - SE Tasmania.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 23:13:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by WikedKentaur -- WikedKentaur (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Lošmi (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sammyday (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 21:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stu Phillips (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LC-de (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlphaEta (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Xylaria-longipes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2012 at 21:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Blur in the background, not helpful. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
THe principal subject is the mushroom in the first plan.--Citron (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support who cares about the background? The main subject is what people will see.Trongphu (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The background is the least of the flaws of this picture. The main technical problem is the poor lighting and little detail of the subject. The composition isn't very inspiring either but that is a more subjective matter. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main subject is too dark, no details being recognizable.--Cayambe (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support: The mushroom is dark by color and should NOT look brown or something like that. Details are visible, even on the fungus itself. If you can see only little detail then this might be because there is little detail. The background gives a little flaw: it should be more blurred. --LC-de (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:101-0506.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 21:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A very little church in Bonassola, Italy

Info created and uploaded by Nicola Goller - nominated by SteGrifo27 -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment better if the name was something like Madonnina della Punta and not 101-0506. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info This file is wrong in commons.wikimedia. The copyright is by Nicola Goller. See the Licensing. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Do this file even meet the criteria for being in Commons? --PAULOGARCIA2005 (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Bad colors, no license, wrong file name. Yann (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Upper Weser Valley with the Grohnde nuclear power plant.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 01:43:58 (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) 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I unfortunately find the yellow fields to be unrealistically oversaturated. I know these flowers are bright yellow, since quite common in Eastern France (Alsace) where I come from... but this is just too much. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Saturation and lighting appear way more realistic and natural in the updated picture. HDR was somewhat overdone in the first one. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rape fields really are as bright yellow as in the photo; I think they are not oversaturated. --Schnobby (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it seems oversharpened for me Cathy Richards (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Maurilbert --Chmee2 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made an update with less sharpness, less contrast and less saturation. I hope, you like it. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine picture, high resolution (9,1938 megapixels) ang good depth impression. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSomething looks wrong to me with the yellow color, as Maurilbert. + Need of a crop below, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadair (11).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2012 at 14:47:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by SteGrifo27 -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 14:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 14:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject too small. Yann (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alt is better? --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 17:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose oversatured (take a look to the image histogram). The underside of the airplane is to dark. You still have a dust spot on the top right. And the main: the exposure time of 1/1250s was to short. Better 1/125s - 1/500s because the propoller stands still. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Oppose too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, not good enough. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Di Resta canada 2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2012 at 10:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ph-stop - uploaded by Cobra bubbles - nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but the image is just not clear enough. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
from the top of the car is not a distortion, an optical effect from the hot exhaust gases--Sasha Krotov (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Certain difficulty in this shot, considering the zoom and the speed of the cars. I would certainly support another crop. But the cut car in the background kills it for now.--Paolo Costa (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to correct the image, but the PC doesn't let me save it so I made a screen-capture. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very contrast.Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Italienischer Garten Marzahn 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2012 at 08:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 11:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brilliant atmosphere. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David საქართველო 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Keel-billed toucan, costa rica.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2012 at 14:52:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Donar Reiskoffer - uploaded by Donarreiskoffer - nominated by p0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2012

(UTC)

Oppose Because of the chain-link fence --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per Berthold Werner. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dictracting background, to unsharp and to noisy for an FP-image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chainfence does not interfere. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background. Yann (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background issues --Katarighe (Talk) 17:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 09:03:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ A very good shot. Awesome expression... but the crop is really bad imo. Camera should have been vertical, horizontal made a bad compo. Crop too tight too. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose When the file finished opening I changed my mind. Quality too low sorry. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Don't find myself able to dislike this too much, since the quality is still rather fine at the lowest eligible resolution. I agree that the camera can do better. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murugan by Raja Ravi Varma.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2012 at 18:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Raja Ravi Varma - uploaded by Pernoctator - nominated by Redtigerxyz -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stu Phillips (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice art work!Trongphu (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - eastern art is underrepresented on FP. Very nice painting ! --Claritas (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Has the some opportunity to pass. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Isn't it cut off on the sides? Renata3 (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the painting is like that. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Trongphu. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Winter, decline on the Moskva River.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2012 at 20:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice atmosphere and quality. Very good composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful to watch indeed. But there's yellow overexposure, oversaturation, and disturbing trees in the way. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 11:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow for me --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impo nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sunset pic, plenty of wow to me. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support epic landscape.Trongphu (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice landscape. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- This could be a valued image, but I doubt it would be an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely--Llorenzi (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture, but just another sunset. The spot if dust on the lense to the far right need to be removed. / Achird (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Y.A.S. พ.s. 12:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Achird, the mote is removed :) --Aleks G (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nice, that's all. I seen more beautiful sunset:) Sasha Krotov (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per above --Katarighe (Talk) 17:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arctocephalus pusillus (Cape fur seals).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 18:33:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good picture--David საქართველო 21:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop. While my own picture, sadly not fit for FP. พ.s. 10:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Wetenschatje, and impo nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support the crop can be better, but in an animal herd ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:20110812 Nomad Horse Racing Zhanzong Tibet China 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 19:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Also these two images has been uploaded from this Nomad Horse Riding festival (the left image is also nice). Ggia (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image is noisy due to the 1600 ASA - I choose this ASA because 105m lens manual focus lens (with D700 Nikon body) was used with close diaphragm 16 and aperture speed 1/2000. Tibet is not the easiest place to travel and get images like that, I hope you enjoy the content (as I do) and keep an exception to the rules due to the noise. If you want to ~~attack~~ oppose due noise.. you are also welcome ;-). -- Ggia (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --Katarighe (Talk) 20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very nice composition, good light, but intensive noise as you know. ISO 1600 and f/16 - why not f/8 and ISO 400 or something like that? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info my lens is a very old 105m f/2.5 manual focus.. and the focusing screen in D700 is not the same like the manual film camera FM2.. so with D700 it is hard to make fast focus.. so I choose strong depth of field (in case it not focused precise to get focus due to depth of field) and high speed.. The weather was also a little bit cloudy. IMO noise in an image like that (with people) is not so bad aesthetically.. if you look to my blog [4] my black & whit photos are full of grain (due to the film and 400asa). But if you oppose I can understand the reason. Also in the above image I didn't try any de-noising algorithm.. (probably a denoise algorithm can reduce some noise.. but I don't have experience doing de-noising.. I just know how to remove some noise from a blue sky using a mask). Ggia (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Colour and noise adjustments are possible, but it's fine for an action shot. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your account it too young, meaning that it is older than 10 days but you have less than 50 edits.. thanks for your support vote but it is not valid. but if you know how we can reduce noise in that image it will nice to show me how to do that. Ggia (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it too young? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rule in FPC, that editors with more 50 edits and more than 10 days account age can vote. It is a rule in order to avoid canvassing in FPC votes. You can see your contribution here Special:Contributions/Papa_Lima_Whiskey_2, and you have around 21 edits. Make some more contributions in commons.. and you will be able to vote here. ;) Ggia (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know all about that, and your statement that the account is too young is incorrect - please check again! Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zenit-B Helios-44-2 2012 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 21:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Zenit B soviet SLR film camera with soviet Helios 44-2 lens
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An old worn camera, slightly underexposed, insufficient DOF, and lacking WOW. Nothing really exciting here. พ.s. 07:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sasha Krotov (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nothing special, but it isn't a bad picture Cathy Richards (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wetenschatje (พ.s.). –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose VI but not FP--Claus (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects