Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2010

File:Franz Hartmann Gedenktafel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 16:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by High Contrast - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High Contrast (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe no wow, but I like it --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good technical quality, but that's it. -- H005 22:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LPR Płock.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 14:21:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś - uploaded by Łukasz Golowanow - nominated by Łukasz Golowanow -- Wolf (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I realize it's difficult to "pose" them, but it's too bad the boat and helicopter were not at a bit different angle. Jonathunder (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hard to get, but the boat is rather distracting. Maybe someone could edit it out? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heaven forbid. Without the boat the picture will lose all of its charm. Wolf (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 06:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the boat, as it adds something interesting to the image. But unfortunately, the boat and the helicopter's tail are too close to each other. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the boat is interesting in compo, but his wake. Would be better if the boat ware hidden by the helico !!--Jebulon (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cluttered. oneblackline (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate composition. Lycaon (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me composition s very nice --Pudelek (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mycena leaiana var. australis.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2010 at 13:02:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 13:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 13:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice, even if it's too much downscaled --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good find! - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect picture of fungi. Schuylar (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elekhh (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well Aleksa Lukic (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 05:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Carschten. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:A bee and an yellow flower.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2010 at 00:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Amore Mio - uploaded by Amore Mio - nominated by Schuylar. -- Schuylar (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Schuylar (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: nothing is in focus. — Lycaon (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

*{Support} nice image Aleksa Lukic (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Aleksa Lukic is a blocked sockpuppet - MPF (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - no location, and plant not identified - MPF (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I have a doubt about the reality of this scene: the insect is probably dead. Anyway out of focus --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lyacon & Archaeodontosaurus --mathias K 17:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nile Esna Edfu 16.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2010 at 19:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karel - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karel -- Karel (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Les plantes de l'arrière plan tirent trop sur le blanc, et la photo me paraît manquer de contraste et de couleur.--HAF 932 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: no subject is noticeable --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Potsdamer Platz vom Reichstag aus 2005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 21:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by H005 -- H005 21:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H005 21:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 06:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Trees blurred and too dark, and roof ornament almost invisible against them - MPF (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May have been better with balloon being more predominant in the picture. Here it's not standing out enough to me. Quality issues raised by MPF as well (although I understand dawn lighting was against you). - Benh (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Behn. 3 different objects make this photo useless Przykuta → [edit] 16:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's good, but I don't like how there's not a single subject that's the focus of the image. In this case, there's only part of a building, part of a skyline, and a very small balloon. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kevin Payravi. It's interesting, but the composition does not work. Jonathunder (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how different this is seen. For me, that's what it makes so interesting, five main objects (Reichstag, Tiergarten, Potsdamer Platz, the sky and the balloon), all very distinct and all very different, so that it almost looks surrealistic. (Don't get me wrong, I fully respect your notion, although from my personal POV I find it hard imagine that one could see the composition as a disadvantage ...) -- H005

20:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Substandard technical quality for featured pictures --High Contrast (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:STS120LaunchHiRes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 22:58:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

STS120LaunchHiRes.jpg The Space Shuttle Discovery and its seven-member STS-120 crew head toward Earth-orbit and a scheduled link-up with the International Space Station. Liftoff from Kennedy Space Center's launch pad 39A occurred at 11:38:19 a.m. (EDT). Onboard are astronauts Pam Melroy, commander; George Zamka, pilot; Scott Parazynski, Stephanie Wilson, Doug Wheelock, European Space Agency's (ESA) Paolo Nespoli and Daniel Tani, all mission specialists.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by ArielGold - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 06:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Low quality. Odd that the newer upload (31/01/2010) although larger (1,957 × 3,000 pixels) than the older upload (28/10/2007; 1,000 × 1,533 pixels) is lower resolution (only 714 KB, compared to 946 KB for the older upload). For a 1,957 × 3,000 pixel image, it is reasonable to expect at least a megabyte, preferably 2 MB, to avoid jpeg compression artefacts. - MPF (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are hardly any visable jpeg artefacts. I wouldn't go by MB. I would go by spoting disturbing artefacts and I can't find any! Amada44 ^{talk to me} 18:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pour la même raison que MPF.--HAF 932 (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Amada44 that byte size isn't always a reliable indicator of image quality. (In particular, noise tends to increase size while reducing quality.) Still, one can in fact see quite a few JPEG compression artifacts in this image if one knows where to look (e.g. near the edges of structures and near sharp lines like writing on the shuttle and the wires going to the top of the tower). They're not quite blatant enough to be obvious at a glance, but they're close; in particular, this image would likely be a pain to edit. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scandium sublimed dendritic and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2010 at 22:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support once more a really fine and sharp element picture :-) -- Ra'ike T C 23:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 17:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 04:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 11:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^T · C 03:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

Image:Klaus Addicks 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 11:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Genealogist - uploaded by Genealogist - nominated by Limmat-2007 -- Limmat-2007 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Limmat-2007 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too Normal --Thick thi sock (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral QI + VI for me, but better would be a bust. Przykuta → [edit] 16:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - although it's a very nice portrait and I would evaluate it as a quality image, it does not wow me enough for featured. Jonathunder (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good portrait --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Featured pictures are supposed to wow people. This is too ordinary. Schuylar (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If this guy was famous enough for me to know about him, I would have supported in a heartbeat. But now I've realized that me knowing the subject is not part of the FP criteria. He is notable enough to have wiki pages about him, so it has value beyond portraiture of a random person. As the others have said, this is high quality (IMO better than those watermarked BW ones above). The only thing I struggled with was wow, and looking back at Commons:Featured_pictures/People, I think this is a little short of the notable portraits we've already featured. So, a neutral from me. --99of9 (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good portrait --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:B-1B over the pacific ocean.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 17:14:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the USAF - uploaded by Uwe W. - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice looking high quality picture. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - More USAF military propaganda - MPF (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality & size could be better, given it's a professional photographer. Also it is not a very striking image (composition & background) --ianaré (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is not perfect. --Mile (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support To counterbalance MPF’s oppose (my reason is as “serious” as opposing for hypothetic propaganda). Diti the penguin — 12:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit noisy considering the size and the professional conditions. Maybe it is a detail of a larger picture. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am no fan of propaganda but I think that it is not a valid reason to vote against an FP. Quality, cropping etc. is solid and therefor I support. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - de 500ko + bruit +petit taille = X --HAF 932 (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yay, USAF propaganda FTW. Wolf (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality could be better, regardless of the subject. Subject needs more breathing room compositionally. Steven Walling 21:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per MPF. Yann (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 05:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF. Kleuske (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carl Larsson-Lathörnet.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 20:56:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Carl Larsson - uploaded by AlphaZeta - nominated by Joe Chill 2 -- Joe Chill 2 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joe Chill 2 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is certainly a work witch fits "Works which, while not particularly well known, are none the less wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art." Superb example of the Swedish Arts and Crafts Movement. --P. S. Burton (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 20:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nasi Goreng.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2010 at 17:31:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Number55 - uploaded by Number55 - nominated by Number55 -- Number55 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Number55 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the post-processing on the background distracting. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Jujutacular --AngMoKio (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what do you mean with distracting? I removed the background because i thought the original bg (my kitchen table) could distract..

If you think that with the original background the image can be better, i have no problem to reupload with that --Number55★ (after 54, before 56) 00:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without seeing the original, I can't say for sure, but I'll say indeed the edit was probably an improvement. To be featured however, I would require a more naturally non-distracting background (without the need for much post-processing), like File:Tomato je.jpg for example. On that one, you don't look at it and think about the post-processing that may have occurred, you just think of tomatoes. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because in this case, the food is in a highly reflective bowl which shows a reflection of the previous background; the reflection and what it reflects to don't match. The tomatoes are not reflective, so the same problem is not present. - MPF (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand. Maybe I can remove the reflection from the bowl..--Number55★ (after 54, before 56) 14:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ditto to AngMoKio - MPF (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MPF nicely put together my thoughts; it looks almost "unnatural" the way the lighting is. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smoky Hills Wind Farm.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2010 at 03:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Drenaline - uploaded by Drenaline - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think is a very good composition, with all elements expressing the energy of the wind. --Elekhh (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So do I, but it's extremely noisy, in particular when you consider the lighting conditions. Maybe you can do something about that. -- H005 12:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice composition but the too much "art-filtered" foreground is really distracting! Imo would be close to FPX cause of the "manipulation" at the picture. --mathias K 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was strongly tilted when uploaded (see previous version), which made me believe that it wasn't "manipulated" other than using certain camera settings. --Elekhh (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the tild. But the way the pic looks is definitely not by certain camera settings. The cam was a Canon eos Rebel xti and this pic was imo photoshopped with some kind of art-filter like "old-photo" for example. --mathias K 06:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. Maybe saturation and/or contrast have been increased a bit, but if someone had really done some non-standard manipulation why shouldn't he also fix noise and tilt? These two were the most obvious flaws in the first version. H005

20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the description states that the view is from the highway, and if it was taken from a slow moving vehicle that would explain the "artistic" blur of the forground. --Elekhh (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:66 inch pipe installation.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2010 at 20:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the crop on top too tight! --JovianEye (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality construction images need to be featured on commons --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ditto to MZaplotnik. There is a little bit of chromatic aberration in the foreground, but not enough to have a serious adverse impact on the photo. - MPF (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose such as JovianEye

Comment This unsigned vote by User:Jedudedek --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cygnus atratus (Latham, 1790).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 13:53:04 (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) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ change vote A really nice pic where I really like the light. But the crop and the resolution aren't perfect. I've uploaded a croped version of yours, but now the res is way below 2mpix. But if you like it maybe you reupload the picture with a crop like this and a higher res. Then I will support. bg mathias K 15:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you, mathias K, I made the new crop like yours. You see it above. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why was the original image downsampled? Please can you upload full-resolution versions of all your featured pictures? They would be a great asset to the users. --99of9 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
now Support thanks for the crop and rising the resolution! bg mathias K 06:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good colours but too little detail for the tiny size of the image (only just above minimum). Lycaon (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good, but not the best Cygnus atratus photo on commons - MPF (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 05:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite visually striking enough. --99of9 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inside Ngorongoro crater.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2010 at 06:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmm, wish I was there. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 05:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reminded me my trip to the crater. Amazing place! Too bad my images were taken on film camera, but here are few [1];[2];[3];[4] and so on.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bravo ! Impressive picture. Trace (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically good, and somewhat impressive, but just not enough to support it. -- H005 16:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impresionante --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disappointing size for a panorama. --Dschwen (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plains Zebra Equus quagga.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2010 at 07:35:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture to me --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - mixed feelings - the Zebra is very good, but that blurred Gnu behind its head makes it look a bit odd - MPF (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't like the 'wildebeest'-hat. Lycaon (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice foreground; distracting background. Jonathunder (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compositional issues: the wildbeest in the background et cetera. Steven Walling 00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon. --99of9 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sahelanthropus tchadensis - TM 266-01-060-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2010 at 13:36:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I Agree with George ;) !!--Jebulon (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For both quality and educational value. --Cayambe (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 17*:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 05:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 14:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Désolé de voler au secours de la victoire, mais cette photo est magnifique. Rama (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support - very rare object and excellent quality. Well done! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment et ça mesure combien ? ;)--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Taille ajoutée --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Achird (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Sorry, this is a very nice and high value picture but the exemption is not very clean. If you have a look on the pic where I have marked the areas with some mistakes. When the areas are fixed I will support to! bg mathias K 14:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Justified request, the corrections are made. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now Support. Thanks for the corrections! Now this is really a awesome and nearly perfect picture! Good work! --mathias K 12:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Uluguru Mountain Ranges.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 16:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great view --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic ! -- Trace (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! -- MJJR (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Simonizer (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, makes me want to go into it and hunt elephants. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doubt there'll be any elephants there, they don't like climbing steep hills (and anyway, elephants are protected ;-) MPF (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No elephants on the mountains but they are found in a national park close by --Muhammad (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 08:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice. Jonathunder (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pano. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm missing a geocode. -- H005 20:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Still no geocode, no proper description of the place where this was shot. -- H005 22:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish I could take such pictures of Africa. --Cephas (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. Tiptoety ^talk 00:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 05:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until geocode is provided. Geocodes are essential for landscapes IMO. --99of9 (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 04:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaeser. A wonderful landscape!--Gaeser (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disappointing size for a panorama. --Dschwen (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Xantho poressa 2009 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 21:40:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Crab Xantho poressa, female at spawning time. It is tiny animal, like $1 coin by size.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! I have never seen a crab with the eggs. I wonder how they taste?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting photo--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Change vote: now Neutral see comment below Sorry, this is a nice and highly informative picture but I've got some questions: The crab is laying on the back, right?! Is this usual to burn the eggs in the direct sun ;-) or do you turn it around to show the eggs? Would be interisting to know, and maybe good to note it on the dicription page. Furthermore I don't think this is a FP cause of the harsh lighting and resulting strong shadows. The slightly sideview is not the best position to show the crab cause of the resulting dof problems. Definitely QI & VP but imo no FP, sorry George. --mathias K 05:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After very fast photographing (1-2 sec) this crab has returned to usual pose. I wouldn't like to do it harm. If a crab falls to back, it can turn self to normal pose for few seconds. Photo of this biological ID with eggs is very rare in Web. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe that this is a very rare and well captured scene. Change vote to neutral cause of the not perfect conditions while taking the pic. No sup because of the technical reasons posted above. Thanks for the comment and greetings, mathias K 07:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Valuable image of an interesting subject, but the quality is just not there. Lighting problems (the shadows especially) and it could definitely be more crisp. FP is for the best of the best. Steven Walling 17:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Very, very educational and also very rare! And thanks for not killing it for the image. But, the image is not perfect. I think the crop should be a little tighter. Lighting is also not perfect. I would love to support it but I am batteling between neutral and oppose. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support considering the difficulties to takethis picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SW. --99of9 (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting is, of course, not the best, but it is a fine photograph otherwise, especially for this topic. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 05:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light make shadows obscure important parts of the animal. I also wouldn't call this rare or difficult, just a bit uncomfortable for the xanthid. Lycaon (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /–Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yarra Night Panorama, Melbourne - Feb 2005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2010 at 23:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ now Neutral, see below. Sorry, a 5 segment pano with possible ~40MP downsampled to ~4MP is a no go imo! We know much better pics by Diliff. --mathias K 05:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canon 10D ~6mpix I think. And don't forget overlapping areas between pictures. - Benh (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! My fault! Thanks for the advice! I thought it was allready shot with his 5D. But also with 6mpix/pic a 15-20mpix pano should be no problem with 5 segments... --mathias K 07:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I also had to downsample as the foot bridge that I took it from is a little wobbly when all the people walk on it. :-) Diliff (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thats a argument. Changed vote. bg mathias K 12:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 05:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral; nice night pano, but there seems to be a small but clearly noticeable tilt to the left. (Or maybe the horizon is a bit curved?) You can even see it in the thumbnail: the reflections on the water aren't quite vertical. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 14:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trifolium húmedo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2010 at 07:09:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mario Modesto Mata - uploaded by Mario Modesto Mata - nominated by Mario Modesto Mata -- mario modesto (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mario modesto (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd say it is somewhat too dark and too unsharp to be FP. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAleksa Lukic (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as long as unidentified to species - MPF (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maurilbert, in addition to the fact that the leaf at the bottom being cut off like that is distracting to me. I'm not too sure if I like the wide-open crop either. It's a nice image, but not a FP IMO, sorry. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kevin Payravi. ~~--158.64.156.177 14:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)~~ sign. corr.: --Cayambe (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --mathias K 13:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition, crop. Jonathunder (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Interno Teatro Bonci.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2010 at 17:28:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uomodis08 - uploaded by Uomodis08 - nominated by Uomodis08 -- Uomodis08 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uomodis08 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: grainy, burned lights, not up to quality standards --mathias K 17:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bufo periglenes1.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2010 at 13:40:04

Info No longer up to quality standards, even in thumbnail. A funny haze across the subject, and the toe is cut off. (Original nomination)
Delist -- 99of9 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist No doubt. -- H005 20:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - It is a scan from a slide, with lots of dust specks. Also lacking location information. - MPF (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The quality isn't extremely bad, and I think the value of this far outweighs the quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No longer up to quality standards, even in thumbnail. --Phyrexian (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Cayambe (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - good educational value and still widely used, but not FP quality. Jonathunder (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cody escadron delta (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:19 Möwe in Greetsiel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2010 at 13:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. A European Herring Gull Larus argentatus posed to my camera in the harbor of Greetsiel.
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, this is a snapshot with nothing special to me. Nether composition nor sharpness are very outstanding imo so I can`t see any reason to promote. --mathias K 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Leviathan, particularly background is not very appealing. -- H005 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just another Seagull. Sorry. Tiptoety ^talk 06:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geißklee Bläuling, Plebeius argus, Kopula 3.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2010 at 19:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Butterfly-porn... Kinky.... Kleuske (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background looks a *bit* dark for me, but it's still a great photograph. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 05:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A good moment. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a little under exposed but slendid --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice composition! not the sharpest but overall really good! --mathias K 13:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The central composition and square format overwhelms the subject. oneblackline (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - located, wild origin. - MPF (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. Trace (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course and great composition ! Bravo ! Butterfly voyages (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2010 at 16:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO - uploaded by Cody escadron delta - nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. Laurent (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Rare high quality night shot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition! --Citron (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
blaksems mooi Kleuske (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and useful; however, the date cannot be correct, as full moon occurred March 21, 2008. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC) This was on March 6. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see it's NOT a full mooon. It looks like a crescent on the lower side of the moon to me. The rest of the moon is also visible because of the long exposure. --99of9 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was saying. The moon is clearly close to the sun. But after discussion on Commons:Valued image candidates/Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg this had been given the date March 23, which was mistaken. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karel (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 07:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ -- Takabeg (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice to see Venus!--Gaeser (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The sky is amazing! Nice work. Tiptoety ^talk 06:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space_exploration

File:St. Margaret Church - ribbed vault.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2010 at 13:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI to me – but unfortunately not up to the level of FP (composition not special enough) --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is too blurry, especially on the left. Laurent (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bremen Speicher XI msu91.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2010 at 12:19:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Matthias Süßen - uploaded by Matthias Süßen - nominated by Matthias Süßen -- Matthias Süßen (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Matthias Süßen (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition seems to lack a clear focus, the highlights are too predominant, the whole picture seems tilted CW, sharpness is not very good (I'd say because of camera shake due to a long exposure w/o a tripod). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am pretty sure it was taken on a tripod. The exposure time is 15 seconds! The clarity loss might be due to the objects moving in the frame. --JovianEye (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken on a tripod. It's not that tilted. The sharpnes was taken to unlimited. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the tripod: I stand corrected, then. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 01:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ditto to Maurilbert - MPF (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness is ok in most parts, this is always difficult with night shots even with a tripod. But I agree about the composition and the tilt. -- H005 16:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bilbao Muelle San Anton.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2010 at 16:47:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Paula Rey - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 16:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 16:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The interesting background is out of focus. bamse (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and very obvious cloned sky - MPF (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky looks like a large canvass. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Basically nice but 2 blurry  Richard  [®]  10:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination according with the comments above. Thank you, --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calopteryx splendens (10).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:25:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2010 (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.

 Richard  [®]  19:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where it's writted ???? --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, at the guidelines and at the checkbox ontop of the nominations.  Richard  [®]  20:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be write it in this page. What is an "active nomination" ???? --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's written in the Guidelines for nominators. Active is the period until your poll is closed which is 9 complete days counted from the nomination.  Richard  [®]  20:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also just above the nominations here: Commons:Featured_picture_candidates. Commons:Image guidelines is not about FP, so it's not really relevent there. --99of9 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination denied, not featured.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fort du Salbert - showers.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:24:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2010 (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.

 Richard  [®]  19:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination denied, not featured.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eclairs1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:22:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2010 (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.

 Richard  [®]  20:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination denied, not featured.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthetrum albistylum (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2010 (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.

 Richard  [®]  20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination denied, not featured.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Platycnemis pennipes (6).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:19:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2010 (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.

 Richard  [®]  20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination denied, not featured.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coul-entree-nord.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:17:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (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.

 Richard  [®]  20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination denied, not featured.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coreus marginatus (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:15:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2010 (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.

 Richard  [®]  20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination denied, not featured.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fort de Roppe (13).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:10:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2010 (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.

 Richard  [®]  20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination denied, not featured.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Epitheca bimaculata (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:08:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2010 (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.

 Richard  [®]  20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => nomination denied, not featured.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mostar Old Town Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 07:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ramirez HUN - uploaded by Ramirez HUN - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 07:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 07:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown is the sky... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky is too bright. fetchcomms☛ 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the sky is severely overexposed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination per comments above. Thank you, --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator - not featured.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 12:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ateneul Român 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2010 at 13:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building appears to be leaning (towards the right). oneblackline (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded a new version --Pudelek (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...still seems to be leaning. Perhaps it's the tree(s) in the right foreground creating an illusionary imbalance. oneblackline (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks fine to me, I can't see any hint of a lean - MPF (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Bottom crop disturbing. --Elekhh (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ABBE PIERRE-24x30-1999.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2010 at 18:08:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Studio Harcourt Paris - nominated by USERNAME -- Laurent (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laurent (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, way below minimum size requirements - MPF (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment watermark should get removed. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good portrait, importance for the encyclopedia compensates for size (but less compression would be better). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No mitigating reasons for such small size. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Proficient lighting, framing, and exposure. oneblackline (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - watermark, size, not extraordinary. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jonathunder. --Cayambe (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Bonne maîtrise technique + potentiel encyclopédique) - taille = OK pour moi.--HAF 932 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very good portrait, but way to small! --mathias K 19:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF. Lycaon (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not even sure how good a portrait shot it is: there are strong reflections on his glasses, and his left eye has an ugly trailing shadow. --99of9 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the in-photo credit. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flexopecten ponticus 2008 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 21:43:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Scallop shell Flexopecten glaber ponticus. Possible died out animal, possible extinct approximate after 1990.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it became extinct in 1990, how was this photo taken in 2008?? The shell in the photo looks fresh, not dead for ~20 years. - MPF (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info not sure, but take a look at the VI nom --ianaré (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would you consider rotating it by 180 degrees? I think that would make it aesthetically more pleasing. I agree with MPF that this shell is highly unlikely to be 20 years old, especially if it was on the sand for that whole time. Are you sure it's correctly identified? There are plenty of types of scallop. --99of9 (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now don't have this seashell, only photo. Biological identification is made correctly. The information about full extinction was printed in several editions -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean rotating the photograph. --99of9 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but for a potentially extinct taxon photographed 20 years after its reported extinction date, this really does need a lot more information: independent verification of identity; exactly where was it photographed and in what circumstances; and whether it is an older museum shell placed on a beach specially for the photo. Can you add these, please? - MPF (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seashell has attritions and bit erased edges. Its condition is far not the ideal. However it is best of the shells of this mollusc found by me at 2008-2009. It was randomly saved in Black sea. The photo is made on find place on the beach at surf zone. Geocode is correct. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (I fear I hadn't noticed the geocode before!). However, a shell would not be in that good a condition after nearly 20 years on the beach (at most, only a few months); either it is a different species, or if the identification is correct, then it is not extinct. - MPF (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support good quality, nice colors, simple and beautiful composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 06:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support----Jebulon (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but still waiting for detailed verification of the identity, needed because the named taxon is reported to be extinct - MPF (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 11:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Velodona togata.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2010 at 20:03:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rübsaamen - uploaded by Citron - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support oneblackline (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Butterfly voyages (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some inaccurate & jagged masking of the enclosed gaps, e.g. between the legs and body. 99of9 (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I hope it's ok.--Citron (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Totodu74 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but I don't see anything extraordinary except the age of the illustration. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bamberg Altes Rathaus BW 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2010 at 11:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The old townhall of Bamberg
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Left part of image too dark. --Karel (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting task for the window cleaner . . . ;-) MPF (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice image!--Gaeser (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite very little CA.--Jebulon (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Crop too tight, only the right part of the building is sharp. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:F-22 Raptor edit1 (cropped).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2010 at 19:54:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the USAF - uploaded by Sorruno - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Cephas (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Already featured. --Cephas (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - OK so "USAF propaganda" isn't quite the right term, but I'm still bored with all these military aircraft shots constantly bombarding FPC . . . sorry! - MPF (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I like these "USAF propaganda" photos - I've been learning a lot about fighter aircrafts lately ;) This image has a bit more artefaction (Is that a word? It's the first time I've actually use it) than I'd like, though. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now Oppose, per the other version that is already featured, which I think is better due to the crop. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another version of this image is already featured. I think the wide view is probably best here because it doesn't cramp the subject. --99of9 (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe its nonsence to nominate one image twice just with different cut.--Karel (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With different cut sure, but with a corrected white balance. Since we apparently cannot upload a corrected version over the featured one (it was reverted), which has a dominant greenish tint, I am for another nomination. Diti the penguin — 15:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diti the penguin — 15:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per MPF, and I find the crop too tight, and two variants of the same pic shouldn't both be featured. - H005 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "F-22 Raptor edit1.jpg" is more than sufficient - the composition presents the subject in the context of flight rather than demanding a view of the opaque cock-pit. oneblackline (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better version already featured, and the crop is too tight. Steven Walling 00:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Already featured. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jotunheimen mountains.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2010 at 13:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, except I dislike the composition. If the subject is the mountain range, why is a huge amount of the foreground focus on the trail and some rocks? It's a really poor compositional choice. Steven Walling 00:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Steven Walling. Depth of field should be larger. bamse (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but the composition is not featurable IMO. --99of9 (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Achird (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC) It's good that we see the ground, and not just some mountain peaks in the distance. This way the picture has more relevant information about the mountain range and not just about the highest peaks.[reply]

Sure, it is good to see the ground, but why not have both, the peaks in the distance and the foreground sharp? bamse (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ambiguous composition: neighter the eroded track nor the mountain have sufficient strenght IMO. --Elekhh (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice place -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 18:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry to be the bad guy but the composition doesn't convince me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much foreground. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juglans regia 2009 G2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2010 at 09:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Common walnut (Juglans regia), unrippe nuts.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmm, these are the best to open up and eat fresh when they're ripe :) ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 19:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Are you sure these fruits can be eaten? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support mniam :D --Pudelek (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 06:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 12:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

Nominations above this message were made before the FPC rule change and are subject to the old rules.

File:Nile Esna Edfu 17.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2010 at 09:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colors seem a bit dull to me? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree the colours look a bit too bluish for the plant species shown, needs yellow levels increasing slightly - MPF (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Colours adjusted. Revert or re-do if not liked - MPF (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks sort of sepia now... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything what makes this a FP --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange colors. Composition is a bit boring.  Richard  [®]  11:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Richard & Berhold--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karel (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^T · C 14:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Takenohama Hyogo001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2010 at 13:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hashi photo - uploaded by Hashi photo - nominated by 663h (talk) -- 663h (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Laurent (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking value because of perspective (too much water).  Richard  [®]  11:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hashi photo (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Curved horizon, I don't like much the composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Richard Bartz. --Karel (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^T · C 14:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grasshopper defecating collage 01 (MK).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2010 at 15:02:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by -- mathias K 15:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now again my first try with the new guidelines. ;-) This is a collage of 6 pictures showing a ~10mm large grasshopper nymph shitting. The whole process takes not even a minute and I was really lucky seeing and taking pics of it cause me plan was only 1 pic of this nymph. I think this is a really interesting pic with a nice quality showing a very rare a scene. -- mathias K 15:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Imo a bit overexposured --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see oe. I've chosen this exposure cause so the details on the hopper are still visible. Except the first one where the sun was shining imo the exposure is OK. --mathias K 16:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The grasshopper on the two last images is out of focus. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No he is in focus. This is motion blur. --mathias K 16:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His head in the last two images is clearly out-of-focus, since his back legs are perfectly in-focus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm yes, OK his head is oof. But at this picture I don't want to focus clearly on the eyes as usual. Cause that what he is doing has nothing to do with his head... And so focus on the back legs seems OK for me. --mathias K 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great capture, funny, informative and I suspect the only one of a grasshopper defecating... Congrats! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't have nearly enough featured photographs of insects taking dumps. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great picture series, shame about the filename, please consider putting in a rename request to the more scientific "defecating". --99of9 (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your right, "defecating" sounds much better. I've added {{rename}}. Thanks for the advice. --mathias K 11:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Renamed per your request. --99of9 (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Should now the nomination also be renamed or is this not necessary? bg mathias K 12:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Also, the first frame appears to have different colour settings and magnification, can this be corrected? --99of9 (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sadly the colour settings can't be corrected cause only at the first pic was direct sunlight. After shooting the first pic he starts to defecate and then the sun was behind a cloud. The magnification can be corrected if it is wished. --mathias K 11:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Such captures are hard to get, and to maintain such an extremely high level of technical quality is almost not possible. I feel the "wow" factor out-ways some its lackings. Tiptoety ^talk 06:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Moreover quality is dearly lacking (focus mostly). Then there are the almost duplicate frames: I see only four really different frames (1=6 and 3=4), why then featuring six? Lycaon (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, from the grasshopper's point of view, I believe that 1 ≠ 6... namely, if we use m to denote the mass of the grasshopper, we hopefully have m₆ < m₁. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good capture but the quality isn't exzellent (exposure, dof etc.), sorry. I share the same opinion that four frames would be enough.  Richard  [®]  11:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Richard --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor quality, one picture would be enough to show the happening. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phanom Rung Wikimedia Commons.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2010 at 05:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no gps info Ggia (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will add it, but that's really relevant... phanom rung temple can easily be found on a map, unlike many wild places... - Benh (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral that's for sure a nice photo but this centred composition doesn't really convince me. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how I could have made it otherwise... sometimes, it's just better to stick to centered composition. I also think it fits encyclopedic purposes well, and after all, this is mainly what this picture is for. - Benh (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in general against centered composition. Here it seems a bit too straight-forward. It is really a good photo, I definitly tend to pro. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't really like the projection of this as the edges are curved like a fisheye lens. Could it be stitched without this curvature? Diliff (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fisheye projection actually :) So yes that's on purpose, I understand it may not be to the taste of everyone, but I find it give much more impressive feeling than a straight projection such as cylindrical or alike. This seems to be a good example of where spherical projection is better (if I look at the supports). Will try to stitch it again tonight, but am afraid of missing time. - Benh (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also want to nominate this cause I really love it I've cut it 16:9 and use it as desktop background now but I didn't did cause of the fisheyelook. I thought that this look wouldn't get much consend. But imo this it what makes the picture works, the wall framed the pic and the curves at the borders channel the view straight to the temple. Very nice! bg mathias K 12:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support So what ? Isn't it allowed to be centered ? This picture is really good. I support it. Trace (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ -- Takabeg (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Diliff. Fisheye distortion, in this case and in my opinion, does not work in this instance. This is considering that the distortion creates a visual distraction on what is otherwise an interesting subject. I would probably support without distortion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ditto to Diliff & Tomascastelazo. Also the clouds look a bit odd, as if underexposed compared to the buildings. - MPF (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that clouds add a dramatic touch that makes this pic standing out a little. You've got to be a bit lucky to get them like that : just there's must be just little room for sun to lit the subject bright enough so that the sky is not overexposed (if you pay attention, you'll see a little blue in the upper corner, where sun rays could find a way through to). No cheating such as exposure blending or playing with curves here... if that's what you meant. - Benh (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I opened the panorama yesterday and it's actually a blending a three exposures panorama, certainly hence your feeling of undereposure in the sky. So I apologize. Now I'm embarassed... but... I believe this is more close to what could be seen then, and most often, it is the sky which is overexposed in such conditions, rather that it being underexposed in my picture. IMO the blending still keeps a natural look, which has even driven my wrong... I should be able to restitch it this week, and will renominate myself. - Benh (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Achird (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC) I have no problem with the fisheye distortion or the centered composition.[reply]
Oppose Fisheye distortion distracts from the character of the subject. --Elekhh (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ggia (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Fisheye distortion would be a nonsense without centering in this case, IMO). Centering is not a problem to me, but fisheye distortion is. Sorry--Jebulon (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per David.  Richard  [®]  10:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 18:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate choice of projection. Lycaon (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose verticals are not straight. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --daNASCAT @TheThirdTurn/@Wikia (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Living Statues 2009 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 09:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Living statues, performance art "Fried eggs". Europe Day celebration in Ukraine, Vinnitsa.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nearer statue cropped at base; overall composition doesn't attract - MPF (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Busy, really too busy. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition, moderate quality --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aglais urticae qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2010 at 11:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Side view of a small tortoiseshell (Aglais urticae) on pavement. Quartl (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as on German KEB, I think the overall sharpness could be better. iMo it is a little unsharp cause of diffraction caused by f20. but otherwise nice composition with nice colours. bg mathias K 12:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive capture. Nice contrast of colors. Tiptoety ^talk 06:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good detail and nice composition. --Elekhh (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mycena interrupta.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2010 at 18:52:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks, nominated by Maedin
Support Must be the most gorgeous mushroom ever. Maedin\^talk 18:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionnal Support Species should be corrected to Jellyfisha Sylvestris (nah, just kidding, strong Support). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I dare someone to eat those. :-) Tiptoety ^talk 06:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, excellent colour scheme. --Elekhh (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 15:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture -- MJJR (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but would like to see some additional info: (a) more precise location data (lat., long., maybe altitude), and (b) what is the substrate they're growing on? - MPF (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done for a), which puts the altitude at about ~750m. Substrate is a fallen log, probably a eucalypt. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stacking isn't the best but overall impression is great  Richard  [®]  11:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Richard. --mathias K 06:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Carcassonne Cite.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2010 at 05:24:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by -- Brackenheim (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High quality, geo-tagged, excellent lighting for the time of night, and has the "wow" factor. Tiptoety ^talk 06:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect! - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent! MartinD (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 15:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but I'd much rather see it in full daylight - MPF (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought we were reviewing a photo by night? :) Diti the penguin — 00:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent night shot. Very nice composition and lighting. Great job! -- MJJR (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with MPF. I find it much more interesting at night. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noticeable stitched sky at thumbnail size… the most used size when using this photo on the web. Diti the penguin — 00:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Saw it too when this pic was nominated. This is because of decreasing light while taking the successive photos (dusk panorama photos are hard to get right). There are workaround/photoshopping possible, so same, will try a restitch if have time.... - Benh (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope this will work… because this photo deserves to be a FP. ^^ Diti the penguin — 08:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Diti. --99of9 (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF and Diti. Lycaon (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, per Diti. could you please upload individual photos, so we could try and restitch it. ■ MMXX ^talk 09:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't provide raw source of my panoramas, as they are the only mean for me to prove I'm author. If I realise I won't find time to reprocess it, I'll be happy to do so to a user I trust. - Benh (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karel (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Stitching errors, too much contrast for my taste. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colour/exposure shifts in the sky are much to apparent.There is an unbalanced contrast/saturation ratio between the castle and the development in the foreground. Surely it's to be due to the unfortunate lighting but it appears very strange. Sorry  Richard  [®]  00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Strange that I never saw that before (I once nominated the picture myself). Most of the reviews were very usefull, and will help when I reprocess it from scratch. Thanks. - Benh (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 18:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ -- Takabeg (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if this can be withdrawn, I'd prefer. Time for me to fix. Wouldn't like a pic with this many issues being promoted. - Benh (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2010 at 09:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support here the centered composition works very well for me. --AngMoKio (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U really don't have to justify (u do, but I think u see what I mean), and I understand your point about that. Hope this is not "compensation" support for what have been said below... :) - Benh (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is at least as straightforward as the temple below for composition. - Benh (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a compensation vote at all. In this photo the symmetry makes the centered composition a very good choice. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those darned, blurry people - but in this case, I think it's a good thing. It conveys movement and activity. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 15:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish I could get it people free. But I think it's definitely an improvement over the previous, already featured, version. I can repeat this shot, so I will try again an again... :) - Benh (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good shot. The centered composition and the moving (blurred) persons don't bother me at all. Question: what about the copyrights on representing the Pyramide du Louvre? -- MJJR (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same as previous FP : context around it wins over central subject (similar place des terreau case settled). Benh (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This kind of picture needs a perfect centering and it is not absolutely perfect (look at the metallic structures inside the pyramid, not symmetrical, and look at the windows of the building in the background). But it is a very nice picture, and I don't want to oppose : my vote doesn't have any value now against this natural and justified consensus. It's only a comment.--Jebulon (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Slightly tilted? For the rest, same review as Jebulon right above me. Diti the penguin — 00:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - that copyrighted thingy (which I consider an eyesore anyway!) is central in the pic, makes the pic very dubious under France's lack of freedom of panorama. Also slightly tilted and a bit fish-eye distorted. - MPF (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've long been away from FPC, and it shows. This issue has been discussed over and over, and the consensus is that it's fine in that case. I'll let you dig more to find why (nomination of current FP of same subject is good starting point). Also that "bit fish eye" distortion is only on horizontal axis this time, and is unavoidable to squeeze this much FOV into the frame. Please oppose on basis on something you know, at least... I would have been better with your usual "don't like night shots", which is as smart as a "I oppose Obama portrait, I voted republican party". - Benh (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing quality with nice colours! --mathias K 06:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 18:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Clematis hybrid Rouge Cardinal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2010 at 13:04:04 (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) 13:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition --AngMoKio (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I find the pic too 'flat' to look good; looks like a cut flower lying on top of a heap of cut leaves, rather than a "real" whole plant. - MPF (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 09:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition may be good, but this is not the naturally look of a clematis plant. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Oppose Berthold has a good point .. can you clear it ?  Richard  [®]  11:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Here you can see the other images of the Clematis „Rouge Cardinal“ in wikimedia commons. I think, the „naturally look“ of these three images helps them not to a scientific value. There colors and the details of the flower and the leafes are not punctilious. With such images you can’t describe, classify, identify and name the species „Rouge Cardinal“. I used a new way to preserve the naturally form and colors of the „Rouge Cardinal“ with scientific value and to find an alternative to the preserved plant specimens in the herbarium. I scanned the „Rouge Cardinal“ and made this large and sharp image with subtly differentiated natural colors und a large depth of field. I think this image in wikimedia commons will be used in the plant taxonomy. Gratulation, MPF, you saw what happened to the „Rouge Cardinal“, but now you know why I did it this way. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ich erkläre mal auf deutsch was mich stört. Es ging mir weniger um die Farben, da gibt es von der Clematis so viele Züchtungen, dass wohl alle Farben vorkommen. Aber kann kann auf deinem Fotos eben nicht erkennen wie die Pflanze aussieht. Es ist ja eine Rankplanze bei der die Blätter nicht so zusammenstehen wie auf dem Foto. Auch sitzen die Blüten nicht so auf den Blättern auf. Jemand der keine Clematis kennt, erhält so einen ganz falschen Eindruck von der Pflanze. Desweiteren erscheint mir auch die Beleuchtung zu frontal. Deshalb meine Ablehnung (und ich denke deshalb auch die Ablehnung vom MPF), andere sehen das anders, deshalb gibt's ja eine Abstimmung darüber. Sorry, my english is not so good to explain this in english. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Berthold explained it well. Lycaon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks too flat. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 07:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church near Selmun Palace-2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2010 at 16:33:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Felix König - uploaded by Felix König - nominated by Felix König -- -- Felix König ✉ 16:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Felix König ✉ 16:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - crop too tight - MPF (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF  Richard  [®]  10:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laurits Andersen Ring - Ved frokostbordet og morgenaviserne.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2010 at 23:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Laurits Andersen Ring - uploaded by P. S. Burton - nominated by P. S. Burton-- P. S. Burton (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support At Breakfast, painting by Danish artist L. A. Ring. As a fantastic example of the Scandinavian arts and crafts movement, I think it fits the second criteria for artworks. Being "of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are none the less wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art." -- P. S. Burton (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 18:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 07:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 07:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:J'accuse - Gallica - page 1.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2010 at 09:34:59 (UTC)

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by Gallica, uploaded by Herr Satz, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The publication of J'accuse ! by Zola marked a turning point in the Dreyfus affair. Zola was brought to court for libel, and condamned, but it created a uproar against unjustice, and enhanced the freedom of expression. Yann (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the original PNG should be featured, but the JPEG version to be displayed instead. Yann (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P. S. Burton (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Ummm... It says "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels"... Is that normal? Kleuske (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's normal. MediaWiki doesn't create thumbnails for PNG files if the files are bigger than 12.5 Mpixels. Yann (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trace (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose featuring images that are so high resolution that they demonstrate Wikimedia's technological inadequacies to the world! Feel free to use my oppose vote as ammunition to agitate for a software improvement. 99of9 (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral was originally going to just comment but I do agree with 99of9 point that since we lack the technology to actually view the document how can we promote it. Additionally the guidelines say for these types of works ....Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents - which may not be at all artistic - nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject. please can someone explain whats the importance of this document is Gnan garra 05:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks like a photocopy. This version is the original newspaper. --Lošmi (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Created by Gallica, uploaded by Yann, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should we then feature the JPEG version instead? Yann (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same reason as above. --Lošmi (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if only for historical reasons. Kleuske (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I miss the page 2...--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As Losmi. I also don't think this is a good FP candidadte, as the graphical component has little relevance. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amtrak California Zephyr Green River - Floy, Utah.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2010 at 18:23:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Amtrak's California Zephyr in front of the Book Cliffs, Utah
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 18:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Impressive. Trace (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although it's a bit noisy --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no noise. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The sky is denoised, but I couldn't denoise the rest without loosing details, so it depends on where you're looking. --Kabelleger (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 07:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very nice composition but quality far from excellent, as the subject (the train) is not sharp and detailed enough. The image is tilted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think sharpness could be much better (without downscaling the image), it's mainly limited by the heat haze (you can see it on the telegraph poles). Of course you can argue that it should be re-taken on a colder day... (which I can't, unfortunately). Tilted? Which way? I can't find any tilt, the coaches of the train are as upright as it gets. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP quality (e.g. focus, detail). Lycaon (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great composition and setting for the train. Quality is fine. Please keep in mind that the train is not a stationary object, making such a shot difficult to reproduce. --Dschwen (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --daNASCAT @TheThirdTurn/@Wikia (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 07:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gallinago delicata Nicolet.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2010 at 23:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely taken. It reminds me of this recent nomination... ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 04:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 05:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 09:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 18:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 06:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peter van Poehl f3297719.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2010 at 23:18:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, I cant see beyond that bright white ball Gnan garra 04:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the version on the right an improvement ? Rama (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's noisy and the one half of his head seems blurry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support just for the composition. But I have to turn a blind eye to the quality (see Sperm Whale) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Holbeinsteg mit Westhafen Tower-Ansicht von der Untermainbruecke-20100424.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2010 at 23:22:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankfurt on the Main: Holbeinsteg (Holbein Bridge) with Westhafen Tower (West Harbour Tower) as seen from the Untermainbruecke (Lower Main Bridge)
Panorama of 7 images taken with Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II and Canon EF 70-200mm 4.0 L IS USM (@ 169mm) at f8, stitched with PanoramaStudio 2 Pro
Support -- Mylius (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of bad light. Might be better early in the morning or late in the evening!? bamse (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too hazy, plus Bamse's reason. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Trivial composition, poor lighting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melaleuca gnangarra 26.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2010 at 05:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Gnangarra -- Gnan garra 05:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gnan garra 05:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - needs species identification and location - MPF (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- its misleading to identify a species of plant in this forumn when I just dont have sufficient information make a positive identification... Melaleuca cuticularis[5] is the most likely but until it flowers I couldnt be certain then it would be based on the timing of the flower as the alternatives(M.laterifloria subsp acutifolia(next most likely), M.preissiana, M.incana) have the same flower colour descriptions of white/cream as well similar form and size descriptions. Add to this the photograph was taken some 200km(150miles) from home thats a round trip of +400km(300mi) its unlikely I be able to take multiple journies between Aug-Feb to make a visual identification I've already checked theres no online paper that has the flora for the area listed even if there was all four species would be expected to be listed as they are all identified as occuring in the area. Gnangarra 10:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then maybe you shouldn't nominate it? Aug - Feb is 7 months (?). During the (short) orchid season (May - June) I almost every weekend do a 500 km round rip. Which doesn't say that you should do the same of course... Identification shouldn't be misleading, BTW. If you're not confident about a positive ID, don't upload until you are sure. I can assure you from own experience that it sometimes will take quite a bit of effort (and time). Lycaon (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It clearly shows the tree form of the genus Melaleuca which dominate the transitional land between waterways, lakes, swamps etc in the natural enviroment but I'm ok with calling it Melaleuca cuticularis because it probably is and if its considered that critical as the significant majority of people would not be able to distinguish the difference from that photograph on balance the likelyhood of an real issue is negligable. Gnan garra 08:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chlorine liquid in an ampoule.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2010 at 19:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alchemist-hp - uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by Brackenheim
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A few too many distracting reflections, and a small subject. --99of9 (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The quality is very high, as always with Alchemist-hp, but I would like to see a more close up veiw. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I see nothing extraordinary deserving FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ostia old ladies under arbor in piazza.jpg, not featured[edit]

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

Info created by Dcrjsr - uploaded by Dcrjsr - nominated by Dcrjsr -- Dcrjsr (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dcrjsr (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadows are very harsh, and it's tilted. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The verticals and the ground level (e.g. doorstep) are square; the lintel line is not horizontal because of perspective. I can square up the horizontal perspective if people feel that's needed, but it would then lose the identifying sign on the building. The shadows are integral to the bright sunshine - and the most important part is the people and the moment. --Dcrjsr (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of too harsh lighting, too busy composition and main subject (the people) not clearly depicted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daucus carota qtl1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2010 at 07:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Underside of a wild carrot flower (Daucus carota subsp. carota) showing a compound umbel. --Quartl (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question could it be that the WB is a little to warm? I know, It was taken 8.30PM and that was near dusk. But the fact that I can't see the time directly on this pic makes the colours a little unnatural warm imo. bg mathias K 07:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the pic was taken in the evening sun. I can provide a version with a colder WB this evening when I'm back from work. --Quartl (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
White balance corrected. --Quartl (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose QI yes, FP ?  Richard  [®]  12:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose sorry but imo the colours are still not neutral. But that is caused of the time when the pic was taken. That is not the best for this pic. My advice: reshot a little bit earlier and maybe with fokus direct on the small blossoms. bg mathias K 06:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack. Richard. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Quartl (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anas platyrhynchos female (Linnaeus 1758).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 22:28:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is nice but the picture is 2 blurry (camera shake?) even in preview.  Richard  [®]  23:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - largely because it isn't representative of typical wild Anas platyrhynchos, being much paler than a typical bird, due to cross-breeding with domesticated forms of the species (compare more typical specimens here and here). - MPF (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We already have two or three FP of this species, the best being probably this one. The quality is probably enough for QI (not sure though) but the picture doesn' reach the desired status, imo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hadako-tan.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2010 at 00:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Click for image: Hidden because it is sexually explicit

Info created by Niabot - uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please ensure you review against the Featured picture criteria and don't make this into a straw poll on if Commons (or FPC) is censored or should be.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nah! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is somewhat counter-collaborative to propose an image (and insist that this be evaluated on existing standards) just as the community is conducting two discussions that could affect the eligibility of this image. Nevertheless, I'll humour you and give my evaluation based on the existing standards. This falls under "Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents", and so requires:

High Quality (required): Apparently there is some dispute about this. I would add that the man(?)s legs look like they have a different skin tone to his body (legs have a lot of extra red and purple). The cats tail has a strange section that is much darker than the rest of the cat (apparently due to a glass reflection, but along with many of the reflections in this image, it doesn't look like a typical reflection to me, and anyway if on a photo might be adjudicated as poor lighting due to odd reflections [6]). Also it doesn't look much like a real cat, but perhaps that is part of the style (though not mentioned on the description or in the Wiki article). Many elements of the scene are cut by the edge of the image (chin, ear, clothes, headphone), which in a photograph would probably cause me to critique this image as poorly composed [7]. The woman(?)s eyelashes are on top of her hair, perhaps this is part of the style (please comment??), but her hair edges are then on top of the eyelashes, which must be plain and simple poor quality. Ditto for the hair going under the eye, not mentioned in en wiki's description of the technique.
Notable in its own right (at least one of the next four required): Obviously not.
Of high artistic merit: No. This is not from within "the school of art", let alone a "wonderful example", it is apparently an outsiders attempt to illustrate the school of art by emulating it. A fair enough thing to do, but not satisfying this guideline.
Of high historic merit: Obviously not.
Of high illustrative merit: Note that in this item the notability of the artistry depends on what it is trying to illustrate. Complex machine mechanisms do not require highly notable artistry, but books do. If you're trying to illustrate an artistic style (as an outside user, rather than just obtaining permission to use an image from within that style), it had better be wonderfully artistically notable! This is not, per my quality comments above.
Wow/Visual impact (required by me): I have consistently applied this (perhaps to Durova or Adam Cuerdon's despair) to all types of image. This is my personal deviation from the guidelines [8] (Although interestingly it's very clearly included in the full guidelines), since they are after all, only guidelines, not rules about what we have to feature. This scene does not wow me, perhaps this makes me a w:wowser. But hey, if you want to feature to the whole world a picture as an example of our finest, you should choose an image that impresses children, parents, women, men, wowsers and non-wowsers [9]. This is not important in QI, but this is FP.

--99of9 (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the same reasons given in the QI nomination - the perspective is strange, and the guy's body proportions don't look quite right. Laurent (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination since the first vote is "Nah!". So i see no way the overall rating would be fair in any way. --Niabot (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2010 at 10:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Осенняя мгла - uploaded by Осенняя мгла - nominated by Осенняя мгла -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the subject is not clearly shown due to poor lighting. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Okadera Asuka Nara pref24n3900.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2010 at 12:08:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by 663h (talk) -- 663h (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, regretful oppose. I dig the composition, yet I'm afraid this picture is not quite up to the standards, quality-wise (blown highlights, chromatic aberration, distortion, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurilbert (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hashi photo (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mediocre composition and lighting. Steven Walling 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really outstanding enough for FP. I did nominate for QI though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jakob Prandtauer Denkmal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2010 at 13:35:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created/uploaded/nominated by AleXXw -- AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 13:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 13:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - harsh light, and colours over-saturated - MPF (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great encyclopedic value. But composition, lighting and over all quality are a little bit below FP standards. -- MJJR (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Trivial shot, quality so so, nothing featurable here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves --mathias K 06:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atelopus certus calling male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2010 at 13:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brian Gratwicke - uploaded and nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 99of9 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Waw!--Citron (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 09:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 18:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Harsh flash(?) lighting, shallow dof, too tight crop above. Nice colouring though.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you mean "too tight crop above"? There's nothing above the frog but empty space and still enough room so nothing looks cramped, in fact if this were my image I wouldn't be afraid to crop off even more in between the eye and current top. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, very often open space is necessary for balancing the composition. In this case I can't help imagining that the poor think is caged. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess I can see that, I don't see bars so I'm fine though. =) --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop above. --Lycaon (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 07:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sydney Harbour Bridge from Circuilar Quay.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 05:48:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors, wow! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 09:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - glare from lights, and serious motion blur in the water due to long exposure, make for an unattractive pic - MPF (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I oppose to calling this pic unattractive. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent night shot! -- MJJR (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I do have a suggestion. See image annotation. --JovianEye (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF. Lycaon (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe a bit too much downsampled but impressive colours and view! --mathias K 06:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ -- Takabeg (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 07:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Egypt 2010 Edfu 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 07:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karel - uploaded by Karel - nominated by Karel -- Karel (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor angle and framing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually quite like the angle, but it is unfortunate that the nearest figure's hat is cut off. --99of9 (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 07:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:HfBK Dresden bei Nacht.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2010 at 21:48:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and lighting are unimpressive Nikopol (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor lighting. Tiptoety ^talk 00:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tiptoety. Laurent (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nikopol. --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pana Banaue Rice Terraces.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2010 at 08:03:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ori~ - uploaded by Ori~ - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 08:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 08:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Bit overexposed especially the sky washed away, uneven crop at top right and bottom right. Also not an impressive composition - Man On Mission (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: part of the photo is severely overexposed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NaturBornholm.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2010 at 17:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jf1911jf1911 - uploaded by Jf1911jf1911 - nominated by Jf1911jf1911 -- Jf1911jf1911 (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jf1911jf1911 (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy and low technical quality. bamse (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, almost worth an FPX (per Bamse + no clear subjet in focus). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much sky --A.Ceta (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, more a snapshot than a FP --mathias K 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me this picture raises the subject that FPC is or should be open to all comers regardless of their technical equipment which is unfortunately very low here (handycam quality). Besides quality which isn't the author fault the composition is k.o. criteria for me, sorry.  Richard  [®]  12:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Jf1911jf1911 (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2010 at 17:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This is an improved version with (i think) better colors and reduced noise (in the top of the picture). --Jf1911jf1911 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry, but poor composition, and no apparent main subject. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Upper part of the sky is less noisy now, but there is still considerable noise in the lower part of the sky and the non-sky part of the image appears oversharpened. I am afraid it is impossible to fix with photo editing. bamse (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jf1911jf1911 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like the original --mathias K 12:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me this picture raises the subject that FPC is or should be open to all comers regardless of their technical equipment which is unfortunately very low here (handycam quality). Besides quality which isn't the author fault the composition is k.o. criteria for me, sorry.  Richard  [®]  12:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Jf1911jf1911 (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Well, thank you all for the comments. I don't see anyway this picture could become featured after those votes.[reply]

File:Edward S. Curtis Collection People 041.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 14:27:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Edward Sheriff Curtis - uploaded by Aurevilly - nominated by The Photographer -- 200.90.39.42 14:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ No mitigating reasons for such small resolution. Similar pictures are available at high resolutions: [10]. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a high resolution version of same image. --The Photographer (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bad quality... This picture needs to be retouched.--Citron (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original version ever is better than a retouched version --The Photographer (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marina City, Chicago One-car garage.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by O Palsson - uploaded by Fetchcomms - nominated by Fetchcomms -- fetchcomms☛ 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fetchcomms☛ 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very noisy, lacking a little sharpness. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, noisy, and unbalanced composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I love the photo - highly creative, but I do not feel there is a clear focus/message behind the image. --DaNASCAT (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Epitheca bimaculata (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:07:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Confusing compo: The eyes are good but the rest of the image is a mess. Lycaon (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice eyey, but I don't like the harsh flash light lighting. That makes the background very unattractive imo. This pic reminds me of my try with a dragonflyportrait. bg mathias K 05:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might benefit from a crop, but the leafy spike at the bottom would probably still ruin the composition. Otherwise, excellent closeup. --Quartl (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lycaon and Quartl, plus harsh flash  Richard  [®]  11:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not an impressive composition - Man On Mission (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enallagma cyathigerum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too shallow dof, leaving the compound eye and tail out-of-focus. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below FP insect standards. Critter is OOF. Lycaon (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but I have to agree with Alves & Lycaon. --mathias K 05:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree, DOF too shallow, otherwise nice composition and good contrasting background. --Quartl (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mediocre quality macro and A.T.S.I  Richard  [®]  11:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Louise two.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 19:00:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mike Boehmer - uploaded by Fetchcomms - nominated by Fetchcomms -- fetchcomms☛ 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fetchcomms☛ 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - trees and mountains blurred / out of focus and over-saturated, ice on lake looks odd too. - MPF (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Blurry, too dark, oversatutared, boring symmetrical composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves, and maybe I a little cold WB. --mathias K 05:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even QI IMO - how it should be FP ?  Richard  [®]  11:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, too much diffraction I think. Lack of details almost everywhere. Diti the penguin — 22:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calocoris affinis.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 17:45:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The first macro I support in a long time. Excellent compositon, very good quality. Congrats. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As in QI: very good. Lycaon (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this one and I'm very happy that this one is not so heavy oversharpend like many of your others. The overall quality could still be better but composition and colours are great! But one question, why this format? I tried to turn it 90° ccw and I think this even works better cause of the upright blossom. But this shouldn't avoid my suppport. bg mathias K 05:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest - I didn't think about the vertical composition. I left it the way it was when I took the picture. Photo looks good rotated by 90° ccw too, but I prefer the current version. Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support but agree with Leviathan1983, a 90° ccw rotation would improve the composition. --Quartl (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the plasticity  Richard  [®]  11:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! ■ MMXX ^talk 16:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UplandSandpiperOntarioCropped.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 10:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Johnath - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 10:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 10:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As the photographer, I'm quite happy to support it, perhaps obviously. --Johnath (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. fetchcomms☛ 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- MJJR (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 05:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. --Quartl (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very nice - Man On Mission (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kniphofia uvaria einzeln.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2010 at 01:06:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created/uploaded/nominated by AleXXw -- AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 01:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 01:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the composition (tight crop). Lycaon (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon, bit boring composition --mathias K 04:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would you like the right crop better? --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 07:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For my liking the snapped off leaves on the bottom are disturbing and the dark drawings within the bokeh has an unfavorable placement. The composition (new crop) is fair but not really outstanding. The alternate crop could be QI.  Richard  [®]  13:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bussigny mock minaret mg 9570.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 23:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks tilted and distorted. I tried to fix the tilt with GIMP, but then I had to cut off the top of the spire. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can used "Heal selection" in GIMP for that sort of things: File:Bussigny mock minaret mg 9570-distortion.jpg. Rama (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:St stephen stoning.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 22:01:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Unsharp, poor lighting and disturbing geometric distortion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Alves  Richard  [®]  11:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its a great foto under the difficult circumstances. --Korman (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DPP 0011.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2010 at 20:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The file name is an error. If somebody can change it for me, I would be very glad. --Cephas (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can use the {{Badname}} template which can be found here Regards  Richard  [®]  20:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done: renamed in File:Song Sparrow.jpg, and universal replace asked. --Myrabella (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, that was fast! Thank you. --Cephas (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent image quality, very nice composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alves! --mathias K 04:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the stock price sparrow :-)  Richard  [®]  11:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice composition. Tiptoety ^talk 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good to see sharp, typical bird image with also interesting composition and details (like the overlapping claws). --Dcrjsr (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Un vote évident. Aussi bien que d'habitude avec en bonus une composition originale - Benh (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality but the wire in front of the tail prevents me to support. Lycaon (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can retouch it and remove the wire! ■ MMXX ^talk 16:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't. I prefer giving a neutral vote with a light comment than an oppose with a strong statement :-). Lycaon (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting composition. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brandenburg Pano 02 (MK).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2010 at 07:13:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panorama of Brandenburg. Imo this pic gives an impressive view over city and landscape and shows a lot of interisting things like churches and much other historical stuff. ;-) c/u/n by -- mathias K 07:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 07:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As already stated on KEB --Mylius (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --DiscoLava (talk)This is an amazing panorama. 72.226.34.194 15:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as an IP you are not allowed to vote. Please log in before voting. --mathias K 15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I love images of cities like this where you can zoom in and find a whole bunch of interesting details and things. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 18:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 11:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ -- Takabeg (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing light conditions. Lycaon (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Goldener Reiter bei Nacht1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2010 at 13:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - statue is nice (would support it if on its own) but the pic is spoilt by that weird thing half-in the pic at the right, and the glare off the advert on the left - MPF (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Close to FPX, really. This is one of those examples where a night view is not probably the best solution. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as one known for disliking night shots, this one I have found much better than most: the illumination of the gold on statue from light sources outside the pic is very effective. It's just a pity about the background. - MPF (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less ditto MPF. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 22:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many disturbance, compare it with my version. --Kolossos (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:EC 135 Air Ambulance (Konflikty.pl).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2010 at 17:45:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś - retouched and nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 17:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain The original image have been nominated before and it didn't get featured. I just wanted to try again, this time without boat in the background! (sorry Airwolf, for removing that!) ■ MMXX ^talk 17:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if nothing else for the excellent cloning job on removing the boat, almost impossible to see that it has been done - MPF (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, very good cloning job. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet a third time: great cloning job. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 18:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the co-author of this image I would like to say that a) I still believe the picture with the boat to be more aesthetically pleasing, but b) I understand that others might think otherwise, and c) I really think MMXX did a great retouching job. Still, d) I think a slight crop at the top might be beneficial since the contents of the image is now more bottom oriented. Wolf (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I liked the original elements, but not at that angle. The cloning is well done here, but it leaves a less interesting photo. Jonathunder (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jonathunder  Richard  [®]  23:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A good, high-quality photo – and a frankly spectacular cloning job – but sadly rather underwhelming. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the clone job rather frightning. Nothing I'd ever like to see illustrating an encyclopedia. Sorry. Keep it real, please. --Dschwen (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your reviews. I've cropped the image a little. ■ MMXX ^talk 09:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enallagma cyathigerum 8(loz).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2010 at 14:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Loz -- Loz (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photo is part of a sequence that shows the complete consumption of a cicada by the damselfly.--Loz (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Loz (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 18:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good moment! - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice and interesting pic! Maybe a little strong contrast but overall, with sharpness and composition, it is a very good pic! --mathias K 05:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 07:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pretty good. --Dschwen (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great action shot. --99of9 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail, good composition. --Elekhh (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Matricaria Khirsa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2010 at 19:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by თეკა - uploaded by თეკა - nominated by თეკა -- თეკა (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: noisy and unsharp. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chouette (Crâne).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2010 at 16:23:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO not very sharp, small DOF (in combination with slight fokus problem?), and the strong sharpening made it look grainy. Nikopol (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Achird (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 11:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Nikopol, unsharp, especially rigth side. --Mile (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As above. The granularity looks like jpeg artifacts. Is it really? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More the resolution increases, more defects are visible --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the image was only 2 megapixels I'd expect it to be razor sharp. With 17 million pixels I'm not going to worry about it being not very sharp. --Calibas (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Calibas. Ggia (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Calibas too. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full ack. Nikopol. Sorry Archaeodontosaurus, but I think you can do it better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand what more pixels bring, but in this case i think setting were not correct, to bad metafile isn't presented so all would be clearly seen. --Mile (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The position of the skull at that distance requires to take two pictures, to have the subject clear. Merging the two is not always easy and perfect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an excellent photo! TEK (talk • e-mail) 22:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 07:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced by the overall quality. Lot's of pixels yes, but some parts are really not good (e.g. the posterior part of the jugal), being noisy and unsharp. To obtain a large DOF on small (macro)objects you should apply stacking techniques/software instead of trying to reconstruct the image manually. The image is of course very usable and useful and looks very good at thumbnail size, but for an FP it has to be better. Lycaon (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - Thank you for the constructive criticism. I think I have progressed in this direction and I will redo this picture with two ambitions: to increase the resolution and increase the sharpness. I need 48 hours. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 16:41:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThis rocket engine is fueled by a mixture of -182.8 Celsius liquid oxygen and -252.8 Celsius liquid hydrogen. The engine components are super-cooled to similar low temperatures. As CECE burns its frigid fuels, gas composed of hot steam is produced and propelled out the nozzle creating thrust. The steam is cooled by the cold engine nozzle, condensing and eventually freezing at the nozzle exit to form icicles. (youtube video of the rocket engine being tested)
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but the distortion is to great for me to vote {{Support}}. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides distortion, the tight crop is k.o. criteria for me. I'm well aware that maybe there wasn't enough space inside the test set-up and the minimum of an applicable focal length was exhausted (no exifs) but the composition still looks unappealing for my taste.  Richard  [®]  21:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ischnura elegans 6(loz).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 12:53:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Loz -- Loz (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Loz (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 18:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice pic with a really good sharpness, but I don't like the composition. The crop is far too tight imo. I'd like to see version with a little more space to the right and to the top if it would be possible. bg mathias K 04:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I agree with mathias, the poor thing looks caged. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop. Good for a taxobox, but not for FP. Lycaon (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Lycaon. And a bit boring composition.--Jf1911jf1911 (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicago bw.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 11:16:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dschwen - uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 11:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 11:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd rather see a colored image than a black-and-white one. This image also seems grainy to me. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 15:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Granularity. Hard to get this kind of panoramas-smog. --Mile (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image was uploaded as a gimmick. It was taken during approach to O'Hare airport. Color version is completely useless, all blueish hues, tons of smog. I did lots of curve corrections on the image and had to desaturate as the colors got screwed up even more. It is a nice perspective and I like the faux b/w look, but the image quality is simply not sufficient for an FP in my opinion. --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Collared Lizard 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 00:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dschwen - uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by --  Richard  [®]  00:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Masel tov  Richard  [®]  00:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support big wow, Congratulations! --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot - the only problem I see is the movement (blurriness) of the back left foot, but great otherwise. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice work! --mathias K 05:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 07:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent quality and composition. Looking at the exif, it looks like this is a quite small creature. Does it bite?... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it didn't bite me :-) --Dschwen (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Citron (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - slightly blurred left hind leg doesn't detract badly MPF (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Subject is nice, but composition is very ordinary: it looks away with the nose nearly in the frame of the picture. --Cephas (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality Nikopol (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support At last a proper nom ;-). Lycaon (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support I think this version has a more dramatic pose and is closer to facing the camera. The other is a little more valuable, because it shows the tail, but I think this is better as a FP. --99of9 (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- I think this should be considered as a different nomination with a proper entry, not an alternative. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CONM Independence monument 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2010 at 21:49:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Monument Canyon in Colorado National Monument. Created, uploaded, nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Support -- Dschwen (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  22:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - would like to see geotags added (lat., long.), will support when done - MPF (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. --Dschwen (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! Upgraded to support - MPF (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing, what a view! Do you know how far apart the city in the backgraound is? Looks like a very clear view. bg mathias K 05:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The city is only about 6km away, the distance to the mountains in the background is about 30km away. I have some shots yet to be uploaded from Mesa Verde where you can see over 200km. --Dschwen (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The city only 6 and the mountains 30? Hmm it looks much farer! But now I'm really curious about the Mesa Verde pics! bg mathias K 16:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very good technical quality, but I do't like the almost symmetrical composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 11:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is uneven, which I'd attribute to use of polariser filter (not sure though). But overall very nice. - Benh (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 15:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ -- Takabeg (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikopol (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Impressive panorama, but the sliver of rock on the right side leaves me desiring a wider view. I suspect a slight crop could fix this as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive foto. Truly a panoramic foto. --Korman (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kleiner Kohlweißling, Pieris rapae 5.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2010 at 20:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp enough or DOF too shallow (e.g. the head) and distracting element in the foreground --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice butterfly but not sharp enough -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness, back- and foreground is a bit 2 turbulent for my taste. Sorry.  Richard  [®]  00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but per Richard. -- mathias K 05:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of sharpness, disturbing twig in foreground. --Quartl (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Dein Freund der Baum - Man On Mission (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aswan Nile 6.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 20:06:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karel - uploaded by Karel - nominated by Karel -- Karel (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Tilted~~ Skewed  Richard  [®]  20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really, are you sure? In which direction? When the ship is tilted - turning to the right, it does not mean, that image is tilted! --Karel (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is tilted. Just look at the buildings in the background. --Dschwen (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really tilted. Compare ship and its mirror (must be vertical lines) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The ship doesn't appear to be tilted relative to the surface. If it were the vertical lines in the reflection would make an angle with the corresponding lines in the ship. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you skewed the image ?  Richard  [®]  13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I second this question: the whole picture appears to be skewed rather than tilted. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 20:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree; I've made an edit (right) to try and correct the skew (based on the buildings on land, not the ship, which looks additionally slightly listing, and probably ready to sink ;-) - MPF (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Better, but it still looks skewed ...  Richard  [®]  21:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll have another go tomorrow - MPF (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC) .... done (same filename, right) - MPF (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I spent weekend on my weekendhouse without connection to internet. My reaction will follow tommorow, sorry for delay. But image after MPF correctiom looks good! You were right, image was tilted, I apologise. --Karel (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 20:06:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karel - uploaded by Karel - nominated by Karel -- Karel --Karel (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel --Karel (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It's still skewed. Look at the building at right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another de-skewing attempt from original. Lycaon (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I appreciate the attempt at fixing the mess, how many versions of this image do we need? This is way too much fumbling around. How did the image get so skewed in the first place? --Dschwen (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20100703 Mykonos Ftelia Greece house panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 19:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dcrjsr (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Details are good but composition is to squashed. Let it breath.  Richard  [®]  20:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also underexposed on the right side. --Dschwen (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is panoramic image created by hugin software.. and the right side (set of images) is under the shadow.. Ggia (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugin or not, deficiencies are obvious I'am afraid  Richard  [®]  23:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Not the best lighting conditions for this subject, with too harsh shadows and contrast. Also, let the poor thing breathe... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for your polite comments. Ggia (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louvre Cour Carree.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2010 at 06:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ -- Takabeg (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! The Louvre is heavily distorted, but it's the same as seen at your Phanom Rung temple, the distortion and the symetrical composition are what makes the picture work imo. Colours and sharpness (downsampled??) are great! bg mathias K 12:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely said, Leviathan. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 14:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unlike mathias K, I don't like the distortion much, and also don't like the excessive motion blurring in the water, the people and the flag on the building - MPF (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice quality and colors. Distortion is a matter of taste, OK for me. Places like these are crowded at almoast all times, so some blurred persons are alright for me, too. You could, however, try some cloning on the small ones in the background to the left. Nikopol (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't say I like the heavy distortion. If I wanted to know how the Cour Carée looks, that's definitely not the picture I would choose. Laurent (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ppl motion blur isn't so problematic in this case. Fountain could be complete.--Mile (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness and lighting of the building is excelent but it is heavily distorted. And I don't like the composition with the also distorted fontain in the foreground. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion is distracting from the character of the place. --Elekhh (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very artistic maybe, but I strongly agree with Elekhh and Berthold Werner. "Cour carrée" means "square backyard"...--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too distorted, bad composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 07:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion per Jebulon. Lycaon (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clavaria zollingeri 90973.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2010 at 05:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dan Molter - uploaded by Sasata - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The coral fungus Clavaria zollingeri. Featured in English Wikipedia.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy, but OK. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jf1911jf1911 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Basiliscus plumifrons2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 21:50:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by E. D. Cope - uploaded by User:Citron - nominated by User:Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Hmm. You don't like this drawing? Quality, restore and attractive subject, what's happen? --Citron (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made 2 urls in the description page to identify the book. I didn't find the book in the German and English Wikipedia. I have the question: who is the author of the image? You write: "created by E. D. Cope". But the signatory is "ES". --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the signatory is "E.S.", but I didn't find the complete name, alike in the other books of E. D. Cope... --Citron (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coco mademoiselle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2010 at 17:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brownchl - uploaded by Brownchl - nominated by TheDapperDan -- 75.119.23.69 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 75.119.23.69 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please login for voting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Logged in TheDapperDan (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the quality of the image is very poor (noise and unsharpness)-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yttrium sublimed dendritic and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2010 at 12:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alchemist-hp - uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by Brackenheim -- Brackenheim (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer (and support) a version with a little less sharpening. Even in in 100% it seems a little too much in my opinion. Nikopol (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't additional sharpened! You see the fibers from this material, in high contrast. I can mail you the original RAW Files (20x = 0,5GB) if you like :) Please read additional the image description for more infos! Your browser is responsible for the rasterisation. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to block my mailbox, I believe you :) Support Good arrangement, reasonable use of focus stacking, high EV. Nikopol (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and Support from the creator too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 09:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 11:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Laurent (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:Canada goose flight cropped and NR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 00:55:20

Info Less then half the required number of megapixels. (Original nomination)
Delist --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – I have to agree. Should not longer be featured. --Ernie (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It makes no sense to delist old FP because of size. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there is another featured photo of this canada goose, I support the delisting of this image. Ggia (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ditto to Alvesgaspar; the pic was passed with a very strong 16:2 support rate, and removing it on size alone isn't enough. If there were other significant faults then yes, but I don't see any - MPF (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ditto --Lycaon (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MPF, your statement is true, however, the FP bar was much lower then. This could not possibly be featured had it been nominated now. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist For me, it is much too small to be a FP --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Poor Resolution --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist too small size for FP -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too small. Steven Walling 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Because of the change of FP size - probably all the old featured pictures (low size) has to be delisted in this way.. Probably the new rules has to be discussed about the issue of old featured pictures. Ggia (talk) Late vote. Lycaon (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is crap. Permanently re-assessing the whole FP set because quality and size are improving with technology is a useless and stupid thing to do. Pictures have dates associated with them and users are not blind or stupid. The only relevant effect of such process, which I consider negative, is to help killing the memory of FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Alvesgaspar Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stora Alvaret Windmill 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2010 at 15:57:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Allie Caulfield - uploaded by Berichard - nominated by Berichard --Berichard (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berichard (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I can see a distinct lighter halo around the rightmost mill. Is it a side effect of an HDRization or of another kind of post-processing? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Could give me more explanations? Berichard (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see it; at first I thought it might just be an optical illusion, but (if using an LCD monitor) it becomes very obvious when viewing from an angle below horizontal - MPF (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see it also. But if you look for a longer while in full resolution (even from an angle below horizontal on a LCD screen), it is not visible anymore. It is definitely an optical illusion! -- MJJR (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather guess it is the result of photoshop´s shadow / highlights tool Nikopol (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the halo starts disappearing, it pops right up again. The photo's a mind game ;O ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The haloing might in other cases be the effect of lateral inhibition, as it is the case with a grid illusion. However, this haloing is real, even in 100%. If you want proof, go to photoshop and play a little with the contrast, the halos are clearly visible. Nikopol (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The halo has to be the result of Photoshop's shadow/highlight tool, because it doesn't dissapear when I remove the wing "grid" in Photoshop. / Achird (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for these explanations. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not so keen on the contrast "enhancements" leading to halos around the wings of the rightmost mill (see question above). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Decent example of the rule of threes, but the composition is a little off; too tight on the right and the perspective is a little funky I think. Good, but not the best of the best. Steven Walling 08:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop on the right side is too tight. --JovianEye (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop on the right side is much too tight. Lycaon (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - crop a bit tight for FP. Jonathunder (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop on the right side of the picture --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of glowing windmills. Crop is a minus as well. --Dschwen (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop and graphic anomalies  Richard  [®]  12:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canada goose flight cropped and NR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2010 at 00:55:20

Info Less then half the required number of megapixels. (Original nomination)
Delist --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – I have to agree. Should not longer be featured. --Ernie (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It makes no sense to delist old FP because of size. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there is another featured photo of this canada goose, I support the delisting of this image. Ggia (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ditto to Alvesgaspar; the pic was passed with a very strong 16:2 support rate, and removing it on size alone isn't enough. If there were other significant faults then yes, but I don't see any - MPF (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ditto --Lycaon (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MPF, your statement is true, however, the FP bar was much lower then. This could not possibly be featured had it been nominated now. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist For me, it is much too small to be a FP --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Poor Resolution --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist too small size for FP -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too small. Steven Walling 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Because of the change of FP size - probably all the old featured pictures (low size) has to be delisted in this way.. Probably the new rules has to be discussed about the issue of old featured pictures. Ggia (talk) Late vote. Lycaon (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is crap. Permanently re-assessing the whole FP set because quality and size are improving with technology is a useless and stupid thing to do. Pictures have dates associated with them and users are not blind or stupid. The only relevant effect of such process, which I consider negative, is to help killing the memory of FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Alvesgaspar Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snoop Dogg on Stage.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2010 at 18:33:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by http://flickr.com/photos/30883129@N08 - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a fan of the composition. Steven Walling 08:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Do not like the composition. Lunastella
Oppose Do not like this composition. Figure is not centred. --Korman (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok... ...what?! Aparently you cannot do right by everyone. Not centered, too centered all gets you an oppose. --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the composition. And the colors. Jf1911jf1911
Support The composition is tight, but the high value of the other qualities outweigh this. oneblackline (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition. Jonathunder (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Very good quality, considering the difficult conditions (I want a D700 too!). But the subject tells me nothing, sorry. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good  Richard  [®]  20:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bad crop at bottom, words on shirt cut - MPF (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilanesberg-Darter fishing-002.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2010 at 18:32:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NJR_ZA - uploaded by NJR_ZA - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you used the 70-300 ?  Richard  [®]  00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, Sigma 70-300 on 400D. Does seem to be a horrid combination.
Oppose - Nice action shot, but the file is of too low a technical quality for FP. Sorry, Tiptoety ^talk 03:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will ask my better-half to submit similar photo taken with Canon 7D and 100-400 EF lense NJR_ZA (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

File:Uroplatus ebenaui.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2010 at 17:09:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alextelford - uploaded by Alextelford - nominated by Alextelford -- Alextelford (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but too much of the animal is out of focus - MPF (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nocturnal species and hard to shoot when being active that's for sure. I don't understand why there is such little depth of field by f/25 although the animal is aprox 85mm in lenght which is quite "huge" in macro dimensions. Apart from that there is lot of sensordust on the image. Basically it got what it takes to make a good FP of this species but the shallow DOF is k.o. criteria here for me.  Richard  [®]  23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question How comes that the sprout is cut off so well although the image description says that the picture was taken at the western dry deciduous forests ?  Richard  [®]  23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sprout is cut off because when we found the gecko it was 2m high on a branch so we lured it onto another stick. Unfortunately focus bracketing was not possible as this animal moved a lot. It was also admittedly too large to get everything in focus with a macro lens even with a low apeture.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Poor quality, insufficient DOF (only the eyes are in focus). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination

File:Vantaanjoki, 2010 July - Wide 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2010 at 11:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Seems oversaturated. Also there is a strange feeling of distortion of the horizontal lines. Is it real? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Seems oversaturated, harsh contrast, not a bad picture, but not exactly up to FP status, for me. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - needs a location tag - MPF (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated for me. Lycaon (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is a version with reduced coloring. --Ximonic (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Oversaturated, fisheye distortion. Please open a new subsection for the new version. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Maurilbert  Richard  [®]  23:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the composition, but this would would be significantly better if it were taken closer to sunset/sunrise. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the nominated file due to oversaturation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another version[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2010 at 11:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The another version with decreased colors. --Ximonic (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well, now it looks dull and washed out... I believe the problem to be more fundamental than just a saturation/contrast tweek in Photoshop or GIMP. To but it in non-technical terms I might understand : due to the harsh lighting of the scene, the camera had a hard time rendering subtle hues, and instead produced almost white highlights, almost black shadows, and strongly saturated colors in the greenery. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I think this is a very fine image, though maybe not up to FP standards. I still don't like the fish-eye distortion though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yeager supersonic flight 1947.ogg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2010 at 19:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yeager supersonic flight 1947.ogg to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The National Archives - uploaded by MER-C - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this is featured pictures, not featured videos (there are no objective criteria set for this kind of files).

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.

Lycaon (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cetonia aurata (Linnaeus 1761).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2010 at 13:34:01 (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) 13:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Not sure yet of what my vote will be... But this is close to the best we can get using the flash, with all the specular reflections and flat lighting. I would have given more space around the critter though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF to low for me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very atypical for a C. aurata. The animal looks dead and it is even as if it is missing some legs. Not really a wowing composition. Lycaon (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon, at least two of its legs on the near side are broken, missing their outer segments - MPF (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- How could I miss that? A shame. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - After the explanations. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everything said.  Richard  [®]  23:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Freunde, warum übernehmt Ihr ungeprüft Aussagen von anderen und geht in falsche Opposition? Ich habe eine große Hochachtung vor Euch, vor Euerm Sachverstand und vor Eurer Integrität, aber nun verfallt Ihr dem Herdentrieb und eröffnet friendly fire. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The cetonia aurata is alive and had been running one hour on the leaf und flew away with the loud sound: „brrrrrr...“. The two legs on the near side are not broken. These long feets (you name it „outer segments“) are inside of the legs like the tongue in the mouth. The cetonia aurata pulls the feets inside and push them out if it is needed. You see in my image: the cetonia aurata don’t need to push out the feets always. I took this image with sharpness on the legs and on the feet to show this and to get a high encyclopedic value. Please compare these images: File:Cetonia aurata take off composition 05172009.jpg, File:Rosenkäfer an Löwenzahn.jpg, File:Laitche-P066.jpg, File:Green beetle on bud.jpg, File:Cetonia aurata side.jpg, File:Cetonia aurata on Crataegus monogyna.jpg. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't claim it was dead or missing legs, I merely stated that it gave that impression. Perception is very important for an FP. C. aurrata is especially beautiful when the epitomizing gold-green lustre of its elytra is visible. That would give it real encyclopaedic value. Lycaon (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jf1911jf1911
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very bad posture of the animal --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Liberty 2009 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2010 at 22:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by TEK - uploaded by TEK - nominated by TEK -- TEK (talk • e-mail) 22:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TEK (talk • e-mail) 22:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a lot of sky, very little resolution on the Statue. We've got way better pictures of that statue. --Dschwen (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: I contributed one with about 10x the detail on the statue, and that is not even featured. --Dschwen (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think sky in images like these is very important. As opposed to yours, which was cropped to a margin of only a few pixels and almost no sky at all. TEK (talk • e-mail) 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a few pixels are actually a few hundred pixels. And you ave excessive amounts of information-free blueness. --Dschwen (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I agree that some other pictures of this Statue have better detail and might be better candidates. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Dschwen and MAURILBERT - Man On Mission (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At bottom it's good but not outstanding enough, sorry. Your personal preferences for composition/image buildup aren't implicitly the best for giving the most of effective value onto that scene.  Richard  [®]  12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition. Or other said, way to small resolution for this composition cause now there is nearly no detail of the statue visible. --mathias K 12:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. TEK (talk • e-mail) 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uplistsikhe_view.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2010 at 08:03:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by EvgenyGenkin - nominated by George M. --George M. (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting place but mediocre quality and composition, sorry. The disturbing meadow in the upper quarter was unnecessary.  Richard  [®]  12:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A difficult subject with an interesting environmental context. Good colour range. oneblackline (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes the subject so difficult ? IMO it's a freely accessible tourist attraction.  Richard  [®]  21:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not so freely, you know. It's located on the bank of the river, between two mountains. Anyway, oneblackline seems to be talking about photographic difficulties.--George M. (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes... the large area and flatness of the subject limits the options the photographer has to make a striking image, but the photographer has produced a competent image, of an apparently very interesting subject. oneblackline (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image. –BruTe ^Talk 07:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, I have no Problem with the meadow ;) --Don-kun (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support . . . but what meadow? I see no meadow in the upper quarter! - MPF (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for my bad english. Of course I meant the hedge on the lower quarter ;-)  Richard  [®]  15:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The composition is trivial and the image quality not up to FP standards. Sorry. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No sexual content --Niabot (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really good reason ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your votes (Niabot's) recently to prove a point are not really appreciated. Lycaon (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 12:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geocoding would be nice.  Richard  [®]  21:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. We have a lot of photos of Uplistsikhe but only one covers the entire area. Geagea (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lupunight.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2010 at 12:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by sh1019 - uploaded by sh1019 - nominated by sh1019 -- Sh1019 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info LuPu Bridge during EXPO 2010
Support -- Sh1019 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful bridge, somewhat unsharp picture. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imho not sharp enough, perspective distortion, disturbing handrail and crane, subject too small --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Heavily distorted, poor image quality (unsharp and undetailed). Close to FPX. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not up to FP standards, sorry  Richard  [®]  21:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from the bad quality: Terrible composition, 75% of the picture consists of unnatural brown sky --Simonizer (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2010 at 10:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Jordan, Amman, Ruins of the temple of Hercules.
Neutral Not bad, not extraordinary either (slightly softer than the best pictures in the genre, slightly greyish and dull, too). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing very wrong with the picture, which is a fine depiction of the subject. But neither the composition, the colors or the image quality (check the halo around the human figure) are up to FP standards. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gdansk-greenBridge-gp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2010 at 17:18:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kolossos -- Kolossos (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two disturbing points: the part of the bridge on the left border and the cropped tower. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool to see a picture from Wikimania 2010 up for FP, but I don't think the composition is quite the level of quality necessary. There are better images in the category. Steven Walling 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, in my opinion, this is just a good tourist shot. --Aqwis (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picnic tournai tapisserie.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2010 at 22:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Tapestry probably made in Tournai in the early Renaissance, photo by Jebulon - uploaded and by nominated by Jebulon. This picture shows a close-up of a hanging tapestry of the parable of the prodigal son, and is a unique testimony of leisures of Lords and Ladies (here, a picnic) during the beginning of the Renaissance in Europe. -- Jebulon (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator. -- Jebulon (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a light fall-off to the bottom right and the crop seems a bit random. I'm not sure the photo is enough of a work on its own to merit the FP badge, and if we are featuring the tapestry itself then I'd like to see a better reproduction of it (better light, better crop). --Dschwen (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe. Let's promote butterflies and flowers, as usual. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mh, I see one butterfly that might have a chance and zero flowers on the page. Maybe time for a reality check? --Dschwen (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I have to agree with Dschwen - balanced light is what I may consider necessary when photographing artwork, as it reflects the true coloring of the piece. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Celastrina argiolus 1(loz).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2010 at 17:16:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by loz -- Loz (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Loz (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Commons, the first gallery of butterflys in the world!--Citron (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks nice at first sight but for a "easy" lateral shot it has much 2 low DOF and lacking sharpness, especially on the wingtips and the plant - which is hardly surprising at f/8. Here is a picture which has low DOF, too but the tight focal plane is at least crisp and embeds the flower as well.  Richard  [®]  21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I have to agree with Richard, grrrr... A very nice shot, specially the composition, but the insect bar is really high in terms of image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Some flaws, but it is not a studio work, you need a little indulgence. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There seem to have been no indulgence before. --Moros y Christianos (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kyu-Daijoin-teien05o4272.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2010 at 14:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- 663h (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice place and nice picture but nor featurable imo. The composition is a bit boring (too symmetrical) and the image could be sharper. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the symmetry is no problem, but the big factory roof behind, and the car park at the left, do spoil it as a nice pic. - MPF (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Here is a very famous garden. And, a large roof that exists on the back ground is Nara Hotel that is one of the superlative degree hotels in Japan. --663h (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geocoding would be nice.  Richard  [®]  21:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors look flat and the building behind is bothering. --Moros y Christianos (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image. Please add geocoding. Yann (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Best I can judge from google earth is 34°40'41"N 135°50'04"E, if someone wants to check - MPF (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abies grandis cross section.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2010 at 19:10:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Crusier - uploaded by Crusier - nominated by Crusier -- Crusier (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Crusier (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Correct picture, maybe a good QI candidate but nothing special justifying FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alves. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI maybe, but FP ?  Richard  [®]  14:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is nominated at QIC. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Richard --AngMoKio (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20091128 Loutra Thermes Xanthi Thrace Greece 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2010 at 13:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ggia - uploaded by Ggia - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning composition, quality above average. Imo featured, although I wonder if the colors are as in reality... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InfoThe colours are real.. it is a natural hot spring/spa.. look the close-up photo of that spring:
Ggia (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- I don't like the tight crop on the human figure: it makes the composition unbalanced and affects the sense of scale. As a side note, the trash should be collected before the nomination... Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Background very under-exposed; also ditto to Alvesgaspar on the litter - MPF (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly because of the litter. Lycaon (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this quite striking, with great light and colours. The litter and power lines are a disadvantage, but I like it enough to support overall. --99of9 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info New version of the image has been uploaded, no litter, no power-lines, higher resolution-quality, more light in the dark parts. Ggia (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version. Striking as well as high quality. --Dcrjsr (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Yann (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --Simonizer (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad! --Karel (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the person standing at the side. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julian Assange 2010-front.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2010 at 10:53:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Markchew2010 - uploaded by Markchew2010 - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Exudes an image to match the persona. oneblackline (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jf1911jf1911 (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm sorry, I don't really understand what is featurable here... --Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the image. Rama (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm concerned that this could be a copyvio. We've only had the file for a couple of weeks and the user's other upload (a side view of the same subject) was deleted. If it survives the test of time I'll vote to feature. --99of9 (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image is high resolution, consistent with another portrait seen on Mark Chew's website, and the EXIF of the two images uploaded by User:Markchew2010 are consistent; both Chew and Assange are Australian. These indices do not point to a copyvio. I have already sent a mail to Chew to confirm this upload and I am waiting for the answer. Rama (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the photo has been wikileaked? ;-) MPF (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the homework Rama. I'll happily revoke my vote (and support undeletion of the other one) if it turns out to be legitimate. --99of9 (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Citron (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Chouette crâne (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2010 at 12:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 Images; F20; ISO 100; 1/10s
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure there's enough clarity on the recess of the eye socket. Otherwise I'd support. oneblackline (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I wonder why you make a panorama of such a small object. Did you try focus bracketing instead, to guarantee that the whole skull is focused (example here)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are not three types panorama picture: the camera does not move. These are three pictures with three different focus. They are not made-to-end tips but superimposed. With IQ you have a hornet with 8 photos. It's a bit long but the results are interresting. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused, how do you get 36 Mp with this camera? Did you upsample the result? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only 25,7 Mpxl. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, 7,143 x 5,095 = 36,393,585 > 36 Mpix -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The picture that emerges from the device is 25.7 Mpxl, it is very tight on the subject, and as I was told a Portuguese friend, former sea captain, I add a little space for aesthetics. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I understand now. Who's that moron? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy and unsharp, but OK. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry my friend, but a studio shot like this should be perfect. As far as I see, the closest parts of the skull are not on focus (the lowest part of the beak, for example). This means that a larger number of photos have to be made in order to cover the whole depth of the subject. As for the noise/artifacts, I don't thing it is a serious problem, especially if you intend to make paper copies. However it can be minimized by a careful choice of the exposure parameters (longer exposures are associated with more noise). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reste un problème : la stabilité. Il me faut une table micrométrique, car au déclanchement du rideau l'apareil bouge, avec ces réglages çà ne pardonne pas. Soit alors abandonner l'éclairage continu pour des flashs que je n'aime pas pour minimiser l'erreur. Je continu à chercher et je m'approche de la solution. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nevertheless --Llez (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masai Woman.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2010 at 06:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Petronas - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 06:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX ^talk 06:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good portrait, but it's a bit noisy in places. Not sure if it's the best of the best. Steven Walling 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good portrait, neutral background --Schnobby (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos Best form of showing one's culture Ter890 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice composition and contrast of colors. Tiptoety ^talk 03:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the background is too confusing --Simonizer (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ayacop (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC) the background is not confusing[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Canoeing-on-Lake-Saimaa-at-sunset.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2010 at 14:17:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Petritap - uploaded by Petritap - nominated by Petritap -- Petritap (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Front bedchamber in Gatchina.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2010 at 21:32:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Trance Light - uploaded by Trance Light - nominated by Trance Light -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality: noise, unsharpness, framing, tilt. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Myriapoda in glass.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2010 at 13:17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cody escadron delta - uploaded by Cody escadron delta - nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Falkirk wheel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2010 at 16:16:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by AndiW - uploaded by AndiW - nominated by oneblackline (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- oneblackline (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor image quality: noise and lack of detail. A shame because I love this camera (I got one too). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the mediocre quality already mentioned by Alves I think the composition/angle is not the best. For seeing the wheel working a shot from the other side would be better. And anyway for FP an illustration of the whole ground would be much better because of max. value.  Richard  [®]  15:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ikuno Ginzan Silver Mine Asago Hyogo34bs5s4272.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2010 at 15:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- 663h (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark shadows in the eyes, could be sharper, perhaps because of f4,5 --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor ligthing. Statues, as well as people, shoudn't be shot in direct sunlight due to the harsh shadows. The exposure choice also seems a bit random to me, but maybe you wanted the background unfocused. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geocoding would be nice.  Richard  [®]  21:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting OK for me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kein FP. Not enough punch. --Moros y Christianos (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cymbiola nobilis 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2010 at 07:10:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Let the poor thing breathe! Easy to fix: just add some more black around the subject, especially at left and right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done As proposed by Alvesgaspar --Llez (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ayacop (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC) there could be much more interesting multiview photos (hint hint)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 06:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is not equal/consistent. Moros y Christianos (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:ESO - The Carina Nebula (by).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2010 at 02:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the ESO - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please don't oppose because it's a space picture, we haven't have a space FP for a while. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oooh... The colours... Ter890 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good pic. Can someone add the very large pic download caution / thingy viewer tag? (I can't find the tag) - MPF (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't, it is not "very large". --Dschwen (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is 20 megapixels enough for {{LargeImage}}? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've seen it used (presumably un-necessarily) on far smaller images. But this one surely is big enough for it. - MPF (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I added it (sorry Daniel). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, until I cleaned up the use of the LargeImage template (and the template itself) its use was a completely inconsistent mess (often times just used to brag about how awesomely "big" ones uploads were). Most of the really big images were not even tagged. I wrote and operate a bot that tags and untags images based on a fixed rule which makes the template a lot more useful. The threshold is of course chosen arbitrarily and I already stated my view on this on Template talk:LargeImage. To put it brief: 20MP is not computerbreakingly large these days. The image will get untagged automatically during the next bot run. --Dschwen (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This pic is 38 megabytes . . . which would be a very severe problem for those people who are still on dial-up modems (of whom there are plenty, in rural and third-world regions). So I'd say the LargeImage is very relevant here. - MPF (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please raise you concerns at Template talk:LargeImage, thanks. --Dschwen (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As far as this image is concerned this amount of bytes for this amount of pixels is a completely ridiculous compression factor. The image was apparently encoded by someone who does not have a clue about how JPG compression works. --Dschwen (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I think 50 MP is a good standard for using this template. Thanks Dswchen. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Pelecanus conspicillatus pair swimming.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2010 at 10:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support thought it was a nice juxtaposition -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support indeed very nice, like two mirrors --Schnobby (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality and composition. --Taraxacum (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it! --Llez (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 16:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 08:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yes! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely. Jonathunder (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong composition. --Elekhh (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Makele-90 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent shot! -- MJJR (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wow, great shot. I love how the bird pop out. How did you do that? All natural lighting? --Dschwen (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. It was overcast, but the cloud density was low near the horizon as the sun was setting. The dark green is a reflection of trees across the bay (now geocoded). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing! Tiptoety ^talk 03:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's all said ;-) Memorino (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. --99of9 (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!! --mathias K 11:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Revolver Lefaucheux IMG 3108.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2010 at 15:29:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 19:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 03:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - BINOY ^Talk 14:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Certainly a QI and most probably a VI but nothing extraordinary here justifying the FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weapons should be censored!!! *justjoking* Too plain and uniteresting to be a FP. --Niabot (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Burk! --Citron (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI yes, but for FP status it's too plain. If there was at least a nicer composition I had kept my nose out.  Richard  [®]  21:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Niabot - MPF (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cmentarz wojenny nr 91 - nagrobek niemiecki.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2010 at 20:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but I don't see anything featurable here, either in the theme or in the image itself. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Why black and white? Jonathunder (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? --Pudelek (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaroměř Josefov from air 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2010 at 20:37:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The wing strut is distracting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, the wing brace is very disturbing ... there arises the question if the image should be cropped ?  Richard  [®]  00:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like aerial shots, but unfortunately the angle of the shot makes the composition rather poor. Also, the crop needs work. Tiptoety ^talk 03:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another version[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes. Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2010 at 20:37:16 (UTC)

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk)
Oppose Disimprovement.  Richard  [®]  18:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think this is an improvement in some ways, but not enough for FP. Sorry. Jonathunder (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jonathunder; sorry, but I don't think there's much that can be done to improve it anymore than what has been done. The perspective of the image isn't the best. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aquatic Dead Zones.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2010 at 14:50:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Robert Simmon & Jesse Allen (NASA) - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This diagram shows the relationship between human population density & many of our planet’s dead zones.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Crude and simplifed representation of a complex phenomenon, lacks sophistication. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but the map is not good enough. Some of the dead zones are in the middle of the ocean... Yann (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others and also quality is low (circles are not even round). Moreover this should be a vector image. Lycaon (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perisoreus canadensis GJ.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2010 at 15:09:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by --Cephas (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC) -- Cephas (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Steven Walling 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good located pic of wild bird, but wish it had been allowed to preen before the photo was taken! - MPF (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was raining, the bird was wet. Actually, I like the details of the down on the belly visible on maximum size. --Cephas (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice shot! Memorino (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot --mathias K 11:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportA wonderful image.--George M. (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RhB Ge 4-4 III UNESCO Weltkulturerbe auf Landwasserviadukt.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2010 at 21:26:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Probably the most popular railway viaduct in Switzerland, the Landwasser Viaduct of the Albula Railway. Note the locomotive; the advertisement on it depicts this very viaduct!
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish there had been more snow, but well, can't have everything... --Kabelleger (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too excited by the dark background. The Tunnel is barely visible. --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question How is it that the background is almost black, yet the bridge and train look like they are in broad daylight? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a gorge, look a at Google Maps. Or here. At a certain time of day the sunlight does not hit the gorge wall anymore. --Dschwen (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Oppose Lots of value but I dont like the hard contrast of the shadows in the background plus the composition is a bit to general for my taste. We already have a nice featured picture of this building. Admittedly the existing FP doesn't show the entire building but it has much nicer contrasts and a rousing composition.  Richard  [®]  22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Changed my vote to oppose. Somehow it looks unreal - nothing which is to be accounted to the photographer but maybe it was the wrong daytime for the CCD.  Richard  [®]  21:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment The hard contrast is exactly the part I like, it makes the building stand out from the background. Oh well. --Kabelleger (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the contrast! --Citron (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The composition is great (better than the existing FP imo) and the image quality good enough. FP for me. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Alvesgaspar. Yann (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like colours, nor contrast, nor composition. Nothing so outstanding in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Alvesgaspar and other supporters. -- MJJR (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great composition, much better than the current FP. Is a pitty the tunnel entrance is not lit. --Elekhh (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great contrast! --Aqwis (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very strong composition all around. Great work. Steven Walling 06:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes of course. Moros y Christianos (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
是 -- Takabeg (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Memorino (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erinaceus europaeus in Avesta 04.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 17:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by V-wolf - uploaded by V-wolf - nominated by V-wolf -- V-wolf (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So cute! But noisy... --Citron (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is another image in the same series just as noisy or should I withdraw this image in favour of the other one? --V-wolf (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- You do whatever you think it is the best. But a different photo will need a brand new nomination, not just a new version of the present one. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not to mention tilted and posterized. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

V-wolf (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church building Petrodvorets.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2010 at 14:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Осенняя мгла - uploaded by Осенняя мгла - nominated by Осенняя мгла -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Осенняя мгла (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a beautiful picture of the church building Petrodvorets. Осенняя мгла (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Yes, the church is beautiful but not the image quality. The picture is unsharp, tilted and the camera location is not the best. Please try again. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Alvesgaspar, and I shall add: perspective distortion, unfortunate framing and crop.--MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geocoding would be nice.  Richard  [®]  21:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :-) When I ever get a chance, take off even better. But this is a good result. Осенняя мгла (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - shadows. Perhaps try a different time or a day with more even lighting? Jonathunder (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but too soft for me to vote support. Blooming seems to be a problem here too. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just a tourist snapshot, nothing exceptional in this image--Avala (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Underwater-blender.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2010 at 15:12:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Non realistic underwater scene renderer in blender.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Size is to be borderline. Why ?  Richard  [®]  17:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Im currently rendering on an higher version of the image, that should had been up by now, but i made a mistake. So im currently rendering it again (will maybe take some hours) --Niabot (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know how it's difficult to achieve such a result but it's not quite to the today standards in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Uploaded the updated version, that should had been up for some hours. --Niabot (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Interesting, but does it have any educational value? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry; this would be impressive in the nineties, but not in 2010. --Aqwis (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aqwis: 90th? You must be kidding. Show me any comparable picture from that time.
  - This movie came out with the first release of AW Maya 1998, so it should be done in 97. Here is one from 1995 Maybe they hadn't all that features of nowadays packages, but that was still a time where most of the features was drawn or faked - as example caustics. Shurely you can't expect that most of the users can understand features like normal mapping, subsurface scattering or ambient occlusion. They compare it with the graphic impression not with features.  Richard  [®]  09:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @The High Fin Sperm Whale: It uses different raytracing techniques, like displacement mapping (rocks), normal mapping (fishes), subsurface scattering (anything thats transparent), soft shadows (overall), particle systems (grass, bubbles), billboards (lightrays in the back), ambient occlusion (overall) and any of the more usual techniques. --Niabot (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Niabot: It might add a lot of value if you put in a few annotations that explain which technique was used where. Apart from that, it would be great to have the original Blender file so that whoever feels like it can play around with it. --Kabelleger (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which's species of fishes and jellyfishes have you represented ? --Citron (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so good quality (not state-of-the-art). Also composition is cluttered. Moros y Christianos (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality isn't that bad. I like it better than your other pictures. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I added some annotations, maybe someone want to read and correct them (my english is not the best). The species are not modeled after a real counterpart, they are purely imaginative. I might upload the blender file later, but i have to exclude some textures for which i only have a personal license. --Niabot (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For textures, I'd be surprised if you can't find adequate material on commons :). And for justifying my oppose (and others'), I share this little link, where you'll find some very nice scenes from Gilles Tran. Most of them (if not all) rendered in Povray (Gilles Tran won several IRTC contests). Many of his 90s scenes would earn my support. - Benh (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of his late 90s scenes ;) (just had a look again...) - Benh (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a better comparison i searched for underwater scenes. That are all i could find inside your linked page: [11] 1998, [12] 1999, [13] 2001, [14] 2005.

If you need something freaky inside this image. No problem, then i will create something more abstract. But that wasn't my intention. --Niabot (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's more difficult to create organic things. But I feel Gilles tran images are better thought in their composition. As mentioned, general impression is more important than the features. - Benh (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Textures on commons? Are you kidding? There is not a single Texture with a corresponding normal diffuse, specular, whatever map. Didn't saw even one seamless texture. --Niabot (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hardly remember about the normal diffuse or whatever things, but for seamless issue, you can work a little bit with photoshop and cloning tools. You may even find textures so large that they won't need to repeat. But, do we really need specular I don't know what to get good images ? Do the normal/specular stuffs really have to match the original textures ? I don't see many textures here but I love this picture. - Benh (talk)

just browsed and found this using same software. I like it more. - Benh (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just not Featured-level impressive. Steven Walling 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Steven. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose , though thanks (honestly) for reminding me of the 1990s graphics --Avala (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but I don't really see how this is featured-worthy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atelopus limosus male, highland color form (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2010 at 06:10:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brian Gratwicke - uploaded and nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. -- 99of9 (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much 2 low DOF, sorry. Only 15% of the image is within the focus-plane.  Richard  [®]  08:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disagree to this technical DOF fanatism ;). All necessary parts of the facing frog side is clearly visible and I don't care whether backside, which you cannot see anyway, is sharp or not. Excellent pic and composition. --Taraxacum (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not Flickr  Richard  [®]  14:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Well, Taraxacum, if I was a frog, I'd surely consider my nose, toes, hindlegs, elbows and pelvis as being necessary parts. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF too shallow. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like very much the composition, but DOF too low, unfortunately. --Cephas (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cephas. --mathias K 11:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 14:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - DOF. Jonathunder (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Actophilornis africana -Kakegawa Kacho-en, Kakegawa, Shizuoka, Japan -chick-8a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2010 at 17:30:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by su neko - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if it is africana, why is it in Japan? . . . (answer: zoo pic resulting in misleading data) - MPF (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kakegawa Kacho-en is a zoo or bird park, and there is no misleading data that I am aware of. The file is in the Category:Kakegawa Kacho-en, and so anyone who does not already know this is a Japanese bird park can follow the links. Nevertheless, I have added that it is in captivity in the image description, just in case there is anyone who is not familiar with this zoo and does not click on the category link. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality not the best. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Idem. --Cephas (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: below 2mpx (this is just 1,39) --mathias K 08:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination