Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2010 at 11:53:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chromium crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chromium crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2010 at 11:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:magno2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:magno2.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2010 at 21:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-H Worms-Stadtansicht vom Muehlberg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-H Worms-Stadtansicht vom Muehlberg.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2010 at 19:38:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Téviec Crane Homme Profil Droit II.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Téviec Crane Homme Profil Droit II.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2010 at 22:50:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Butterfly 053.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Butterfly 053.JPG
Support - I was on the fence with this one, given that it almost has too much going on, which kinda of distracts from the butterfly. But, I think the technical quality and the educational aspect are good enough to warrant a support. Tiptoetytalk18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least the species of the butterfly should be named (should be easy since the picture was obviously taken in a zoo. Correct me if I'm wrong.) --79.249.249.12520:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the above is a local enwiki convention, and I've disputed its relevance for Commons on your talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first steps guidelines on commons refers to language wikis for formatting guidelines; see Commons:First steps/Upload form, which directly links the en wiki to clearly show that the file extension should be in the lower case (jpg) there. I think that it is common sense and good practice that images candidates here should follow the guidelines in the biggest wiki, the en wiki. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons recommends language wiki guidelines and specifically links to the en wiki guidelines. It says on commons in the fist steps guidelines (linked above); "You should use a descriptive name and follow the draft Commons language policy and/or the Wikipedia naming conventions for the language used, which give guidance on capitalisation, non-alphanumeric characters, etc." Snowmanradio (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only the subfamily was identified, and that's fairly broad. It seems to me like the Caligo genus would fit, maybe Caligo illioneus? (e.g. [2][3][4]) --Avenue (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2010 at 23:01:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spring April 2010-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spring April 2010-2.jpg
Info Spring is here! Composition on yellows and purples: Coleostephum myconis (yellow) and Echium plantagineum (purple). This was a bit more difficult to do than it seems due to the need of a generous dof, the large dynamic range between the yellows (almost burned) and the purples (a bit dark) ... and the wind. Anyway that is not a criterium for promotion. Beauty is. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be a different subject. This is basically like saying I don't really like the composition. There should be a fighter jet in focus and the background should be a fiery explosion. --Dschwen (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I get the visual appeal of the yellow next to the purple, but I don't get that's there's a clear educational quality to the image. If you simply mean showing the flowers, I don't think it's a very clear or evocative photo of either species. Compare to Alvesgaspar's FP nom above, File:Spring April 2010-3.jpgSteven Walling20:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2010 at 20:18:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose. Already stumbled across this one. It is big, I'll give it that much ;-). Unfortunately it is crooked as hell, not quite up to our standards for stitched images. --Dschwen (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm not really any good at perspective correction - the programs I use (GIMP and, uh... GIMP) have extremely limited abilities in that line (But, hey, my own work is mostly of self-made scans of engravings.) Anyone want to have a go at sorting this out? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can forget about that. GIMP won't cut it here, as it cannot properly handle the wraparound in the 360 degree projection. Actually it only works on rectilinear pictures, which this is not. Restitch with vertical guides is needed. It puzzles me a bit, that someone who is obviously able to stitch such a big image without a lots of obvious stitching faults did not manage to get the verticals straight. --Dschwen (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think a wide panorama is a good way to depict this subject except (maybe) as an academic or artistic experience. The fact is it does not illustrate what the thing really looks like. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was there today. It's not really a bad depiction, on the whole. Might cut it into two images - forwards and back - but it's a reasonable depiction on the whole Though I must say it misses out a lot of the interesting stuff there. I should dig out my camera and make a Valued Image Set or something (my camera is not good enough for FP) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2010 at 11:38:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sadhu Vârânasî .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sadhu Vârânasî .jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2010 at 01:56:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question Is there good reason to think this can be licensed freely? The description seems to imply it was produced in 1932 or later, so the artist could still have been alive in 1957 (which I think is the relevant cut-off date under Australian copyright law). --Avenue (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2010 at 01:00:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:String grown into Prunus tree.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:String grown into Prunus tree.JPG
I disagree. The only part of the image in focus is the scar from the in-grown string. Maybe because I'm familiar with it I know what it is, but I think it should be clear (and the description is there to help as well). –Juliancolton | Talk16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the linked recommendation is an enwiki convention, and most other projects have no such guideline. Commons in no way requires lower case file extensions. Jafeluv (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the upload form reminds the uploader to follow the local naming rules of the wiki where the image is intended to be used. However, this image is not used on enwiki. Jafeluv (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons recommends language wiki guidelines and specifically links to the en wiki guidelines. It says on commons in the fist steps guidelines (linked above); "You should use a descriptive name and follow the draft Commons language policy and/or the Wikipedia naming conventions for the language used, which give guidance on capitalisation, non-alphanumeric characters, etc." Snowmanradio (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how it makes a difference. I've never heard of any technical distinction between "JPG" and "jpg", and I've uploaded hundreds of images without ever encountering an issue. –Juliancolton | Talk18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bark doesn't look like Prunus to me. Any pics of the foliage / flowers / fruit, to check the identity? - MPF (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely right; major error on my part. I moved the image and FPC page to remove the misidentification. Still, I don't feel the species is particularly relevant, but I'll try to identify it if it's deemed necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk19:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the species of the tree is an important part of the documentation. The tree does not only show a piece of string, but also lichen, which may be identifiable. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a matter of personal opinion, which is perfectly fine, but I don't feel it has any significant bearing on the quality of the image. I'll try to reshoot it from different angles over the next weekend and see what happens. –Juliancolton | Talk22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the tree and the lichen on the surface of the bark are important features of the photograph, and I have added lichen to the image description. The guideline (see above) says; "Focus - every important object in the picture should normally be sharp." Snowmanradio (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the lichens and the tree bark aren't the main subject — the in-grown string is. That's my feeling as the photographer, at least. Thanks for the edits though. –Juliancolton | Talk23:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 07:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palmetto Park Rd and Mizner Blvd 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palmetto Park Rd and Mizner Blvd 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 14:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AgamaSinaita01 ST 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AgamaSinaita01 ST 10.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 17:44:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Hm, surely you can advise me then how to make the composition of this high alpine plant, which is shown in its entirety, well separated from the background, more appealing. --Dschwen (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the flowers appear too far appart (distance between them larger than to edge of image), from a different angle would appear closer and more cohesive. But a very good image with high EV. --Elekhh (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, the out of focus blossom on the left (foreground) spoils it for me. Could also do with a tighter crop in my opinion. bamse (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This plant is quite rare.. It looks like this has the monstrosity variation in the flower.. If I see this correctly and I think I do, this is a rare find. GerardM (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Gerard, even in your support you still manage to call my flower a monstrosity ;-). Hehe, just kidding. Interesting find though. Too bad the nomination period is almost over. I doubt many people will be looking this far down the page. Can you point me to some literature on this? --Dschwen (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 19:11:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- This picture shows the bird much better.. When we can have multiple dogs and cats, multiple vultures is no problem. GerardM (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dschwen. We can have several pictures of the same subject, but only if there is a obvious difference between the two. These two images are nearly identical, except the one already featured shows the animal better and was nominated by the author. If you _really_ think this one is supperior, de-list the other one first. --ianaré (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2010 at 05:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Big wave breaking in Santa Cruz.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Big wave breaking in Santa Cruz.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 21:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Magna Carta.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Magna Carta.jpg
Comment always the same problem... As uploaded above another version (with the same text, in fact, it's another document), the description in the file page is not true, and concerns only the first uploaded image : where is, here, King John's Great Seal ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the description on the file page is accurate and true. The original file uploaded (as well as the 2nd file uploaded) was the later 1225 version (the seal on which is of Henry III). The third file uploaded was the even later 1297 version (confirmed by Edward I). For information regarding those two later versions of the Magna Carta, see the timeline of the Magna Carta at http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/shockwave/magna_carta_broadband.htm. See the history of the file (and its description) before assuming, please. As for the "missing" seal, according to http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/basics/basics.html (which you can get to from the file description page) "Three of the four surviving copies of Magna Carta have lost their wax seals over the centuries. The only one which still has its seal is the burnt copy on display here [at the British Library]. Unfortunately the seal was destroyed when the charter was burnt by fire in 1731..." Consequently, this is the only high resolution image of any of the four known surviving copies of the original 1215 Magna Carta. Earthsound (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read all before assuming, and I understand what you say. Please note that I did'nt vote. I'm afraid that my Comment was not clear, because not careful enough, sorry. But i did not really understand why the description page says authentificated by the Great Seal of King John, because the seal is missing. I was confused with the first document uploaded, which have a visible seal (of a later king, ok). I still think that all of these very interesting documents are different files, and not different versions of the same (even the text is the same). And please don't forget I wright here in a non natural language for me, and it's a bit hard for me in this kind of matters, sorry...--Jebulon (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When referring to the Magna Carta, it is normally understood to be the original, 1215 version, hence my uploading the original 1215 version on top of the 1225/1297 versions. I can understand your initial confusion, if you're assuming the original image uploaded was, in fact, the 1215 original. On a side note, both Henry III's version in 1225 & Edward I's in 1297 are shorter than the original, having omitted and changed some things. I agree with you, though. The three versions should be regarded as separate files/documents. I would posit that the latter two could/should be uploaded and named (something like) Magna Carta 1225.jpg and Magna Carta 1297.jpg. [forgot to sign this, should be: Earthsound (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]
Moral support. Important, but not a typical Commons-style FP, as it lacks clear visual appeal. It might do well as a VP. Good resolution and sharpness, but there seem to be several features that might be photographic artefacts - e.g. dark lines (scratches?) like those below the upper right corner. --Avenue (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 19:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portland Japanese Garden maple.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portland Japanese Garden maple.jpg
Support Just beautiful. The color and the shadow is amazing. It is rare to find old maple tree like this even in Japan. I am envious of Portlanders who can visit this garden easily. --Shuhari (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral A lovely scene, generally well captured, but let down IMO by some fringing/CA around the brighter patches (especially under the main branch, centre top). --Avenue (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that there's some fringing that's pretty noticeable. But it's not the dreaded purple fringe, and I think it adds nice glow to the photo using the bright natural light. Just my opinion though, and I can see how you might disagree about its effect on educational value. Steven Walling05:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, it's not bad enough to oppose over. It's still a negative factor to me, but the photo's strengths compensate at least enough to leave me neutral. --Avenue (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, Portland's Japanese garden is pretty old (for the West coast, at least) and it's a favorite spot for photographers. Sadly a lot of the photos are in the heavily processed Flickr style. Steven Walling05:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does this affect the validity of the license on the image? They claim "Any photographer who uses images of the Portland Japanese Garden for commercial, advertising, or promotional purposes is required to pay $150 fee" - is that compatible with CC-BY-SA (free commercial use permitted), or is it just unenforceable bluster by the Portland garden? - MPF (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, this sounds like the Olympics issue all over again. My unschooled and un-lawyerly opinion would be that it's unenforceable and it's unlikely to be challenged in court, so there's no sound reason to reject the photographer's right to license their work however they like. Steven Walling17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An informal poll of my Portland photographer friends says that because the garden is private property, the restriction is legit. It sucks, but we may need to remove this and any other photos of the garden. :( Steven Walling18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert either, but my thinking is that any rights the Garden might have over this image are sufficiently unclear that we needn't delete it. If the photographer signed an agreement about their photos when they entered the garden, they might have broken that agreement by licensing the image as they did, or if someone eventually uses the photo commercially. But we have no evidence of any contract. Without one, I think it's essentially unenforceable bluster. --Avenue (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 20:16:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Malo - armes de Bretagne.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Malo - armes de Bretagne.jpg
Support Very good, and interesting light. Illustrative and useful. The frame shows typical breton stones. To Schnobby : don't worry, unappealing composition is the April thema of a buging bot. Last month it was : nothing special. Would you bet for May ? Potius mori quam foedari --Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 21:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Utah-BryceCanyon-Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Utah-BryceCanyon-Panorama.jpg
Comment - colours look a bit off (too red/yellow, not green enough); most obvious in the two pines just right of the horses, which look sickly yellow rather than green - MPF (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. First, the light was greyish (but with a beautiful sky), and second and foremost I wasn't on my computer and calibrated screen to do the panorama. I have updated the gamma. --Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The lighting seems bland, not very sharp (especially for a pano). A FP of one of the most photographed places on earth should be higher quality. Cacophony (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll have to Oppose too. It looks nice enough before zooming in, but there's an odd fuzziness all over the image, particularly in the branches of the trees. I've seen a similar effect before in some less-than-perfect HDR images (like this one), making me wonder if that might be the explanation here too. Also, it's definitely tilted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2010 at 06:35:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:lunar eclipse optics.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:lunar eclipse optics.jpg
Oppose (for now) I suppose the lower line of images is meant to show the view from the moon (Please correct me if I am wrong). However I am not sure how to understand the planes of light in those pictures. Could you enlighten me? bamse (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the image caption in en:Lunar eclipse (This diagram shows how the moon appears reddish orange during a lunar eclipse.), I am even more confused. I cannot see how the diagram shows a reddish orange moon. (The second line of images shows the sun and the earth (I can make out the American continent).) Please clarify and expand the image description. bamse (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the rightmost moon in the upper row is the reddish-orange one. But I agree this should all be spelt out in the image description. --Avenue (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I can begin to make out what its trying to show, but the image description is extremely brief and uninformative. It needs much better documentation to be an FP, IMO. --Avenue (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, visually, but title and explanations are not enough explicative. Is it a screen capture of a video game ? A pinball by night ? A sample of Pop-art ? A photograph of visual effects of using LSD ? Sorry, but it is absolutely incomprehensible for a poor reviewer like me (even more confused after reading en:Lunar eclipse, as Bamse). Does it show a spatial effect on the moon of "prism", and "light decomposition" ? Why 3 earthes (I suppose it's earth) above and why 4 below ? Why the 4 below are not one the same level ? Too many questions...--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 06:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Please use the file extension jpg in the lower-case next time. I think that it is common sense and good practice that images candidates here should follow the guidelines. The only file extensions recommended for photographs by commons are jpg and jpeg; see Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Format_guidance. Further, the first steps guidelines on commons refers to language wikis for formatting guidelines; see Commons:First steps/Upload form, which directly links to en:Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_titles_and_file_names (or the language wiki for the language being used to view commons). The en wiki clearly indicates that the file extension should be in the lower case (jpg) there, and the en wiki says "For uniformity, lower case file name extensions are recommended." Snowmanradio (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided links to the guidelines to provide reliable information, which the photographer may not be aware. I would be interested to hear a reply from the photographer. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the guidelines precisely, no problem is to be written for me in future "JPG" in lower-case. Sorry for my english, I use a translation software --Ritchyblack (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution, good quality, good lighting. Well framed at top and bottom, and perhaps excess space in-front of bike is intentional. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 14:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pink closed Tulip.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pink closed Tulip.jpg
Info A closed, pink Tulip of the Tulipa Single Late Group.
Equivalent to saying "it's just another picture". Anything in the photograph's aspects that makes you want to oppose? ZooFari20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the bokeh of your image and your focus show technical subtlety. your composition could be improved though. try changing the angle, get your lense below the tulip, use a macro lens to show the inside of the tulip, change the lightsituation. any of this could improve the artistic value of the photography. since no other example of a single tulip for that species exists, just have a second shot. -- Peter Weis (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background isn't the best, and I believe that the picture can be shot in a better view, with the flower taking up more of the photo. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 22:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2010 at 09:58:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Andradite-Mali.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Andradite-Mali.jpg
Comment First of great picture! I am really sorry, if I am the only one with this problem, but I am unable to find the correct "perspective" on this. My eyes flicker back and forth trying make out a recognizable shape :) This is surely one heck of an optical illusion for me :D Stengaard (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel like I have to go against the trend here and oppose. It's a nice enough image, and serves its purpose on w:Andradite wonderfully, but upon a closer look the background replacement looks crude, even sloppy, and the quality of the photo itself isn't that great. For a studio photo of an inanimate subject, I'd expect a bit more, especially given the many excellent (though, alas, mostly low resolution) images of Andradite we now have. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 22:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dresden-Fuerstenzug4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dresden-Fuerstenzug4.jpg
InfoThe names are under the persons, so a annotation seems not necessary, but a english Wikipedia article would be fine. --Kolossos (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Heavy stuff... Absolutely amazing sharpness and detail. A real tour de force! Unfortunately some sharpness and/or stitching problems, e.g. the text on the left panel (blurry at full resolution) and the person "Albert 1873" (partly blurry; stitching error). -- MJJR (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoOn the left side was a scaffolding, so it was necessary to take this part from the old image. With "Albert 1873" you have right, sorry, there was movement on the camera. --Kolossos (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Getting a picture of these dimensions is hard.. I like it and I like the subject matter.. it is a sign of the time. It also demonstrates the need for software like Djatoka, looking at the original is slooooow. GerardM (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2010 at 01:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Might benefit from cropping away part of the upper, rather unattractive background..., though this can be done by any of those who use the picture. --Cayambe (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did try a couple of alternative crops before uploading it, including one along those lines. My feeling was that having a thinner strip of water along the top was potentially disorienting, giving more of an impression that the water was hanging in mid-air. But you're welcome to add an alternative if you feel it works better. --Avenue (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2010 at 19:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cat March 2010-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cat March 2010-1.jpg
Oppose agree with GerardM - while the comment above wasn't perhaps the most tactful, the implication is true; I agree the pic fails on the Value requirements "*Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: ** almost all sunsets [cats] are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others, ... **beautiful does not always mean valuable" - MPF (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2010 at 17:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Würzburger Residenz, Gartenfront.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Würzburger Residenz, Gartenfront.jpg
Support - Nice. Shame about the radio masts at the far left, but they're not conspicuous enough to mark it down (suppose they could be edited out, but then the pic wouldn't reflect reality . . . can someone go and demolish them? ;-) MPF (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice picture, and neither the radio masts nor the window cleaner on the left distracts enough to withdraw my support. Jafeluv (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - In the bottom left corner, in the lawn and some of the flowers, there seems to be some mirroring or duplication going on. It kind of looks like a reflection from water, but there doesn't appear to be an actual pond there. Maybe an artifact from the stitching process? Very minor overall, just wondering if it is something that could possibly be fixed. Sdgjake (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Sdgjake, ich kann leider kein Englisch. In diesem Bildbereich war tatsächlich ein Fehler. Ich habe nun eine neue Version hochgeladen, und hoffe, dass diese besser ist. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong there either. There's a gap in the flowerbed, but given the presence of three other such gaps (one barely visible on the opposite side in the lower right corner, two clearly visible below the eleventh window from the left and right end of the building respectively), I assume it's an actual feature of the scene. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2010 at 23:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:platbuf1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:platbuf1.JPG
Comment The first steps guidelines on commons refers to language wikis for formatting guidelines; see Commons:First steps/Upload form, which directly links to en:Wikipedia:IUP#NAME Image titles and file names on the en wiki to clearly show that the file extension should be in the lower case (jpg) there. The en wiki says "For uniformity, lower case file name extensions are recommended." I think that it is common sense and good practice that images candidates here should follow the guidelines in the biggest wiki, the en wiki. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that there is a discussion on my talk page about this topic. The only file extensions recommended for photographs by commons are jpg and jpeg; see Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Format_guidance. I have provided links to the guidelines to provide reliable information, which the photographer may not be aware. I would be interested to hear a reply from the photographer. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2010 at 06:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bell rock sedona arizona.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bell rock sedona arizona.jpg
Comment Not really, just your regular levels adjustment in Photoshop, nothing out of the ordinary. The color is what I liked, chromacolor-like result. The mountains are very red naturally, and one can evaluate color alterations in the sky for example, which look normal, as well as the greens. I underexposed from camera metering just a bit to saturate colors. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MPF, well, by over exposing, the sky will turn really light and the image as a whole will lose saturation, color balance, etc. As far as the tree being dark, they are well represented within their luminosity value, and you could get a little more detail in photoshop if you want. The main thing is that the exposure is such as to incorporate within reason the tonal values of all subjects represented. Another thing is that your monitor´s settings do not allow you to see the tonal differences in the low values. In mine I see good detail in shadows and highlights. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2010 at 06:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Montezumas castle arizona.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Montezumas castle arizona.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2010 at 23:43:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica Estrela April 2010-1a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica Estrela April 2010-1a.jpg
Info At the spot today, I expected that a shot from below would capture more effectively the expression of this Saint Mary Magadalena of Pazzy. In this interpretation the unfocused hands represent the material and imperfect world, while the face represents the imortal spirit... Basilica of Estrela, Lisbon, Portugal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, Joaquim, you are a genius. At least with respect to your nomination texts. I was already impressed by composition on green and violet, but this one takes the cake. --Dschwen (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Daniel, finally someone noticed! What Photography is to me is explained in my profile, which is sitting in the MOP page for aeons ([5]) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can take my comment at face value, I am really impressed by the ability to word the thoughts you had when composing the picture, and the fact that you had actual thoughts when taking the picture (beyond a simple mh, that looks good). The flipside is the danger of overselling your work. But labeling my comment to be sarcasm is a bit mean (and straight up bad faith). I'm a little hurt now. --Dschwen (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, Daniel, but that wasn't exactely like you say. When I was composing the picture, all I wanted was to exagerate the perspective and focus on the expression of the face. But I was not very convinced it would result (the thoughts were something like: 'mh, this one will go probably straight to the trash basket when I get home'). Only later, when adjusting the framing, did the mystical interpretation crossed my head (not bad for a non-religious person...). No, I don't believe the words help to sell the picture because most of the reviewers don't appreciate this kind of artistic liberty... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that is the superior quality of the picture! Most people here don't read the intro (or open the pic in full size, for that matter). Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine you getting hurt, unless that is another sarcastic comment as well ;-) Sorry, if I have hurt your feelings though --Muhammad (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2010 at 13:56:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Beautiful colors, nice composition, good quality. Special consideration should be given for the remoteness of the location. Also heavily used in wikipedias. Exceeds FP criteria IMO --ianaré (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2010 at 16:45:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset view at Paranal with Moon, Venus and an AT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset view at Paranal with Moon, Venus and an AT.jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Very low resolution (only 154 kilobytes - FP candidates typically need to be over 2-3 megabytes MPF (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love the composition and subject matter, and I don't know if there's anything like this, but it is of very low technical quality. --TheHighFinSpermWhale18:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Posterization. Here the filesize per pixel is so low, that it is indeed a good indicator for problems with the image. --Dschwen (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 22:54:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:pivoi2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:pivoi2.jpg
Oppose. Lighting (too much sun on the leaves top right). And yes, the composition is not bad, but that is mainly because there is not much composition. --Dschwen (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cultivar not named (it is a cultivar; the wild type doesn't have double flowers like this), and blue cast needs correcting - MPF (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes it is a cultivar. I did not know that naming it was a mandatory (not said in the french guidelines, if I'm not wrong) ...Sorry, I don't understand what you mean with the words blue cast--Jebulon (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't mandatory, but from the guidelines "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others"; a fully named and documented image is of greater value and will gain more support than one that isn't. By blue cast, I mean that the leaves are a little too blue-green, and the flower a bit too purplish-red, compared with what the actual plant would be like. I'll make an edited version to show what I mean - MPF (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2010 at 17:32:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:suckling goat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:suckling goat.jpg
Oppose It's good to have at least one decent, up-close photo of a goat kid nursing. But the lighting is pretty poor and I don't think this is FP quality composition. As you can see from the category (which I just created), it isn't even one of the best pictures of goats nursing, much less nursing mammals. Steven Walling17:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2010 at 09:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orthodox monastery.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orthodox monastery.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2010 at 09:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orthodox monastery1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orthodox monastery.jpg
Oppose - Sorry, I still have to oppose. With this new version, the colors seemed to have been dulled. Especially when looking at the artwork on the front of the monastery. Tiptoetytalk21:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 19:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:June 5, 2009 Goshen County, Wyoming tornado.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:June 5, 2009 Goshen County, Wyoming tornado.jpg
Oppose - An interesting illustration, for sure, but the composition isn't ideal. The foreground is too dark, and the field in general isn't very sharp. While the photographer couldn't have helped that the tornado is rain-wrapped, it makes it less visible and should be more prominent in an FP. –Juliancolton | Talk18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon looking at this again, on a different monitor than I have at home, I have to agree with JC and HFSW that this isn't as good as I was seeing it at home. In fact, if I had seen it as the monitor I'm currently looking at it on displays it, I probably never would have nominated. I'll go ahead and say I withdraw my nomination. Ks0stm(T•C•G)14:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 12:31:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lilium dauricum 2009-06-29.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lilium dauricum 2009-06-29.jpg
Oppose no location data. If this had been a wild origin specimen in its natural habitat, it would have been worthy of support, but the surrounding vegetation indicates it isn't. - MPF (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2010 at 21:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Centro de itajaí.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Centro de itajaí.jpg
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 02:50:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anemone blanda purple white 2010-04-24.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anemone blanda purple white 2010-04-24.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 22:49:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anser caerulescens CT5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anser caerulescens CT5.jpg
Comment To me the background is good enough. I wonder if the over-blown white would be a failing feature. I have overlooked pictures of white pelicans and other white birds for FPC, because the lack of details on white feathers. It seems to be difficult to get the right exposure for white feathers and the rest of the picture. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 03:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral rock sedona arizona 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral rock sedona arizona 2.jpg
Oppose Yes it's nice... On the other hand, not oustandingly so, and it's not like we have this few featured (or not) much better pic from this kind of landscapes of US deserts. - Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 03:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral rock sedona arizona 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral rock sedona arizona 3.jpg
Oppose I really do not like the entire foreground being underexposed. In particular the shadows on the right look like a big black splotch. The actual cathedral rock only gets a small portion of the pixels in the picture, so the surroundings should be well represented too. I'd have used a grad-ND filter in this situation. But, hey, that's just my opinion ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 02:57:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old window mexico.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old window mexico.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 00:15:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San renovato lion.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San renovato lion.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 08:35:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Temple of Poseidon at Night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Temple of Poseidon at Night.jpg
Oppose - While it has a nice composition to it, it simply is not technically sound enough. Too much noise, not very sharp, and I feel like there are issues with the lighting. Tiptoetytalk22:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 21:51:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anser caerulescens CT4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anser caerulescens CT4.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2010 at 01:54:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aquilegia formosa 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aquilegia formosa 1.jpg
Info Just a flower. Actually a little lighting experiment to accentuate the radiant beauty of the flower by making it glow from below. All by --Dschwen (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would not be fulfilling my obligations as resident nitpicker if I failed to mention that the background is pretty noisy (strange, considering equipment and settings). Very beautiful photo though. --ianaré (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--...nitpicker ? Thanks for increasing my english vocabulary...."nitpicker"... and you are volunteer for that ? Very nice photo, I like the idea of the below lighting.--Jebulon (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ... a) Some of the images getting promoted recently I feel are not held to the same standards as they were previously. b) I expect the same treatment for my photos, it helps improve my skills. --ianaré (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I needed a while, but the oftener I look at the picture, the more I like it! Good idea with the lightning from below! --mathiasK10:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 19:44:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gold ray dam.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gold ray dam.jpg
Thank you all for your kind words and comments. Sorry to be so slow to respond. User:Juliancolton has kindly offered to correct the tilt, and I have accepted the offer. In response to Noodle snacks' question, all of my sources refer to it as a dam. Finetooth (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 23:34:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jerusalem Dome of the rock BW 14.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jerusalem Dome of the rock BW 14.JPG
Comment Please use the file extension jpg in the lower-case next time. I think that it is common sense and good practice that images candidates here should follow the guidelines. The only file extensions recommended for photographs by commons are jpg and jpeg; see Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Format_guidance. Further, the first steps guidelines on commons refers to language wikis for formatting guidelines; see Commons:First steps/Upload form, which directly links to en:Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_titles_and_file_names (I see that this image is shown on several articles on the English wiki and a number of other language wikis). The en wiki clearly indicates that the file extensions in the lower case (jpg) are recommended there, and the en wiki says "For uniformity, lower case file name extensions are recommended." Snowmanradio (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your attempt to enforce consistent file extensions, but don't you think such a message would be better placed on the uploader's talk page? --Dschwen (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is to provide information on the guidelines in case the author is not aware of the recommendations. It does not imply an enforcement. The comment is relevant to this image and its FPC, so I think this is an appropriate place for such a comment. I would be interested to hear from the author. Snowmanradio (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 17:11:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lighthouse Minou before a storm.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lighthouse Minou before a storm.jpg
Oppose Lovely subject, but the photo seems to show widespread compression artefacts, especially in the sea beyond. --Avenue (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how close the storm was, but the artefacts I see are not just in the distance; they affect essentially the whole image. At full size, it's blurry or blocky more or less everywhere. The sea in the middle distance is where I could see artefacts even in the image page thumbnail, but jagged edges around the archway are also pretty clear at full size, along with artefacts above and below the road walls to its right. This is a lovely scene, but I'm sorry, I think the image was probably just too highly compressed at some point. --Avenue (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If it was your camera that caused it, all I can suggest is to shoot in high quality mode next time (or even get a camera than can save RAW images, if that's an option). If, however, it was the software you used to postprocess the image, and if you still have the original file from your camera, you could try to redo the edits and save the result with a higher JPEG quality level. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 19:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ONCF DF 115 near Taourirt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ONCF DF 115 near Taourirt.jpg
Info Morocco has a surprisingly highly developed railway system with synchronised timetables (with hourly services between several cities!), many electrified lines and heavy freight traffic on some lines. This picture, however, was taken on the outskirts of the network, and shows one of the three daily trains from Taourirt to Nador (the line to Nador was only completed a few years ago). It is hauled by a former SNCF Fret (freight division) class 72000, which kept its original livery, only the logos were replaced. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Impressive picture which seems to have a well thought out composition (like all your pics you nominate here!). --Dschwen (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. Actually on this one I found it a bit tricky to get a good crop (see file history...), but now I quite like it. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2010 at 12:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 17:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2010 at 01:57:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SideriteBresil2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SideriteBresil2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2010 at 02:24:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trafalgar Square, London 2 - Jun 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trafalgar Square, London 2 - Jun 2009.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2010 at 10:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eugene Tzigane VIII Międzynarodowy Konkurs Dyrygentów FS 2007 010popr2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eugene Tzigane VIII Międzynarodowy Konkurs Dyrygentów FS 2007 010popr2.jpg
Oppose. To me a black-and-white portrait looks plain. I think that a colour photograph would be much more informative. To me it lacks context with out view of any other musicians or the ordinance. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2010 at 14:36:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse and tide pools.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse and tide pools.jpg
Oppose So sorry, the view/composition is one of your best, but there are several stitching errors in regards to DOF. For example there is a definite line below the lighthouse where the focus shifts from the rocks/seaweed to the lighthouse (see notes). Would gladly support a corrected version of this view. --ianaré (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the notes from the image (should have been added to the nomination), and I I withdraw my nomination --Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2010 at 20:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thanks; but "Pictured in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania" - is that a wild specimen in a reserve, or a cultivated plant in a garden (in which case, has the identity been independently verified? - mis-identifications are rife in garden collections!), or what? - MPF (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very nice picture to critique. It has many elements: educational value, good photographic technique and aesthetic value. The educational value we leave to the botanists. Photographically it has good general technique, good color, texture, rythm, volume that gives off a good visual experience (this is where you can tell intuitively it is a good picture), and aesthetically speaking, well, it is just so good... bordering on the erotic. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why such a large size? I can't see any fine details justifying it. Also, the crop is too tight. It would be nice to see some whole leaves and (perhaps) the branch were the cone is attached to. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2010 at 18:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtansicht von der Deutschherrnbruecke zu Beginn der Abenddaemmerung.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtansicht von der Deutschherrnbruecke zu Beginn der Abenddaemmerung.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2010 at 21:12:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Juvenile Bald Eagle (head).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Juvenile Bald Eagle (head).jpg
Oppose on principle, in the absence of a good set of featured pictures of wild specimens of the species. Featured pics should be of high value in usage on the wikipedias that Commons serves; and species pages (particularly taxoboxes) should be illustrated by specimens in their natural habitat. Featuring images of captive specimens is likely to result in higher value but non-featured images of wild specimens being replaced on wikipedia pages by the images of captive specimens where they shouldn't be. - MPF (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2010 at 16:16:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Francisco through GGB.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Francisco through GGB.jpg
Info San Francisco as seen through the Golden Gate Bridge. You can count the rivets if you want. All by Dschwen (talk)
Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the composition/framing. Limited eductaional value too: the distance between the bridge and city is hard to estimate, the structure of the bridge is unclear. --Elekhh (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not like we have a lack of images that show the bridge as a hole. This is a detail study from a well known vantage point. --Dschwen (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, Ben... that was three years ago. But as CMehl is one of my favourite photographers on commons I take absolutely no offense in having him credited as an inspiration to me. Let me just add that I think the composition is sufficiently different, and that this idea is a little more obvious than you might think, once you are standing at the Marin Headlands. --Dschwen (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I now feel a bit sorry to have indirectly accused you of "plagiarism". Please do not take it for you. I just feel a bit sad that chmelh's pic wasn't featured, while yours seems on good path to be so, mainly for the composition reason... despite him having been the first to had the idea (at least on commons, and to my knowledge). But I agree, sometimes, there aren't thousand ways to get the picture... and often, you find out someone else took a similar picture before. I know what I'm talking about ;-) - Benh (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2010 at 02:10:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mortar firing high res.JPEGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mortar firing high res.JPEG
Comment I note that this image was first uploaded to commons on 6 November 2006 and shown on an English wikipedia article on the same day. I am not sure what the guidelines were at that time; however, the guidelines on the English wikipedia now recommend the use of lower case file extensions - jpg or jpeg for photographs. The en wiki clearly indicates that the file extensions in the lower case (jpg or jpeg) are recommended there, and the en wiki says; "For uniformity, lower case file name extensions are recommended"; see en:Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_titles_and_file_names. Further, the first steps guidelines on commons refers to language wikis for formatting guidelines; see Commons:First steps/Upload form#4. Set an appropriate file name. Also see, Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Format_guidance, which says; "For photographs, use JPEG (file extension .jpg or .jpeg)". I think that this image should not be marked down here, because its file extension does not follow recommendations; however, please consider uploading using the lowercase jpg or jpeg and change from uppercase to lowercase if necessary. It is not commons policy to change the file extensions after upload, because of the workload involved. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2010 at 02:39:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:FGM-148 Javelin - ID 061024-A-0497K-004.JPEGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:FGM-148 Javelin - ID 061024-A-0497K-004.JPEG
Support - I don't think the crop is that bad, had it included the flame coming out the back it would have been slightly better. Other then that, I think the "wow factor" makes up for the few technical aspects it is lacking. Tiptoetytalk01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2010 at 19:22:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palanga Palac Tyszkiewiczow.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palanga Palac Tyszkiewiczow.JPG
Question - this statue in front, who does it represent, who was the sculptor and why is it so prominent in the picture ? GerardM (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The statue represents Jesus Christus; it was made (most likely) by Bertel Thorvaldsen; it is so prominent, because it is the central point of the courtyard. A "welcoming" figure, when you approach the palace, coming from the city. Enzik (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2010 at 10:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spider and fly April 2010-3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spider and fly April 2010-3.jpg
Info Fatal embrace. A crab spider (Thomisus onustus) capturing a fly (Chrysomya albiceps). The prey was stabbed behind the head, where the nerves are concentrated, and quickly paralysed by the venom (see "other versions"). Soon digestive juices will be pumped into the fly's body to liquify the tissues, as spiders only ingest liquid food. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a great and rare shot, but I wonder why you nominated this picture and not your second shot of the same scene. I would prefer it because you can look into the spiders eye and see larger parts of its body. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Two reasons: the other picture is a bit below the size requirements and this one has a more original composition. But go ahead, you may do it yourself if you think it is worth :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still think the others picture encyclopedic value is higher and the size limit is for me not the ultimate reason in cases where it is technically given. But finally I give my support to your nomination. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It crossed my mind but I see no need for the picture in the available articles and am against spamming the space with FPC nominations. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2010 at 22:20:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lamborghini Super Trofeo 99 2010 amk.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lamborghini Super Trofeo 99 2010 amk.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2010 at 22:13:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ogoniok 227 sc.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ogoniok 227 sc.JPG
Oppose poor quality scan, needs restoration, lacks detailed description (who is in the picture ? what are they doing ?). --ianaré (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2010 at 21:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pavo cristatus Phasianidae.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pavo cristatus Phasianidae.jpg
Oppose Very nice composition, but ... a couple quality issues : sharpness could be better, slight overexposure on the head causing loss of some detail of the white skin. --ianaré (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is a little motion blur, but composition and light makes it easy for me to support. And, nice to see you back! BG Leviathan (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2010 at 16:55:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, I love the ambience too, but the wires and the poster on the tree at left seem too distracting to me. --Avenue (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2010 at 17:21:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Scopus.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Scopus.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2010 at 01:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:STS-125 and STS-400 on Launch Pads.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:STS-125 and STS-400 on Launch Pads.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 10:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cryptocentrus leptocephalus 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cryptocentrus leptocephalus 02.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 14:36:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hache Plange Global.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hache Plange Global.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 10:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose This image is full of strong jpeg-artifacts especially the dark blue water area. It is a nice composition but the quality is not sufficient. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes. First I had the same idea as you. But when zooming in I saw clearly visible square blocks. And waves are not square shaped (normally...) -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are definitely waves passing from left to right; you can see them changing as they reach the reef. They seem highly pixelated, however. They don't even look right at the 800x529px size shown on the image description page. Compare with this, for example. Other artefacts are also visible at full size, e.g. around the edges and corners of the shuttle, and noise on the land, but at least they disappear when the picture is viewed at a more reasonable size. --Avenue (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems this image has been retouched. I've uploaded the originalhere, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't suffer from these artifacts (at least not as bad). –Tryphon☂14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviewing the original has been one of my first mouse clicks. Sorry for not mentioning it here. The original has weaker colours but suffers from the same problem. Improving the contrast has just emphasised the problem. What we see here may be the technical limit of the jpeg format. The fine grain structure of the ocean waves has a really high spatial frequency. A compression of the picture is nearly impossible without loosing information. I assume that the problem was already created when taking the picture. Since we don't have raw data of it we can't recover the original data. Sorry, but I can't change my negative vote. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the same problems are apparent in the original NASA picture, although the artefacts (and especially the fringing) was made more obvious by the retouching. Anyway, now there is another reason to oppose the nominated version; the image description contains no documentation at all about this retouching. Colours and contrast seem to have been strengthened, and the image is slightly cropped, but we shouldn't have to guess at such things. --Avenue (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking at a view from the International Space Station looking down on the space shuttle as it is undocking from the ISS with the Earth visible behind it. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 15:57:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Another Place3 edit2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Another Place3 edit2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2010 at 21:56:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gravure voorstellende de kapitein J.G. Stedman TMNo. 3728-544b-1 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gravure voorstellende de kapitein J.G. Stedman TMNo. 3728-544b-1 edit.jpg
Support This picture of John Gabriel Stedman shows him, standing over a slave, during his expedition to Suriname. This artpiece is unique and has not been made available in this resolution and quality so far. The item is part of the book The Narrative of a Five Years Expedition against the Revolted Negroes of Surinam, dated 1796. It reveals the contemporary outcome of slavery and other aspects realting to colonization, which helped the abolitionist movement. I therefore consider it of worthy being nominated. The adjustments I made can be read on the file's page. For further info feel free to drop some lines. I am eager to hear your opinion. -- Peter Weis (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2010 at 18:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:5-cell.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:5-cell.gif
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2010 at 03:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg
Support very nice (If you like Bangkok by night photos i recommend the book "Bangkok Noir" by Roger Willemsen & Ralf Tooten. The text is in German and is just soso - but the photos are great.) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent use of light and color in a long exposure to create a dazzling night panorama. If I had to find some flaws, I'd wonder about the sky: at least some of the unevenness seems likely to be natural scattering of light from below, but some might be due to imperfect exposure/vignetting/white balance correction during stitching. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the unevenness could come from. But I don't think it's either because of vignetting, exposure (I use manual mode), or because of lighting condition possibly changing (we're in middle of night here). I've found out that sometimes (often) 3 exposures blending process adds such artifacts, but usually in the form of haloing around buildings... So ? Dirty atmosphere ? Possible I believe, because you see that the colored signs cast their colors on the space around them, and this is visible even on the thumbnail. - Benh (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lovly night-panorama! But one flaw i've found! :-) At the left boarder nearly at the middle is a black triangle from the stitching process. Ithink the best would be to cut of ~20px from the left. Grettings mathiasK19:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now remember about that "hole"... Will try to fill it to avoid cropping, since I have a picture which fits (unfortunately, only a single exposure...). - Benh (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 06:06:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Hi Kevin, FYI, the arrow is part of the markings of the bullring, it points to the seat of the "Authority" (judges). You can see where they are in the other picture of the general view, at the top center of the picture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 10:24:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 18:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I know that maybe I uploaded one picture too much. However, it is a series of the event itself, where I tried to capture the essence of the event, its aesthetics, bravery and cruelty. In the end, the bull generally gets it... -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 16:22:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support a terrible and sick sport...still the photo illustrates it very well. It gives a very good impression of the whole scene. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very impressive scene. This also wins a special prize in the "largest number of identifiable Mexicans in a featured picture" category Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 16:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 18:17:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment The intention is to close in on the particular stage, an intimate moment, that has no need of additional elements. By opening up the image the moment at hand is diluted, both visually and spatially. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the composition. However, I feel it is rotated clockwise. If the rotation is fixed and the date field filled in I'm happy to support this. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 18:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 18:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment The most gruesome of all. I examined this hoping to support, but it's not quite sharp enough unfortunately. I suggest a valued image set. --99of9 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2010 at 22:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - another dishevelled captive bird that's lost the habit of preening well (obvious on the wing) - MPF (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not amazed by this image, because all Blue-and-yellow Macaws have these bright feather colours. The feathers do not usually stand up on the head like that. To me it looks like someone has handled its wing and disturbed the wing feathers, which are usually tidy and regular. I guess it seems equivalent to ruffling up someone hair and then taking a photograph. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2010 at 01:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wolfspinne1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wolfspinne1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2010 at 05:56:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2010 at 04:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clay tiles.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clay tiles.jpg
Oppose I think that the focus is not absolutely stunning for a photographic exercise on texture of ordinary objects. I found viewing it at high resolution was disappointing and relatively unrewarding. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 12:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info This photo is from an analog camera and T-MAX 3200ASA film is used. The high gain is due to the use of the hi-ASA film, but it is uploaded in hi-resolution film scan. Ggia (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hilarious shot and definitely educational, but the quality is pretty low. If it were historical I'd probably ignore it. Steven Walling22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 10:10:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Agelaius phoeniceus PP.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agelaius phoeniceus PP.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 12:01:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Formicidae sp (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Formicidae sp (2).jpg
Oppose The background is distracting from the actual subject, and I know it's hard to get a perfect shot, but the bluriness in the upper-right is a bit too prominent. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a requirement (if it was, the pic would be tagged {FPX} as ineligible for voting), but it is a major part of the value of an image, and absence is a good reason for an oppose vote. An image of an organism without specific identity is unlikely to find any usage on the various wikipedias, and therefore against the value ethos of featured picture status. - MPF (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 11:57:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de Roppe (6).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de Roppe (6).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2010 at 12:56:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore MMK.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore MMK.jpg
Oppose - Not sure how long the building is, but I think the crop should have been extend to include the entire building. Tiptoetytalk01:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned before, it is impossible to include the entire building. The building is long and there are many other obstructions which block a wider view. This is the best possible view. You can confirm what I am saying by doing a google search and seeing for yourself --Muhammad (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably not have hurt to include the two trees left and right to provide for a more natural framing. --Dschwen (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, that is an aerial shot and a very old one from the looks of it. There is a fence built before the court and photographers are allowed to shoot from the oter side of the fence. In such a position, yes it is still impossible to capture any better. --Muhammad (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not in the mood for lengthy discussions on completely obvious things: The shot was taken from below the roofline of the building. You can see no roof on it! Calling it an areal shot is ridiculous. EOD. --Dschwen (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my ridiculousness, I agree I was mistaken about the aerial part. But the picture is still a very old one taken before the fence was built. The only building opposite to the court is the Vidhana Soudha and I doubt I would be allowed to go in, let alone take pictures from there --Muhammad (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, it would be nice to see the whole building but maybe that is only possible from the air. Quality is ok, composition is probably the best possible and there is a touch of exoticism mixed up with the 'classical' shape of the building (the red) that catches the eye. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 11:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ouvrage-g-ent-mat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ouvrage-g-ent-mat.jpg
Oppose tilted, nothing special (at least not so special that it requires mass uploads of zillions of similar pictures). --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 13:13:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:WMcKinley.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:WMcKinley.jpg
Question Can you (or someone) describe the technique used here? It says "photo", but clearly that's not mechanical halftoning (and you can even see a signature), so apparently it's a manual drawing/engraving/something based on a photo? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 17:02:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alfonso XIII et sa mère photo valentin gomez.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alfonso XIII et sa mère photo valentin gomez.jpg
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Comment the young king Alfonso XIII was born after the death of his father, king Alfonso XII. The queen mother, born Maria-Christina Von Habsburg-Lothringen-Teschen, was the real ruler over Spain and colonies, especially Cuba and the Philippines, won by the USA after the 1898 war... (see portrait of pres. Mc Kinley below)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2010 at 22:11:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:John the Forerunner church Crimea.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:John the Forerunner church Crimea.JPG
Oppose - a pic taken from further to the right showing more of the left end of the building would be better. Pity because otherwise, very nice. - MPF (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2010 at 19:07:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Metlako Falls.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Metlako Falls.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 22:46:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trummelbach.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trummelbach.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2010 at 22:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vabaduse valyak sc.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vabaduse valyak sc.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 12:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:VRB H 1-2 bei Freibergen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:VRB H 1-2 bei Freibergen.jpg
Info Locomotive nr. 7 is one of the very last operational locomotives with an upright boiler. Every 20 years or so it is taken out of the Swiss Transport Museum and put into service for one summer. Here it is climbing Mount Rigi in front of lake Lucerne and Mount Pilatus. --Kabelleger (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I'm not so happy about the meadow covers the rails, but the rest is so nice and well composed that it's really good overall! -- mathiasK14:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not totally happy with the meadow either, but if I had moved down some more I would have ended up with a mast of the overhead line in the middle of the picture, which was way worse :( --Kabelleger (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I didn't realize it at first, but by looking at the horizon in the upper right corner I came to the conclusion that there was a tilt, so I just uploaded a slightly rotated and perspective corrected version. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love your pictures. This as well. If the resolution would be higher i would be able to see my sisters appartment in Lucerne ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2010 at 14:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2010 at 23:10:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Direct sunlight is apparently not suitable lighting for a white bird. No feather detail in the overexposed zones. This seems like an obvious flaw to me. --Dschwen (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen, as the subject does look blown (looking at the back of the pullet). I'm also not a huge fan of the varying lighting and shadowing on the ground. It's a nice image, but not a FP IMO. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2010 at 18:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Levallois Preferencial-Animation.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Levallois Preferencial-Animation.gif
I couldn't really tell what it was until I looked at the enwiki article and another animation. Needs a bit of context at the least IMO. –Juliancolton | Talk22:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 21:54:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2010 at 20:43:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:YosemitePark2 amk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:YosemitePark2 amk.jpg
Support To be perfect perhaps you could add some mark with the name of the main mountains like el Capitan and the half dome --Croucrou (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Nothing technically wrong with it, and a beautiful image for sure, but it doesn't strike me as particularly magnificent. –Juliancolton | Talk15:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2010 at 09:50:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Summer 2009 in winnipeg canada (9).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Summer 2009 in winnipeg canada (9).JPG
Comment - I've made an edit straightening the horizon and brightening slightly; shall I just load it on top of the existing (what I'd normally do for minor changes like this) or upload as a separate file? - MPF (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2010 at 02:31:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palmetto Park Rd & Mizner Blvd - Boca Raton, FL.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palmetto Park Rd & Mizner Blvd - Boca Raton, FL.jpg
Support nice picture! I really like the composition with the traffic lights! The engine hood in the bottom left corner is a pity but it don't spoil the picture to much for me. --mathiasK10:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avala, plus I dislike it compositionwise. Cut off bit of a car on the bottom left, messy underexposed traffic lights on the right edge. Plus the subject of the image seems uninteresting and not very relevant. --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance and interest is that this is the typical architectural style and scenery in east Boca Raton, a city referenced in movies and TV shows, and one of the wealthiest areas in the south Florida metropolitan area. The traffic signals are typical of this area, built out of large steel poles rather than suspended by wires to withstand hurricanes. Time of day was chosen when the normally glaring Florida sun was not too bright, a compromise between having the main subject overexposed and the surrounding area a bit dark. Shooting at midday in cloudy conditions would have produced much more even light, but this would not give the 'feel' of the area IMO. --ianaré (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2010 at 11:51:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anser caerulescens CT8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anser caerulescens CT8.jpg
I have to darken the picture a lot to make a difference on the wing. Maybe more advanced processing can be done to correct this, but I don't how to do it. --Cephas (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am putting my two cents in... the issue with this picture is that the birds are white and under direct sunlight. While there seems to be no detail in the white areas, it is because the medium does not allow to see the detail, but it is there, at least tonally (so technology fails us here, the equipment is the one that does not allow for proper tonal reproduction). Converting this image to black and white, and then using a gray scale from zone system photography, one can see that the sky falls nicely onto zone VI, where it belongs naturally. The birds fall, consecuently, in a natural manner, up to zone IX, and a very minor part into zone X, which is to be expected, and their tonal range is there. The texture range dissapears in zone VIII. What does it mean in terms of zone system photography? It means that the exposure is correct, that adjusting exposure to bring into the texture range the highlights means that the scale would slide and give a wrong tonal representation of other parts of the photograph. Therefore, speaking in terms of zone system, the picture is correct. To leave tonal, dynamic or texture range out of the discussion would yield a wrong technical conclusion. Now, in terms of sharpness and/or movement control, well, yes, there is a little itty bit of motion blurr, but under these conditions, it is neglegible and in my opinion, as an observer, under acceptable conditions and results. Now, judging it from other photographic perspectives, it is well composed and balanced, nice contour of the subjects, clean background which allows the viewer to focus on the subjects inside a pleasant and simple sky as the background, texture and enough detail for the brain to "get" the subjects, dynamic image. There are a lot of elements of quality here. It is indeed a good quality photograph. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2010 at 19:56:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtpanorama von der Deutschherrnbruecke am fruehen Abend-20100310.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtpanorama von der Deutschherrnbruecke am fruehen Abend-20100310.jpg
Support Slightly noisy in a part of the sky, but excellent night view though. Very good composition also. Great work! -- MJJR (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2010 at 23:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:George Henry Williams - Brady-Handy - Restored & Cropped.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:George Henry Williams - Brady-Handy - Restored & Cropped.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 07:38:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Slaapbol R0017601.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Slaapbol R0017601.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor photographic quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:32, 16 May 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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anthocharis-cardamines.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anthocharis-cardamines.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 10:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hirundo rustica PP2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hirundo rustica PP2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 10:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hirundo rustica PP2B.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hirundo rustica PP2B.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 11:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ouvrage-g (11).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ouvrage-g (11).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2010 at 14:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Yes, too deep. Ever heard that in portraits (well, even if it's a portrait of a deer) main object should stand out of the background, also by the means of DoF making it blurred? But I agree that in full view it looks better. --Leafnode✉08:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But portraits are taken in studios not in the wild and there is no use in showing the extra features in a human's face but there is educational value in showing the environment in which the animal lives --13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 06:02:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bat Entangled.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bat Entangled.JPG
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye (I know this image is not great on technical quality but it shows a rare moment and IMO has a 'wow factor') -- JovianEye (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - unusual and valuable image showing the dangers posed by litter pollution to wildlife. Concur with nominator that this over-rides the lower technical quality. Species identification of the bat would make it even better, and shouldn't be too difficult to find out (anyone familiar with bat identification in southeast India?). Note the bat is also carrying a baby. - MPF (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the background is a bit distracting. I've proposed an alternative cropped version below, with the noise somewhat reduced. --Avenue (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 01:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Messier 66 in the Leo Triplet (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Messier 66 in the Leo Triplet (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 07:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse 2 .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse 2 .jpg
Because I was the one, who took the image with no tripod used :) Seriously I wish very much I were able to paint or at least to draw, but I was always getting "F"s in my drawing class :( On the other hand I know you draw very well, and I would like to see more of your works.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In our times you really don't need to know how to draw to be a successful painter... I never drew well and last time was some xx years ago. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 11:17:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chiang Kai-shek memorial 2 amk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chiang Kai-shek memorial 2 amk.jpg
Oppose composition not so good to me, sorry : I wish the building in the background (and the flag) would be better centered. IMO, this kind of picture needs an absolute symmetry, or an absolute (and clearly intentional) dissymmetry... This is not the case here --Jebulon (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 17:55:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paonroue.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paonroue.JPG
Oppose The background bars spoil it for me, sorry. I think it's better than the old FP, and I would support it if the top was cropped to remove the bars. --Avenue (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 18:03:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plumepaon.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plumepaon.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 10:31:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
this is a high res panorama of the Berlin Victory Column illuminated during the Festival of Lights 2009. The carlights at the bottom of the picture were sadly not complete avoidable because when you shoot across a 4 lined traffic circle in the middle of Berlin you have to life with carlights on the picture! Best regards mathiasK10:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the streetlamp in front of the column. If I'd croped the cars the lamp will raise out of nothing... And this would look even more ugly in my eyes. Best regards mathiasK04:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 17:27:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2010 at 08:24:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PS-Petra 6187.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PS-Petra 6187.JPG
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) 22:23, 16 May 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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 08:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Paris December 2007.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Paris December 2007.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is unsharp, poorly framed and too dark. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:18, 16 May 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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2010 at 17:58:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BLW Mechanical globe and movement .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BLW Mechanical globe and movement .jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2010 at 18:08:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BLW V&A 212-1867 The Crucified Christ Pisano (1300)-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BLW V&A 212-1867 The Crucified Christ Pisano (1300)-1.jpg
Oppose -- For a controlled shot, not as sharp as it could be, and some blown highlights. Thanks for the great shot, but IMO not FP worthy. Also, the original sculptor should be referenced in the '|author' field in addition to the photographer. Scewing (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; agree with Scewing. It's not sharp enough, particularly around the head. The light reflections don't really help it, either. Just personal opinion, but I would also rather have the subject more centered. Great image, but not feature-worthy. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 17:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2010 at 01:13:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cacatua sanguinea upright.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cacatua sanguinea upright.jpg
Neutral The other birds in the background are a bit distracting to the main subject, especially due to their close proximity with the head. A great image nonetheless, though, which is why I'm neutral. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your review. I have otherimages without background birds, but I nominated this one partly because I thought the flock added environmental context without overpowering the subject. --99of9 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2010 at 05:21:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2010 at 22:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:7 îles.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:7 îles.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2010 at 14:35:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Snail and quartz1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Snail and quartz1.jpg
Oppose Identified subject (and then apprropriate image description) is necessary for featured images.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: have no meaningful title and description. --Snek01 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2010 at 19:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crab Nebula.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crab Nebula.jpg
Support I don't think the Overlords will enter from here - there was an explosion of the star, so they are all dead! --Schnobby (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2010 at 03:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Emu portrait.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emu portrait.jpg
Oppose - yet another undocumented cagebird. We have far too many captive animals and cultivated plants, etc. featured already, and far too few located documented wild origin animal and plant photos. - MPF (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because species are not uniform entities. They vary from place to place within their native range. Without knowledge of the exact location of its origin, one cannot know much about this individual. Suppose for example, that future research shows that the "Emu" is actually a complex of several different species (very plausible, for a sedentary species like this; the species is also divided into three subspecies, which one is this photo of?) - then captive specimens of unknown origin become merely unidentified emus. See e.g. the discussion as to whether any Barbary Lions still exist or not; the accompanying photos of captive animals can only be captioned "Possible Barbary lion". Also, morphology and behaviour are often affected by the conditions of captivity / cultivation, resulting in a photo that is not representative of the species. Contrast this with your File:Sambar deer Cervus unicolor.jpg showing a wild animal at a known location: that image is far more valuable as its identity is fully defined, and I would contend definitely should be featured for this reason, even if the artistic quality of the image is a bit less than some voters seem to demand. - MPF (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Images of animals have much more scientific value if the location is given. The image description says that the image is taken in Bangalore, but I do not think that this is adequate and I think that it should say what zoo or collection it is in. I would say that the image description is inadequate for a FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2010 at 23:33:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poecile atricapillus CT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poecile atricapillus CT.jpg
Comment Good lighting on black parts of birds is always a challenge. It is not so bad on this pic, some reflection and details are visible on the head. --Cephas (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of crop, overexposition and "blue blowing" (thanks for your comments Alvesgaspar, it is helpfull). --Cephas (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a difficult shot due to the high dynamic range. Notice that the image of the bird would come out much better with a light background -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 02:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Benjamin Franklin 1767.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Benjamin Franklin 1767.jpg
Comment While in London, Franklin's portrait was commissioned by his friend, Edinburgh wine merchant Robert Alexander, from Alexander's protégé Scottish artist David Martin. Franklin obviously liked the portrait, which was exhibited to London audiences in the spring of 1767, for he commissioned this slightly modified replica and shipped it home to Philadelphia. Currently on display in the Green Room of the White House.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 13:42:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Female Coco de Mer nut in the surf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Female Coco de Mer nut in the surf.jpg
Come on, I cannot disclose the location of the beach in San Francisco Bay Area, where one could find Cooco de Mer nuts laying in the surf. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure about the composition, but what I find really distracting is how it's dry on top. It looks like it has just been placed in the water, which seems too artificial for me to feature. --99of9 (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2010 at 22:33:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I agree it's not stunning. But I nominated it because of the composition, and (most importantly) when it comes to educational value it's a good non-specific example of a restaurant sign. It may be the best generic example we have currently, compared to its counterparts. Steven Walling00:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mean that none of the verticals are vertical. Even if built on an incline, the builder would ensure that the walls and window frames were plumb. The photographer did not IMO. --99of9 (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Tilt is not an issue for me here, and I suspect it may actually look better this way. It would be nice if someone fixed the hot pixel on the left, though, and maybe did some careful denoising. I might try that later, but not today. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 05:42:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NGC 7822.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NGC 7822.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2010 at 10:55:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - A very difficult species to get a good quality photo of the cones, as they are usually produced 30m or more above ground; cones at eye level like this is very rare. The cones are typically 30-45 cm long.
The background shows the species' natural habitat well, which improves the value of the photo. And why 'nothing special'?? Can you do better? - MPF (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you are quite ready to discuss FPC just yet. It does not matter, if I can, or I cannot do better. It even does not matter, if I took any picture in my life at all. The only thing that matters is that I stated my opinion, and even added the word "IMO" to my vote. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2010 at 03:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RIM 7 fire.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RIM 7 fire.jpg
That's the pixel count, not the resolution. At only 464 kilobytes, it is heavily compressed, and it shows. - MPF (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality issues and low value. This kind of action shot may get a college kid excited, for me it is just more of the same old topic. --Dschwen (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 23:01:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ritt zum Kufenstechen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ritt zum Kufenstechen.jpg
Support Great shot! Just a quick question: What happened to the white thing on top of the house just to the right of the riders hat after the update? :) Stengaard (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2010 at 11:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Tree example IR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tree example IR.jpg
Oppose - taken on too windy a day, given the long exposure needed (central branches sharp, outer foliage very badly motion-blurred). This photo shows that sharper IR pics of trees are achievable. Also no identification of the tree species. - MPF (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quality is better? Most of them aren even 1MP, and the bigger ones have exactly the same problems as this one. --Dschwen (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC) P.S.: This picture gets its value from direct comparison with the visible light shot. The flickr stuff doesn't have that either. --Dschwen (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Species unidentified and thus of less educational value. Okay example of infrared I guess, but not FP quality. Blurring is a problem, per MPF.NeutralSteven Walling19:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, value is in the direct comparison of IR and visible light pictures. Species is secondary at best. I did not try to illustrate the tree, merely the technique. The blurring is a consequence of the technique (due to the IR filtering), so it is not a flaw per see (not a bug, a feature ;-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the blurring was semi-intentional then I could live with the lack of species identification. You're correct that IR is the point here. Steven Walling18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so do basically all digital cameras. This picture illustrates the type of image you get due to that effect. I don't think it is up to commons FP standards either, but please reject it for the right arguments. --Dschwen (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for nominating, but this is a six year old picture, taken with a small Powershot G3. Not up to current quality standards (neither are the Flickr pictures MPF linked). --Dschwen (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2010 at 14:25:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20090620 Spinalogka Elounta panoramic view from the mountain.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20090620 Spinalogka Elounta panoramic view from the mountain.jpg
Info it is 12mpixels photo, and I run a sharpening filter to the image, it is an image of Nikon D700, how do you consider it poor quality? Shall I resize (to a smaller one) to look nicer? Ggia (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a good camera is not always enough, unfortunately. In this case I suppose you are paying for the relatively high ISO setting and (maybe) for the less-than-optimal atmospheric conditions. The answer is no, you shouldn't downsize the image to hide the poor quality (anyway it wouldn't work with the sky) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Uploaded a version of the image without sharpening, higher quality (you can compare the image quality from the history of the files). Ggia (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It feels like it wants to be wider. I think I would probably support a panorama taken from the same location. --99of9 (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2010 at 15:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blue Jay 2010-05-09.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blue Jay 2010-05-09.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2010 at 19:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Santa Maria di Loreto e Santissimo Nome di Maria.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Santa Maria di Loreto e Santissimo Nome di Maria.jpg
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2010 at 09:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Calliactis and Dardanus 001.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Calliactis and Dardanus 001.JPG
InfoThe crab was just at the glass of the aquarium, that's the reason for beeing no space between the claws and the botttom of the picture.Llez (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yet another captive creature outside its natural habitat. We have far too many captive animals and cultivated plants, etc. featured already, and far too few located documented wild origin animal and plant photos. - MPF (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We discuss pictures and not, whether animals are captured or not. Many animals live longer and better (diseases, parasites!) in captation. LlezLlez (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2010 at 10:52:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eilean Donan pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eilean Donan pano.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 18:02:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marganit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marganit.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2010 at 21:16:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - Something wrong with the composition, not sure what. Maybe more space is needed around the building. Yes, I'm being more strict because of the author... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree - composition could've been better. It really lacks something and it really could've used some more space on the right of the pic.--Laveol (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 18:55:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Picador 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Picador 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2010 at 16:52:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pismis 24.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pismis 24.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 18:29:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pylon transformer in Syria.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pylon transformer in Syria.jpg
Comment Special is for instance the fact that this is the only image on Commons that shows a pole mounted transformer from "above". Check the related category. --High Contrast (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2010 at 07:51:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Taipei 101 as seen from Sun Yat Sen Memorial Hall. The tower used to be the highest tower in the world and still is the highest office tower. -- AngMoKio (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Slight left tilt, too dark shadows (see corrected version), and overall composition has no wow: doesn't look like the 2nd tallest buildings in the world. --Elekhh (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2010 at 22:28:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Extremely low quality. Tiptoetytalk01:52, 21 May 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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2010 at 20:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:cables.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:cables.jpg
Comment - This could make an interesting picture, but I'm not convinced about this particular composition, and it seems washed out toward the bottom. (A better filename is also needed.) –Juliancolton | Talk22:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've no idea for a name... It's only a "snapshot", made over a bin, and cropped because an unfortunate shadow... I was charmed by the result... I know it is not perfect, but I think there is something to see...--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2010 at 13:57:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cows and Wall of Solovki Monastery.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cows and Wall of Solovki Monastery.jpg
Comment I like the picture, but I will suggest to crop the image eliminating the builging behind (there are distracting...)--Llorenzi (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of breed identification, poor perspective (on the second cow specifically), and generally uninspiring composition. Decent shot, but all around not the best of educational work. Steven Walling18:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Worse than before. The space around the cows in the prior version is a good background, texturally and in terms of breathing room. Steven Walling18:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2010 at 06:37:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pont des Arts Wikimedia Commons.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont des Arts Wikimedia Commons.jpg
Support Only "a part of" the passerelle des Arts, but very beautiful with a lot of details. I added notes. I can see the windows of my previous office...--Jebulon (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge picture, but rendering it at full size is worth the wait. The annotations could use language templates, though. Jafeluv (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Detailed, interesting and high-quality overall. Some movement is evident, but that really can't be helped. Makes me wish I could be there... :) –Juliancolton | Talk22:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2010 at 16:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cherbourg Harbour Stavros S Niarchos 2009 08 31.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cherbourg Harbour Stavros S Niarchos 2009 08 31.jpg
Well, IMO this image cannot be considered just an image of the ship. It is an image of the interesting ship in a mist of the interesting city.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2010 at 15:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eagle nebula pillars.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg
Support -- One of the most famous and culturally influential photographs in the history of astronomy, in fact I am very surprised it isn't already an FP. Opposing because of the black squares is a bit silly - this is FP based on the Value("our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others.)" of the picture first and foremost, this is not QIC, and nor can the inferred deficiencies be overcome by any reasonable means (nobody here is going to launch a space telescope). SFC9394 (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic image; It's nto infrequent, given limited telescope time and long exposures, for NASA to concentrate on the most "interesting" parts, leaving black gaps that mean it's not square. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Iconic historical image; see w:Pillars of Creation. This picture and the Deep Field image are probably the most famous Hubble pics; most space agency pictures do not have their own Wikipedia articles. The comments above that focus solely on the black squares seem to me to miss the point. (FWIW, the black parts are due to the design of the instrument, and are explained in that article. I have now copied this explanation into the image description page.) --Avenue (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2010 at 13:37:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Taeniopygia guttata.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taeniopygia guttata.JPG
DOF is a bit too low, and I suggest cropping off some space on the left and a bit on the top. But I really love the color scheme of this image. The background is a fabulous match to the bird! --Dschwen (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yet another undocumented cagebird. We have far too many captive animals and cultivated plants, etc. featured already, and far too few located documented wild origin animal and plant photos. - MPF (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2010 at 19:28:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eaglefairy hst big.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eaglefairy hst big.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 04:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Susan Brownell Anthony - c1850 daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Susan Brownell Anthony - c1850 daguerreotype by Southworth & Hawes.jpg
CommentSouthworth & Hawes was an early photographic firm in Boston. They have been hailed as the first great American masters of photography, whose daguerreotype work elevated photographic portraits to the level of fine art.
CommentSusan B. Anthony (February 15, 1820 – March 13, 1906) was a prominent American civil rights leader who played a pivotal role in the 19th century women's rights movement to introduce women's suffrage into the United States. She traveled the United States, and Europe, and gave 75 to 100 speeches every year on women's rights for 45 years.
Oppose - very blurred in too many places (obviously a fault of the methods available at the time, but it doesn't make for a good pic) - MPF (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the shallow field of focus, as it adds to the period authenticity. Her near shoulder and her far eye are blurry, and this aspect is perfectly appropriate for the method and the day. Beyond that, Anthony's graceful swan-like neck and her satisfied air are beautiful reminders of the power she held. Fantastic! Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We shouldn't oppose simply because the image is of a historic person, and ths used old equipment! We lack time machines. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 06:45:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Global Digital Elevation Model.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Global Digital Elevation Model.jpg
Comment It probably means that, under certain climatic circumstances in the future, people living in the blue areas are either dead, or breathing trough a scuba tank. --Alex:D (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very little value as is. This is probably a hypsometric map of the world, where each colour corresponds to a class of elevation above mean sea level. But a proper scale is missing, as well as an indication of the map projection and some form of georeferencing (e.g. graduated meridians and parallels). Also there are areas not covered by the representation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we could feature this picture as an example of how to get a poor image out from a good database. How on Earth (no pun intended) did they manage to make central Russia look more mountainous than the Rocky Mountains? Also I love the transient between purple and green... And add to that the comments made by Alvesgaspar. One of the worst topographic images out there IMO. - Keta (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This Global Digital Elevation Model, or GDEM, is a product of the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER), a joint program of NASA and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. The image was released on 29 June 2009, and was created by processing and stereo-correlating the 1.3 million-scene ASTER archive of optical images, covering Earth's land surface between 83 degrees North and 83 degrees South latitudes. The GDEM is produced with 29 m postings, and is formatted as 23,000 one-by-one-degree tiles. In this coloured version, low elevations are purple, medium elevations are greens and yellows, and high elevations are orange, red and white. With its 14 spectral bands from the visible to the thermal infrared wavelength region and its high spatial resolution of 15 to 100 m, ASTER images Earth to map and monitor the changing surface of our planet. ASTER is one of five Earth-observing instruments launched 18 Dec. 1999, on NASA's Terra satellite. The broad spectral coverage and high spectral resolution of ASTER provides scientists in numerous disciplines with critical information for surface mapping and monitoring of dynamic conditions and temporal change. --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 02:38:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mimas Cassini.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mimas Cassini.jpg
If I understand right, this is an orthographic projection of a near spherical surface with raster images draped over it. So I wouldn't say the background was removed, exactly; I'd say it was never there. I do see some fringing and stretching near the horizon, though, and we have a lower resolution image without these problems. --Avenue (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2010 at 03:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Guess it's time to close this... no reason to believe this is anything but an accident, ie. nominator was not aware that another version was already featured. –Juliancolton | Talk14:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 09:55:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the very poor quality --kaʁstnDisk/Cat11:28, 22 May 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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 18:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Arctostaphylos uva-ursi LC0146.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arctostaphylos uva-ursi LC0146.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 14:17:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:White tiger bangalore.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:White tiger bangalore.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 13:48:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Katy Perry 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Katy Perry 1.jpg
Oppose yet another captive creature outside its natural habitat. We have far too many captive animals and cultivated plants, etc. featured already, and far too few located documented wild origin animal and plant photos. --Jebulon (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2010 at 21:56:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sus scrofa piglet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sus scrofa piglet.jpg
Oppose Nice subject, nice shot, but: blown highlight on the left side of the main subject (right shoulder), distracting foreground at the lower right. Not FP imo, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, wonderful colors, detail is where it's supposed to be... and it's so cute! LOL :D - Keta (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yet another captive creature outside its natural habitat. We have far too many captive animals and cultivated plants, etc. featured already, and far too few located documented wild origin animal and plant photos. - MPF (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, actually this animal is documented and in its natural habitat. It's in a wildlife park in the Netherlands that features native animals, and is near a national parkwhere Wild Boar reside but are infinitely harder to photograph well. This isn't an animal in a zoo halfway around the world from its region of origin. Also, last time I checked "animals must be wild" wasn't in the FP criteria. Steven Walling01:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The description doesn't say in which Dutch national park it was taken, but I was in nl:Hoge Veluwe a few weeks ago and we saw a mother with several piglets. There is no reason to assume that this animal was not in its natural habitat -assuming that this is a FP requirement. MartinD (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 22:32:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:pacri.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:pacri.jpg
Oppose - yet another captive creature outside its natural habitat. We have far too many captive animals and cultivated plants, etc. featured already, and far too few located documented wild origin animal and plant photos. - MPF (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 23:10:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:appelcdg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:appelcdg.jpg
NeutralInfo The call "to all Frenchmen" by Charles de Gaulle in London, in summer 1940, when the disaster was absolute in France, a few days (17 june) after the capitulation of all the french armies. It is the call of a lonesome man, for resistance against the enemy, sacrifice and hope. The war is not over, because it is a world war. Some huge forces will surely come, and will soon fight for victory, and France must fight for victory too. This famous text (here on an enamelled plaque) is shown at a lot of many places in all french cities, great or small, even in villages. This is a typical and remarkable french streets object. Not to be confused with the "18th june call", same idea, but not exactly the same text -- Jebulon (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Maybe. But it's an enameled street plaque, under sun and rain for years, not purely white, and not absolutely clean...--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this text in the public domain? There's no FOP in France unfortunately, and I cannot think of a reason why the text would be in the public domain already. –Tryphon☂12:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info O yes, it is in public domain... By the way, I'm sure that "Commons" will never have troubles with Gen.de Gaulle's heirs with this kind of images...--Jebulon (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other Info The 18 june 2005, l'Appel du 18 Juin has been classified by en:Unesco on the Memory of the World register, were are registred since 1992 documents of universal interest, to protect them. Registration was made both by fr:institut national de l'audiovisuel (INA, France) and BBC, it concerns four documents as testimony of the event : manuscript of the text of the radio call of the 18th June, the broadcast of the call of the 22th june, manuscript of the poster « À tous les Français » (this one, 3 august), and the poster itself.--Jebulon (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the text was copyrightable in the first place, and I think it was, then it is still copyrighted, unless we can find a release statement either from de Gaulle or from all his heirs. Alternative hypothesis: de Gaulle was still a member of the French military on June 18th. If copyright law was similar to its current state for that matter, then it is the French army who holds the copyright (and until at least 2041). They sometimes release work here, but not often. --Eusebius (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was copyrighted when created (which is absolutely not certain), and the copyright belongs to the French military, then it expires on January 2011, 70 years after the creation. Yann (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, 70 years post mortem auctoris (cf discussion on the French Bistro). But I don't think the military can claim copyright on this, since it was not really created on duty. --Eusebius (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deeply sorry, but the two precedent opinions are very far away from the french law. "Copyright" doesn't exist in France, and you melt this anglo-saxon notion with the idea of "droit d'auteur", which is not (absolutely not) the same thing. This "pseudo-legal-mud" is usual, and its a pity (like the assertion : "there is no freedom of panorama in France", because the idea of "freedom of panorama" is unknown in french law). Never forget this : Commons is not only american, and what you say about the rights of the french army on this text is an absolute non-sens (to be polite) in this side of the Atlantic ocean. French army has never have a "copyright" (non-sense) on the books written by his members, even if it is art-of-war publications (Au fil de l'Epée, de la Discorde chez l'ennemi, Vers une armée de métier, all by army officer Charles de Gaulle) --Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am French, and when I say "copyright" in this context I'm thinking about the Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle. My comment about the army comes from a decision by the TGI of Nanterre (27 oct. 2005), commented in the Dalloz as the only reference about the droit d'auteur in the army, stating that L'État [sorry, it was not the army, my bad] se trouve investi des droits sur les œuvres produites par les militaires dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions, which makes members of the military a special case among the civil servants, who benefit from more rights (but not all of them). But I honestly think we are not in this case. --Eusebius (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I leave in Paris. In a circle of 500 meters around me, I remember now (only remember) a dozen of this kind of plaques in the streets, on walls, on trees, everywhere. If you think this text is not in the public domain, I can nothing for you...How, Charles de Gaulle died "only" on november 9th 1970 !!! --Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 08:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Andes Mountains as seen from Gemini 7 - GPN-2000-001067.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Andes Mountains as seen from Gemini 7 - GPN-2000-001067.jpg
Oppose - far from the best of Commons' pics of the Earth from space. Edge of slide visible down the right edge, and someone even stuck their thumb over the camera lens top right. - MPF (talk) 09:45, 24 May 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 is very poor -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:52, 24 May 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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 03:44:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CCTV in tree.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CCTV in tree.JPG
Focus is on the 'eye', the mount yes is a little blurry due to low DOF. I must not be seeing what you're seeing. --ianaré (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with focus, this has to do with the poor optical quality of the lens with which this picture was taken. --Aqwis (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I can't explain it. Maybe it's the focus after all or maybe my eyes are being fooled. Regardless, that wasn't the main reason for my opposition. --Aqwis (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The part in sharpest focus seems to be the knob thingy under the tip of the mount, and the DoF is so low that even the "eye" of the camera isn't perfectly in focus. I think that's what Aqwis is probably seeing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why, the composition and location doesnt contribute to anything of interest. Its just an uninteresting image that doesnt wow me Gnangarra11:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Its just an uninteresting image that doesnt wow me" is IMO uselessly contemptuous. If you are not interessed by the subject, don't vote (see Alvesgaspar's rules) --Jebulon (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 16:58:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 18:42:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hilda tenorio 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hilda tenorio 1.jpg
Oppose Nice catch, the detail is fairly good. However, the crop is too loose, and the background and angle are not the best. The picture is overall good, but it's not the kind of image I expect to be featured in this subject. I'm close from voting neutral, though... - Keta (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What do you mean the crop is too loose? And the background? It is a bullfight ring, without distracting elements, thus centering the view on subjects. Angle? Is there such thing as an angle in this type of photograph? I really don´t understand your vote. ;0) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I was just stating why I feel that this picture lacks certain things which would make it featured IMO. I must admit, that it's a very personal point of view, and others might love the picture, which BTW as I said is very good :) About the angle, if this picture was taken from a site in front of where you were, I bet the angle would have been somewhat different, right? ;) - Keta (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keta, angle depends on two axis, vertical displacement of camera (up or down) and distance camera-subject. Take a fixed camera position, and the angle will depend on the subject to camera distance. The closer the subject, the steeper the angle and viceversa. Now, on static subjects one can choose the angle that best suits the need; on moving subjects, such as this, usually a fixed point of view or a relatively static point of view is necessary, for the action can occur anyplace and one is left more with opportunity shots than planned shots, camera movement is difficult in sports. In this particular case, I happened to be just above the wall, the subject was in the other side of the ring, thus a low angle. Now, if I had been on top of the bleachers, I would have gotten a steeper angle, and if the subjects were closer to the camera, the angle would have been steeper. Additionally, subject and background relationship is also affected. So realities of the shooting live situation, fixed, low camera angle, and moving subjects. I cannot call the fixed camera position or the moving subject disadvantages, but those were the variables. Photographic merit aside, if any, the redeeming value of this photograph is also that it photographs a female bullfighter, who is coming up through the professional ranks on her own merit and has performed in renown bullfigting rings alongside world class bullfighters. Sometimes photography is like wine, you just have to accept certain characteristics... Not all good wine tastes the same... The trick is to distinguish the characteristics that make it good. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm aware that you took the picture from where you were, but that just means (for me at least) that you weren't at the best place at the right time ;) You should have emphasized the importance of a female bullfighter, for which I'm changing my vote to neutral, and approaching to a support... - Keta (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 22:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saturn with auroras.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saturn with auroras.jpg
Support, as long as they're different enough, I don't see why we can't have several Saturn FPs. The aurora sets this picture apart from all the others. --Aqwis (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2010 at 05:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sombrero, Hubble images.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sombrero, Hubble images.jpg
Info Explanation: This floating ring is the size of a galaxy. In fact, it is part of the photogenic Sombrero Galaxy, one of the largest galaxies in the nearby Virgo Cluster of Galaxies. The dark band of dust that obscures the mid-section of the Sombrero Galaxy in optical light actually glows brightly in infrared light. The above image shows the infrared glow, recently recorded by the orbiting Spitzer Space Telescope, superposed in false-color on an existing image taken by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope in optical light. The Sombrero Galaxy, also known as M104, spans about 50,000 light years across and lies 28 million light years away. M104 can be seen with a small telescope in the direction of the constellation Virgo. --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seriously: Maximum quality possible with current instruments does not mean we can ask for more quality. This isn't a case where another photographer on Commons can step in and make a better one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2010 at 00:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Airplane vortex edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Airplane vortex edit.jpg
Oppose I have to agree, looking at the image even at a scaled down size makes it appear less-than-pristine. Valued status seems more attainable for this one. fetchcomms☛15:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2010 at 12:33:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Those start to look all the same and I see no point in adding zillions of space pictures to our FP collection. That stuff is not what makes commons special. --Dschwen (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose O god, another one... Please make a general package and promote all in block. I've the whole collection as screen savers for a long time ago...--Jebulon (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 22:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Earth and Moon .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Earth and Moon .jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small (please check guidelines first) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 24 May 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.
Info This picture of the Earth and Moon in a single frame was taken by the Galileo spacecraft from about 3.9 million miles away. Antarctica is visible through clouds (bottom). The Moon's far side is seen; the shadowy indentation in the dawn terminator is the south pole Aitken Basin, one of the largest and oldest lunar impact features. --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not being a FP does not diminish the value of the image though I'm convinced that Galileo cameras can do better than this in terms of resolution. If someone finds there are extraordinary circumstances mitigating the small size, a support vote can be used to remove the FPX template. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2010 at 02:24:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antwerp Central Station full size.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antwerp Central Station full size.jpg
Support Very nice. The use of black and white and the composition make it beautiful, yet do not obscure the photo's educational value. Steven Walling04:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a nice artsy image, but I've been to the station, and it really doesn't need this kind of artsiness - it's notable and beautiful by itself. As Commons has an educational scope, I think it's reasonable to evaluate a bit with educational considerations. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2010 at 13:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Central Andes Mountains, Salar de Arizaro, Argentina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Central Andes Mountains, Salar de Arizaro, Argentina.jpg
Oppose per Pixel8. Maybe the artefacts are present in the original, but the processing makes them much more obtrusive. This version also looks over-exposed near the horizon, especially on the left. --Avenue (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Pixel8, don't like the colour oversaturation. Would support the nasa original if it was nominated. - MPF (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 18:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Francisco de Goya y Lucientes 023.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Francisco de Goya y Lucientes 023.jpg
Comment Could it have a better and more specific name? The title "Francisco de Goya y Lucientes-Los fusilamientos del tres de mayo", for example, would be great. Kadellar (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Respectfully, the Yorck Project is pretty bad at maintaining colour balance and other quality aspects of the paintings they show. The yellow cast may or may not be right, but the heavy JPEG artifacting and somewhat soft focus is typical of the problems with their work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 11:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mineyama Highland in Kamikawa Hyogo pref02o4272.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mineyama Highland in Kamikawa Hyogo pref02o4272.jpg
Oppose Technically ok (though there is some CA around the clouds and tree branches at the left side), but not outstanding enough for FP. Sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2010 at 22:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Platbuf.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Platbuf.JPG
Comment I'm respectfully sorry, but it is NOT a background, because all the image shows the same tree. If you are "distracted", you are distracted by the object of the pic. I'm not sure I'm clear...--Jebulon (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background indeed. Here the subject is not the whole tree (or else it is very badly depicted!), it is a few leaves and the fruit (flowers? whatever), and they are not isolated enough in the picture. --Eusebius (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I disagree regarding the "distracting background" argument: the subject is the tree, and the composition is well balanced, with a pleasant colour scheme. Is certainly QI and VI, but is just not quite FP in terms of strenght of composition (focus/out-of-focus ratio too low IMO). --Elekhh (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Composition and image quality (sharpness, lighting) are way below FP standards. The two fruits, which seem to be part of the central subject, are not sharp and well lightened. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 18:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Too many cities in the map that make it hard to see where the squadrons were located. Also has badly aligned labels. One dot too many in the date at "Speke". Also, why do some of the places have ("od"/from) dates and others not? Some cities (Southhampton, York,...) appear to use a different shade of grey dot than others. "Exter"->"Exeter", "Gent"->"Ghent". Would have preferred a crop that includes Land's End. Why is London in blue? bamse (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Trivial map, no geographic context other than the cities. In my opinion a map needs considerable sophistication, or historical value, to be featured. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what geographic context you need. Most people would probably have no difficulty locating the depicted area. bamse (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most thematic maps benefict with the addition of some basic geographic information: topographic, hydrographic and political, at least. In this case not even the north direction or a couple of meridians and parallels are given. I don't know what the original purpose of this map was (maybe to illustrate some paper?) or if such purpose was well achieved or not. However I very much doubt it will be considered much valuable in such a broader context as our multilingual project. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that topography or hydrography are relevant for this map which is about air squadrons (which are hardly influenced by rivers or mountains). It would be nice to have some political information, however I understand that there were some changes in that around 1940-41. One would have to pick a certain (random?) time. I agree, that it might be interesting to have some extra information in this map (Germans?) to see why the squadrons were moving around as they did. Please don't put north directions in maps of this scale. Most all map projections have a different north direction, depending on the location in the map. I don't think meridians should appear in historic maps either (unless they are relevant for the topic; e.g. if borders were drawn along them or if it helps to locate the depicted area). bamse (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly do not agree with you concerning the need for background information and for the fundamental map elements: numerical (and/or) graphic scale, geographic graticule and map projection, at least. Please note that this is not an historical map but a modern map depicting historical information, which is a very different thing. Like it is presented, this is little more than a schematic map, way below the sophistication needed (imo, of course) for FP statuts. Anyway, I very seldom vote or even comment on map nominations, due to the practical impossibility of assessing their cartographic accuracy. This was an exception. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2010 at 07:03:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I have re-checked identification and fully agree with MPF now. It was hybrid with Populus nigra. This very old tree was cut in this spring, but still alive on Commons... --George Chernilevskytalk16:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though, if MPF is correct, we really need to fix the caption. It's pretty exciting if you've never lived near Poplars, like me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's a well-deserved Valued Image and Quality Image, but not enough for FP IMO. Particularly, the main drawbacks for me are background, lighting and composition. - Keta (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2010 at 22:46:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:pacritete.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:pacritete.jpg
Support Not a big fan of the straight-on perspective since we don't get much interesting head detail in the close up, but it's still educational and very good quality. It's not exactly the usual take on a peacock photo either, which is refreshing. Steven Walling03:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - yet another captive creature outside its natural habitat. We have far too many captive animals and cultivated plants, etc. featured already, and far too few located documented wild origin animal and plant photos. - MPF (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Natural habitat? This is a head shot closeup, and a good one at that. I'm also not a huge fan of the front view, but it has high value and is of high quality. -- Ram-Man12:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 23:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:papalpop.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:papalpop.jpg
Oppose Shallow DOF (although I guess it's difficult to do better), distracting background making the image difficult to read. --Eusebius (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2010 at 01:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:George Romney - William Shakespeare - The Tempest Act I, Scene 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:George Romney - William Shakespeare - The Tempest Act I, Scene 1.jpg
Info created by George Romney (artist, 1734-1802), John Boydell (publisher, 1719-1804), Josiah Boydell, (publisher, 1752-1817), B[enjamin?] Smith (engraver, unknown) - uploaded, nominated, and restored by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not of the engraving. There is a painting this was based on, but the engraved version was published in a notable edition of Shakespeare, and the painting was actually commissioned to be made specifically to be able to make an engraving of it for that edition. See w:Boydell Shakespeare Gallery. I mean, I can't say for certain no-one ever attempted a hand tinting on any copy of this, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have been "official", and I've never seen such done with any of the Boydell engravings. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 22:57:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frajochar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frajochar.jpg
Info very rare view of the old Emperor Franz Joseph and his successor Karl, in July 1914, a few days before the beginning of WW1. It's a press drawing made after a photograph, shown in the magazine "L'ILLUSTRATION" in the Album de la Grande Guerre in 1919. Notice that both are wearing the neck insigna of the "Golden Fleece"--Jebulon (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artist not identified, Im sure it isnt the work of User:Jebulon even though the info template says ownwork and author:Jebulon I doubt we have contributors that would be well over 100years old Gnangarra11:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right, I'm old enough, but not so. I thought that the file description was informative enough. And I know that such oppositions are easy, because its avoid having an opinion about an unknown subject. But corrected now, as possible. The original on the magazine is unsigned.--Jebulon (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you werent the author, I had made the assupmtion that it was an honest error that could be addressed but until then I must oppose to indicate a significant issue with the image. How about some assumption of good faith in my comments, licensing and source details being correct are a more significant issue than image asthetics, remember given such impropriety in ownership I could have just deleted as a copyright violation. Gnangarra
Oppose scan artifacts at full resolution; I'm not very impressed with the artist's rendering - it's okay, but IMO definitely not Feature Picture worthy. Perhaps you can find the original photograph? Also, your source description shouldn't be "own work" unless you drew it yourself; maybe say 'Scanned by Jebulon from a (personal? library?) copy of "L'ILLUSTRATION", 1919.' Scewing (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we can confirm the copyright status, I can probably advise Jebulon on making a better preparation, and help clean it up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with pleasure. But is it anywhere here a reflexion or a debate about ethics and restoration ? I mean that the quality of a restored (scanned) image must not be better than the original one (sure) and not better than the actual state of it ( may be discussed)... And I've corrected, as possible, the file description. Threats, even implied, are useless. Même pas peur...--Jebulon (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously an informative, rare and useful historical document, but too many wrong or incomplete informations in the original file description (corrected now, but...). Too many technical issues too, I need help for learning how to scan better. --Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)I I withdraw my nomination[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 02:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Backlit Saturn from Cassini Orbiter 2007 May 9.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Backlit Saturn from Cassini Orbiter 2007 May 9.png
Oppose The shadow is a bit stark to me. We have an abundance of space pics, so the featured ones should be great. --99of9 (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2010 at 08:48:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:El Atazar Pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Atazar Pano.jpg
Oppose. Nice picture, but falls off on the right side. It is not that hard to get it right, so I see no reason to support it as is. --Dschwen (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but I don't quite understand your complaints. I see it all right and I'm not willing to restitch the image, at least until I understand what you mean. - Keta (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The right hand side horizon is significantly lower than the left (which is consistent with the middle). I don't think this can be explained by the real topology, since the right hand side is upstream. This kind of horizon warping is a common stitching problem if you don't set horizontal guidepoints. Yours is not as bad as some we've seen, but it's worth correcting to make this scene perfect! --99of9 (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I see what you mean now. I think we have to blame the topology, though ;) Actually, the left hand side is upstream and the mountains there are some 1000 m higher than the ones in the right. Anyway, you might be right, but I'm positive that the tilt is not as much as it looks. I'll probably review this issue, definitely not right now though :), but honestly I think it's quite right. - Keta (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be slightly tilted, perhaps as much as a degree, but certainly no more. One useful trick with panoramas showing water is to set vertical guides between objects and their reflections. Clouds are particularly convenient for this, since they're far from the surface, but if there's any wind at all you shouldn't do this unless both the cloud and the reflection are in the same frame. Anyway, I don't really find the minuscule tilt, if it's there at all, distracting enough to keep me from supporting (and I'm usually pretty picky about these things). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 09:58:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorpa communis 04 (MK).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorpa communis 04 (MK).jpg
weak Support. Why did you not chose the first other version, which shows a greater part of this insect ? But this one is good too, even I prefer the other.--Jebulon (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cause of the background. I don`t like the composition as much as at the other 3 versions. But you are right, the most encyclopic view over the whole insect gives the first one. Greetings mathiasK08:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not bad, but the focus seems to be placed more on the far side of the head and the "stinger" than the near side. Perhaps this is harsh, but with such a narrow DOF, I think the placement of the focus should be more precise. Thanks for nominating it though; I'd never heard of these before. --Avenue (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
composition is a little nicer on the one you linked, but this one is by no means bad. Also has more detail on the head. I think both can coexist happily. --ianaré (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2010 at 16:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Perisoreus canadensis mercier2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Perisoreus canadensis mercier2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 15:23:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Crystal pink.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Crystal pink.jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, high amount of artefacting at full resolution, mineral not identified beyond colour - Sorry, the bar's set really high by people with really good cameras, which makes it hard to get into Featured picture territory. this is a good image, but fails to reach the incredibly high standards that FP demands. If you can have the mineral identified, try COM:VIC? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 13:45:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Automobile light trails.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Automobile light trails.jpg
Oppose. It's not a bad photo, as long exposure shots of traffic go, but I've seen lots of better ones like it (like this one, or even some of yours) and they're not particularly difficult to take either. (You need a decent camera, a tripod and a place overlooking a busy road.) No wow, not FP, IMO. (Also, the red night sky just looks ugly to me. You could've easily taken this earlier while there was still some natural light, or on a clear night when the sky would be dark.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one, more so than I like the latter of the two that Ilmari linked to. Being considerably darker, I feel that it brings out the lights more, and I think the red sky is actually a nice touch. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 18:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Christmas flood 1717.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Christmas flood 1717.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 13:39:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Danaus chrysippus (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Danaus chrysippus (1).jpg
Oppose the leaf on the right side is a no go imo! I don't think that this is cloneable. Without the leaf I would support. Sorry! --mathiasK09:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not clonable? Though I will admit to not being sure that to do with the stem. This look right? It's a PNG to allow others to make further tweaks more easily - I developed a lot of skills when editing engravings that help here, but recreating bokeh somehow never came up.Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 13:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Danaus chrysippus (3).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Danaus chrysippus (3).jpg
Oppose - Flat and agressive lighting, reds blown out (especially in the flower), no volume in picture. Come on guys, reviews are becoming quite negligeant! This isn't good neither for the project nor for the creators, who will soon loose interest. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also, the leaf (or second flower) (under the butterfly but not the one it's sitting on), detracts from the composition. Common subjects need excellent conditions to be featurable. --99of9 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh lighting. I wouldn't have opposed, but the "I nominate 10 butterflies, one will pass" flooding tipped the scale - Benh (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 13:43:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Danaus plexippus (6).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Danaus plexippus (6).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 13:44:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Danaus plexippus (7).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Danaus plexippus (7).jpg
Neutral Sorry, but I don`t like the harsh lighting from the flash with the strong shadows and the busy backround. No oppose cause of the overall compostion of the pic which I really like. bg mathiasK09:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the picture I feel somehow that both the butterfly and the flower and inside a cage too small for them. Let the poor things breathe! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many things going on in such a tight crop. The insect being alive is dubious; I would expect the butterfly on all legs and above the flower. Here it looks like it's a dead and heavy butterfly dug into the flower, and believe it or not I find it annoying. Bad choice of flower maybe... ZooFari23:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The butterfly and the flower which btw is amazing have great detail. Background is distracting and does no favor to the composition. - Keta (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where do I begin? I have at least four monarch butterfly featured pictures. Some pictures, like this one, are not featured pictures but are of high enough quality. They are not featured because we have a rule only to feature one picture of a singular subject and pose and content. This one is no where close to historical standards. It has a tight crop, was taken with a flash (really?!?! I have never had to use a flash with Monarchs and I've taken hundreds of photos.), is not very sharp, and does not really show the subject very well. The most valuable part of the picture (the head) only takes up a minor percentage of the photo. It does not add value or improve upon existing featured pictures. -- Ram-Man11:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 13:48:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de Roppe - casernement betonne.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de Roppe - casernement betonne.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 13:48:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Katy Perry Michigan (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Katy Perry Michigan (1).jpg
Oppose This file has 683 × 1,024 pixels = 0,699392 million pixels, but it needs over 2 million pixels to be a Featured Picture candidate. See the "Guidelines for nominators". Sorry. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 13:38:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio palinurus (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio palinurus (1).jpg
Comment - very good detail and nice colour scheme, pitty for the damaged wing and right antenna over dark background. --Elekhh (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Again, lighting not so good in my eyes and the busy backround. But overall flawless so no reason to oppose. bg mathiasK09:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose IMO, bad light on the leaves in the background (shows too much the use of flash). Lack of a part of the left wing, because of a leaf. A pity... I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not because of a leaf: It's not uncommon for swallowtail butterflies to have one of the titular "swallowtails" damaged. It could be fixed by cloning, if desired, but it's not unusual. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O, you are right, Adam Cuerden. I was not serious enough in reviewing. I withdraw my opposition and apologize. But I still think that the light in the background is not good enough.--Jebulon (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor lighting (greens are blown), messy composition. We have much better FPs of butterflies and should start asking a bit more from our creators. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting due to the use of flash. It would be better to have natural full sun to highlight the iridescence. Is the plant in the background part of its native habitat? -- Ram-Man12:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I tried to fix the background but it was near impossible to get something good. since I had done all the masking I put the butterfly on a white background (and fixed the wing). Amada44 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 22:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Armia krajowa 1.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Armia krajowa 1.png
Oppose The map appears like an island without the neighboring countries and is therefore lacking context. Text labels are badly aligned and should be larger. Also, it could do without the oversized title in the image. What is the criterion for the chosen cities? bamse (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if other countries are not relevant, they would help readers to locate the depicted area. (this is even more important here, since the depicted area does not correspond to present day borders) Instead of adding countries to the main map, one could also think of having a small inset map of Europe with the depicted area marked in place of the huge title. Were Radom and Kielce both province capitals of the same province? bamse (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While many AK districts corresponded to pre-war provinces (voivodeships), this one was one of those that didn't do it well. For reasons that are not totally clear, AK named the region after those two towns (one of which was a pre-war province capital, one wasn't). I think that including all towns after which regions are named in the map makes it more informative, not less (some regions were not named after the towns - in those case the region capitals are included on the map). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. An example: what means the blue captions, and what mean the red captions in the same "regions"? What is the difference ? Why some "regions" with two cities, why some with only one ? are the areas really administrative "regions" (before the war, due to the war ? ) ? I see cartographical issues too: Where is the north ? Were is the sea ? Where are the technical captions (scale...) ? But all of this is fixable, and corrections could make this work very informative and interesting. I'm sorry, as French, to have to say that, but maybe an english version could be useful too Thank you for your answer to my precedent comment --Jebulon (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 22:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:pacritet2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:pacritet2.jpg
Oppose - yet another captive creature outside its natural habitat. We have far too many captive animals and cultivated plants, etc. featured already, and far too few located documented wild origin animal and plant photos. - MPF (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query for THFSW: if someone had nominated a very good photo of a mountain, just labelled 'a mountain', without any name or location, would you support that? This photo is similarly lacking in scientific information and value. See also more detailed comment here. - MPF (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A head of Pavo cristatus, male, in Parc Charruyer, La Rochelle, France" isn't quite the same thing as "a mountain", is it? Also, a picture of a mountain is usually meant to illustrate a specific mountain instead of a type of mountain, which is more likely the case here. Jafeluv (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This pic is geocoded, everybody can see where it is... The weather was not so fine, I had before the photo a nice lunch with my mother, this peacock was a bit angry, and... what more ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2010 at 14:54:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clifdiv3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clifdiv3.jpg
Comment Yes, noisy. But interesting, and rare... In this case, maybe technical quality is less important than the event. Could be featured for that reason.--Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. I think denoising has "blended" all the details (but it was probably not perfect before denoising anyway). --Eusebius (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 23:13:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:anchofra.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:anchofra.jpg
Oppose Poor composition. Crop is too tight in places, subject is kind of vague without context of the rest of the ship/boat. Just not the most edifying picture of the subject. Steven Walling21:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok for crop critics. But the rest of your opinion seems respectfully non relevant to me. No need of context: I show an anchor, and only an anchor. And the are a lot of nominated and featured pictures here which are "not the most edifying picture of the subject". By the way, this pic is not a Valued Image candidate...--Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If you want more explanation: not only is not a very illustrative from an educational standpoint, it's just boring. I mean, I don't expect to see fireworks and keel over in joy from an anchor photo, but this is a whole 'nother level of dull. Dull lighting, dull composition, dull everything. Dull is not Featured level. Steven Walling23:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wow ! I don't know who you are, but surely somebody very important to speak so kindly, Your Highness. Just boring ? Dull everything ? Wow... So, I think that 'everything' includes your comments too... "Tout ce qui est excessif est insignifiant". Have a nice day.--Jebulon (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a difference between quality images, valued images, and featured images. Quality images are for images that are of the highest technical quality. Valued images are for images that are of high value. Featured images, however, are for images that meet both of the previous criteria, plus for having a special "wow" to them and being simply the best of the best; the finest of the Commons. I'm sure the image meets quality image guidelines for its high quality, and perhaps meets the valued image guidelines for its level of value, but featured image guidelines? IMO, Steven is perfectly fine with his standing that the image is not exciting, as that is one of the things that differentiates featured images from quality and valued ones. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for kind comment. I'm here since three months only, sorry. Even I have already uploaded here only 2 FP, 10 VI, and 83 QI. I felt Steven Walling's two comments as an attack.--Jebulon (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also think the composition is too straight-forward. The pic documents this anchor very well...but for FP it is not enough. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 10:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2010 at 15:58:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona, AZ.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona, AZ.jpg
Can you expand on what you don't like about the angle and shadows? Fixing things is hard when you won't explain what's wrong. --Shirik (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Un-naturally dark blue? Can you please explain this? The shot has been barely altered, there has been no modification to the sky's color. Or are you just saying it's too dark? --Shirik (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: As the image documentation states, the image was taken near sunset. This is why the sky appears to be darker than you would normally see it. --Shirik (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2010 at 10:01:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question A really nice picture at an exciting moment! But why it is so dark? The corp could be a bit wider that the flower isn't cut off! The spider is a crab spider but I don't know which... Besten Gruß mathiasK11:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Quite dark (as I remember, the butterfly's colour is heller). 1/500s, f/11 at noon in the alps in the end of july ? You must've been deep in a forest ! Anyway : bravo ! Trace (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Documented wild origin. Agree it would be a bit better brightened slightly, that'll be easy to do. - MPF (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too soft. Having more than one subject does not add value in this case. The butterfly is poorly angled. -- Ram-Man12:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2010 at 14:30:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral crop is better than at the other one. But the same problem as before, it´s much to dark imo. I´ll try to light it up a little to show you what I mean when I'm back home in the evening... Gruß mathiasK 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC) now Support, Alchemist-hp was faster. It's a big improvment for the picture! bg mathiasK10:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an OK shot, but the butterfly is insufficiently sharp. It may be that it is not properly aligned with the focal plane, but the DoF is also on the shallow side, so there is little room for error. Relatively poor lighting: The sharpest part of the butterfly (the head) appears shadowed. -- Ram-Man11:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 14:06:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ichijoji Kasai13bsh4272.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ichijoji Kasai13bsh4272.jpg
Oppose A bit too noisy for me. I like the composition, I don't like the position of the sun (bright sky on the left side, interesting features hidden in the shadows). --Eusebius (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the lighting is particularly bad, but the notable contrast between the sunlight and shadow was one of the first things I noticed and is almost distracting in an off-balance type of way. The details are also hard to see in the shadows, which I feel is an important component for the image. I think it's a great image, just not a FP. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2010 at 18:52:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lepidoptera sp.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lepidoptera sp.jpg
Oppose - zoo pic. One of the species is from Africa, the other from the Americas, so this pairing makes for a misleading image with minimal scientific or educational value. - MPF (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2010 at 12:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Jordan BW 0.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Jordan BW 0.jpg
Support - stark, but interesting. Personally, I'd have cropped the tourists out, but they don't detract too much. - MPF (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tourists I can see are okay, but the shadow of someone's head and upper torso at lower right is too off-putting for me. --Avenue (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe "flat" reflects more what I meant. But anyways that picture has harsh feeling. I think more appropriate time to get the shot would be either in morning or late afternoon. And I could link to many pictures with similar landscapes, and without the "harsh" feeling (Lucag has fine, beautiful examples of such shots). - Benh (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 21:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Legiony 1914-1916.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Legiony 1914-1916.png
Oppose. Because of wrong file format and resulting implications: no easy way to translate or fix. Should be SVG. This is a multilingual project. --Dschwen (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a valid point to oppose. There are quite a few non-svg maps at Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps. As you say, it is a multilingual project, so we should allow maps in any language to become featured. Apparently there is no problem to have this English language png map featured. There are even featured French language jpg-maps out there... Given the serious rendering problems of SVG (on commons/wikipedia), I don't think that all illustrations should be svg. Maybe for simple diagrams it makes sense, but to have a complicated map render properly is virtually impossible. bamse (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a big supporter of easy to translate maps, and prefer English language in general. But I don't think that either is a requirement for Featurement? Also, when I submit a map here, I try to make sure I provide English description that would make it easy to translate the map. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The French language jpg-maps have been featured because of thee rendering problems you mention, of the file weight... and because there are SVG versions available! A map without SVG version available doesn't make it very useful for the projects in other languages. Sting (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: It's not because raster maps without SVG versions have been promoted before that we should persist in what I think imho is an error.
Glad you like it. If you think about it, the comparison of svg/raw files is not that far fetched. Compare for instance the situation where somebody uploads a photographic jpg-image with an off white balance (or oversharpened,...) to the case of a png or jpg map which has some factual error. In both cases, the image is easily fixed if there are raw (case 1) or svg (case 2) files available. BTW, I do support the idea of supplying svg maps for editing purposes in addition to png maps. There should be a better interface (an extra field or a template or something like it) at commons where one could clearly identify that the two files (svg and png) show the same thing. As I am aware of the current situation, one has to manually add this information to both image descriptions. bamse (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is not about quality but to be able to translate the map without needing to do a very painfull work again, work which has already been made by the author. Sting (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I like it more than the other maps you recently nominated, but it suffers from many of the issues I mentioned there (not all of these are oppose reasons):
too many cities: only include very big cities in order to locate the map and those places that are relevant for the topic
badly aligned label: if possible align labels consistently (for instance bottom right); keep about the same distance to the dots
Some labels over front lines are difficult to read. Readability can be improved by adding a semi-transparent (70% or so) rectangle (filled with the background color) below the text label.
For the battles, I'd use only the sword sign (not swords and dots which makes it not clear at which of the two circles the battle was located).
Unless it is relevant for the topic, remove the Wisła.
Why is the dot at Krakow in another color?
I'd get rid of the title (i.e. move it to the image description) and if possible even of the legend (i.e. move it to the image description). That would also make it more usable for non-Polish speakers.
Why do some front lines in the legend have a date and others only a month? Were the really the same front line from the 1st to the last day of that respective month?
"marsze bojowe i przemarsze" is probably self-explanatory and could be removed from the legend.
Don't fancy the different styles of "Królestwo" and "Polske" which probably belong together.
I'm not familiar with the topic, but is it useful to have a map that shows only the movement of the Polish legions? Surely the other armies were also moving around.
The greens of Germany and Poland are possibly too close which could result in misunderstandings.
Because there is so much going on between Krakow and Radom, one could consider having a magnified view of that region next to the big map.
At the bottom, the brown legion exits and enters. Why is that part not included in the map?
There is an out-of-place yellow line around Sochaczew.
Yes, I did. Unfortunately he says he has less time now to help out with the project. He will try to take points from here into consideration, but he is pretty sure he has no time to redo the maps in svgs. Regarding "marsze bojowe i przemarsze", I think the legend for those should remain, but should probably be simplified (as a Polish speaker, I am not that fond of that... perhaps just "marsze" would be enough).
To answer your point about other armies: sure, but the map was intended (as requested) to show only the history of the Polish Legions (it is not the map of a war, but a map of the operations of certain units). Thank you (and others) for your valid comments! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, showing only the Polish Legions. As for "marsze", I just though that you could avoid repeating it five times by having a heading in the legend which says "marsze..." once and below that the arrows with just the names of the legions. Same with the front line, just say "linia frontu" once and have just the lines with dates below that. bamse (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As the map nominated below, it misses fundamental geographic information (topography, hydrography, meridians and parallels, etc.) . In this particular case, it seems obvious that the depiction of the relief and the hydrographic network would put the thematic information in its proper context. Finally, this is a multilingual project and the use of the Polish language prevents this map from having a broader utility. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for geographic information, see my comments here. I am not very familiar with the topic of the map, but curious: how would the relief and rivers help to "put the thematic information in its proper context" (I suppose you want to say that the thematic information and relief/rivers are related, but how?)? As for the Polish language, how about the "broader utility" of this featured English language only map? bamse (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This map focuses on political borders. A geophysical map could be made, but would it be more useful? Note that bamse above suggests that the single river is not helpful. Bamse: I am not sure what point are you trying to make with the other map you link? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with you, that a geophysical map is not useful here. I linked the other maps in order to show that there are featured maps which are not svg and only available in a single language. This in reply to comments by Dschwen and Alvesgaspas. bamse (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most thematic maps have a background of base information (topographic, hydrographic, etc.) to help contextualize the specialized information, whatever it might be. In this particular case, depicting the motion of troops, the usefulness of relief and hydrographic information is obvious. Like Waldo Tobler wrote in his 'First Law of Geography' ([7]), Everything [on the surface of the Earth] is related to everything [...]. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that the motion of troops was determined by other factors than topgoraphy/hydrography. To you it may seem obvious, to me it does not, unless you (or somebody else) can point out that the depicted routes follow rivers, avoid mountains or some such. I am afraid that topography would complicate the map unnecessarily and make it more difficult to read it. bamse (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2010 at 00:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loviisa Holzh 4+.JPG
Comment It seems not very special at a first glance. In fact, quarters in Finland with these originally so typical wooden houses have burned down in most cases during the last centuries and replaced by stone and beton. So the scenery is nowadays quite unique. --Beckstet (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is nice and could've been FP material, but the technical quality is insufficient: the picture is noisy, the sky is blown out and the field of depth is insufficent. (Also, the parking sign on the right is distracting, but one must really blame the municipal workers for that. Who sticks a traffic pole right in front of the street name sign, anyway?) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 10:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Male Anas platyrhynchos breeding plumage.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Male Anas platyrhynchos breeding plumage.jpg
Oppose, it's a pretty good photo technically, but the composition looks dull to me, and for such a common subject to be FP I'd expect more than just "pretty good technically". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As above though this is a nice snapshot. To be featured a picture needs to have extraordinary beauty or value, as well as very good technical quality. This photo has none. I wonder why such a high ISO rating was used, causing unnecessary noise. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's an interesting opinion to see ISO 400 as a "high ISO rating", especially on modern DSLR cameras... I used this setting in order to minimize motion blurring - the lens that I used is not equipped with an image stabilizer. Grand-Duc (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even in modern DSLR cameras an ISO setting of 400 may cause visible noise (that is the case, anyway). As for the minimization of motion blur, a shutter speed of 1/1000 is an exageration, 1/150 would be enough with the focal lens of your camera. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that a 1/160s would have been enough for a focal length of 100mm. But there were other mallard ducks in the vicinity from which I tried to take portraits, using the full focal length of 300mm of my Canon EF100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens. At 300mm, I got a 1/640s at ISO 400, and as I did not want to think about switching the ISO's while looking for a "nice posture" of my "model" and being of the opinion that the possibly visible noise at ISO 400 would only occur to some pixel peepers and bother only a part of them... Anyway, I try to improve my photography skills and got hints that will hopefully help me in that aim. Grand-Duc (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 12:58:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blyde Canyon Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blyde Canyon Panorama.jpg
Oppose per above. It's a nice image, but the sky is heavily overblown, and as a result the details of the mountains are not visible. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can someone make the thumbnail scrollable so it doesn't mess up the formatting of the whole FPC page, please! - MPF (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 15:54:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cane2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cane2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 10:57:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Geode mineral.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geode mineral.jpg
Oppose fpx. Snapshot, bad lighting (color cast), excessive whitespace, little detail and clarity on the subject, ittitating hair in the center. Nowhere near FP standard, sorry. --Dschwen (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose such steady shots allow much more elaboration in the setting of the subject, the lights and the background. Especially the black line is the cause of my "oppose"-vote (albeit I think that's not a hair but the shadow of an edge of a paper sheet used as background). Try more lights and set them wisely, place your geode on a single sheet of paper of a greater size and be careful about the white and colour balance in the postprocessing next time, a better image could be the result. :-) Greets, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 17:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:IORE beim Torneträsk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:IORE beim Torneträsk.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 13:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama fjellheisen-improved.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama fjellheisen-improved.jpg
1581
4
41
1237
7631
1245
Dark stripe
2888
8
46
1233
7631
1245
Another dark stripe.
4120
4
46
1237
7631
1245
Yet another stripe.
5407
4
50
1237
7631
1245
Yet another faint stripe.
6515
8
66
1233
7631
1245
One more stripe... and is that a duplicate mountain??
NeutralOppose, it is magnificent, but there are some technical issues: the sharpness/resolution isn't that great, the horizon is curved and there are some funny dark vertical stripes all over the image (most easily visible in the sky). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC) ... Addendum: Looking more closely, there are also some pretty major stitching flaws along those stripes, including duplicate buildings and mountains. Switching to oppose unless those can be fixed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can someone make the thumbnail scrollable so it doesn't mess up the formatting of the whole FPC page, please! - MPF (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 12:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:TakenoBeach Hyogo prefecture.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:TakenoBeach Hyogo prefecture.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2010 at 12:07:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tottori-Sakyu Tottori Japan.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tottori-Sakyu Tottori Japan.JPG
Oppose The composition made me want to support this, but at full size I don't like the quality. I see halos around many of the distant figures, and the sand just doesn't look right. Maybe it's oversharpened? --Avenue (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 01:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Min chalcopyrite.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Min chalcopyrite.jpg
Oppose Several areas fuzzy fringe around a chromatic aberration. There are other species mixtures that are not quoted. We do not know the size and especially the bearing of the sample. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 07:50:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PanoramaSierck les bains.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PanoramaSierck les bains.jpg
Oppose A contre-jour, pas le meilleur moment de la journée pour cette prise de vue. (sun is in front of camera) --ianaré (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sky is blown out. A pity, because this could've been an excellent panorama otherwise. There's also some rather noticeable chromatic aberration. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Neutral cannot support my own opus-- Jebulon (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Busy composition, difficult to make out main subject. Steven Walling 18:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment At least the species of the butterfly should be named (should be easy since the picture was obviously taken in a zoo. Correct me if I'm wrong.) --79.249.249.125 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
DoneAmir (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Question Perhaps this could do with some crops on the sides? --99of9 (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
--Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
_doing_push-ups.jpg)
Doing… Jafeluv (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Abstain -- патриот8790 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
-1.jpg)
_launches_RIM-7P_Sea_Sparrow_on_13_August_2007_(070813-N-4166B-003).jpg)
_doing_push-ups.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
-1.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_05May2010.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eryphanis_sp.jpg){kind=link}
_doing_push-ups.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_doing_push-ups.jpg){kind=link}
_doing_push-ups.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_doing_push-ups.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[6]](http://tineye.com/search?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc2%2FJerusalem_Dome_of_the_rock_BW_14.JPG%2F800px-Jerusalem_Dome_of_the_rock_BW_14.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,){kind=link}
.jpg,){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
-1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-1.jpg){kind=link}
-1.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
-1.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_05May2010.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_05May2010.JPG){kind=link}
_05May2010.JPG)
_05May2010.JPG){kind=link}
_05May2010.JPG){kind=link}
What do you think about this new version? --Llorenzi (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_edit.png)
Not clonable? Though I will admit to not being sure that to do with the stem. This look right? It's a PNG to allow others to make further tweaks more easily - I developed a lot of skills when editing engravings that help here, but recreating bokeh somehow never came up.Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
-cb.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
Request please correct your histogram. It is simply to dark. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
