Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2009

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

File:AllianzArenaII.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 15:29:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Allianz Arena lighting in blue, Munich, Germany.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of photos that R. Bartz has taken of this building. —kallerna™ 17:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extreme Purple fringing --S23678 (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the spot you chose is a bit unfortunate. I havent walked around there but there seems to be quite good spot to make pics of that stadium. Good old Richard took some very good pics from there. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mignon Nevada Ophelia2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 14:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bain News Service - uploaded and restored by Durova - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just about wept when seeing this beautiful piece so lovingly restored, while browsing through WP:Featured Pictures. I really couldn't go past those hauntingly beautiful eyes...
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much for the unsolicited nomination. The unrestored version is File:Mignon Nevada Ophelia2.jpg. Durova (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, I think you mean File:Mignon Nevada Ophelia.jpg :D Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rofl, yes. My bad. Durova (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering the lovely picture you've provided us with, I think I can forgive you. This time. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:U S Air Force Thunderbirds.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 12:41:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by someone named David Armer - uploaded by Dha - nominated by Wolf (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow²! At first glance I thought that it was a mirror photomontage! Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing!--Mbz1 (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support And please do not retake. They are playing with death.--Korall (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, in fact, they're not. This is one of the easiest maneuvres. Wolf (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I wonder why the "5" on the upper Thunderbird is not upside-down. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info That's exactly the point. Thunerbird 5 (the Lead Solo) is the one that flies upside down in all stunts where an upside down flight is necessary. Wolf (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sharpness is borderline, but this is easily overlooked given the setting. -- JovanCormac 11:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Definitely has the wow-factor. MartinD (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per wow. Durova (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps a formality supporting this image but it is really good. Agree as been stated above that it does take a special kind of divvy to attempt such a stunt, perhaps retaking this image would be a daft idea (least of all for the photographer). Its a while since an image stunned me so much (mostly at how bloody daft some people can be!) Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lake Manyara Wildlife.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 04:22:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eismcsquare - uploaded by Eismcsquare - nominated by Eismcsquare -- Square (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Square (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Slight lack of sharpness, but overall good. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very good use of the shallow depth of field. --Aqwis (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice mood --Ikiwaner (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super! —kallerna™ 13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notning special. No wow. --Karel (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karel, I can take constructive criticism. But "no wow" is kind of lame, and empty (and some of the images you have voted for lacks any "wow" in them). I hope you did notice the use of DoF to show four distinct 'layers' - from foreground to background, with animals in their natural habitat and movements. --eismcsquare 02:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition --S23678 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Moise Nicu (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good clear foto of the 6 zebras. --Korman (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikiwaner (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dead Vlei 5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 08:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good use of the rule of thirds. Nice colors. Yann (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple, I like it! Diti the penguin — 20:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Noise is visible even on thumbnails, 1,2 only. —kallerna™ 13:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Info What you consider noise are bushes like this one i guess. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true :D —kallerna™ 17:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. Durova (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --S23678 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably the best photo of Dead Vlei we have. I first saw that location in the films The Cell and The Fall, both of which use it to add to their surreal atmosphere. This quality is captured really well in the candidate image. -- JovanCormac 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really tastes good! --AM (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very original. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GlenHelenGorge NorthernTerritory Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 07:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as nominator 99of9 (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 07:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- No profile embeded in the file and there are some large darker spots visible in the upper left area. Sting (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your comment and attention to detail helping to improve the image. I had accidentally stripped the EXIF while cut/paste cropping in GIMP. I've resaved with the original data and cloned dark sky regions. See what you think now. --~ (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you sure about your color profile ? When I download the image, open it in Firefox (v.3.5.3 – color mode by default) and compare it to the one opened in Photoshop, it's displayed like if it hasn't any profile embedded and with pretty harsh saturation, well far from sRGB rendering. Btw, when I open it in Photoshop, it tells me there's no profile embedded in the image. Weird, isn't it? Sting (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm a bit out of my depth on this one. I'm sure the camera only takes sRGB (that is the default and I haven't changed it), and each image is marked as such. Would it have been mysteriously changed during the use of hugin/GIMP/Picasa? I hardly did any manipulation, so I doubt anything would have changed it. I use firefox and it looks accurate... 99of9 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Open it in IE which doesn't handle color management and you'll notice the colors are the same than in FF, which means no sRGB profile is embedded in the image. But if you think these saturated colors with imo an unreal sky are ok... it's your taste. Anyway, I'm uploading a version with the sRGB profile embedded (no other change has been made) so you can see what I'm meaning. If you don't like it, just revert to your previous version. Sting (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for embedding the profile. I'm very happy to have it in there. 99of9 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good stitching work, interesting, well exposed. I had cropped the building on the right but this is a detail. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality insufficient for FP: Looks somewhat blurry and washed out in full resolution, especially on the sides. --NEURO ^⇌ 11:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pano. Not like some of those mind-numbingly long, narrow slots... -- Petritap (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes - good pano --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per NEUROtiker. —kallerna™ 13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This discussion comes up every few weeks for panoramics with high resolution. 99of9 could have uploaded a downsampled image only and you would say that it's sharp now. However we should engage people to upload full resolution pictures (this one has almost 25 MP). Judging such large images on computer screens at 100% is nonsense because you actually look at a small zoomed area. Reduce to 50% on screen to get an idea how sharp an image will look as a printed poster. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info Ikiwaner is correct that I have not downsampled at all since (I even turned off the hugin default) since I wanted to provide users with as much information as possible. 99of9 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - IMHO lacking sharpness is not the only issue with this image as I pointed out above. As to downsampling or not downsampling: an image that is overall blurry contains redundant information (a form of w:Oversampling if you will). By downsampling you get rid of that redundancy but the information content is the same. Thus downsampling isn't always a bad thing. --NEURO ^⇌ 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm the first one to complain about seeing panoramas at full size, but a 1000 px high downsample still shows huge quality problems (noise in the sky) --S23678 (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trier Jesuitenkirche BW 5.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 08:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done photo, nice object. Very good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not outstanding enough for me. Overall technical quality insufficient for FP. --NEURO ^⇌ 10:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --99of9 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As NEURO. --Karel (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dull colors --Leafnode 07:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colors as well --S23678 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it a colourfull HDR, the image gets shot down for unrealistic colours. If you get a plain image, it is shot down because of dull colours. Weird, huh? --Muhammad (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject itself seems to be as much to blame than the technique used to capture the image. --S23678 (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great!--Kmenicka (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:US Navy 041201-N-4308O-030 An F-A-18 Hornet assigned to the Silver Eagles of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron One One Five (VMFA-115), prepares to launch from one of four steam powered catapults.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 21:04:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate Airman Ryan O'Connor - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great image. The steam makes it special. Multichill (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of atmosphere :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition and athmosphere. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise and JPG artifacts. --NEURO ^⇌ 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, if even I can see the technical flaws (see above), that means there is clearly something wrong with the picture. A pity... Airwolf (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the technical flaws. -- Petritap (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is much too poor. Maedin\^talk 11:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy. —kallerna™ 13:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all I see is steam ... GerardM (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome (but the filename is a bit long) --Leafnode✉ 07:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Terrible quality, jpeg artifacts and color noise. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Promoting this is a non-sense. The quality is terrible. --S23678 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info One should be a bit more careful when judging an image like this terrible or Promoting this is a non-sense. The pic was shot back in 2004 with a Nikon D2H. This was Nikons flagship-line professional camera that cost USD 6000 for the body only. It had 4.1 MP. There was simply no better technology available. The photographer Ryan O'Connor knew what he was doing by shooting this with manual exposure and spot metering. Who ever did a picture of fog knows that this tends to be noisy. Besides the fact that noise is better visible in uniform areas such as fog the fog itself is no homogeneous structure. Therefore I would not recommend to apply a strong denoising filter because the fog would look like semi-transparent plastic. Kudos to Ryan! --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not explain the jpeg artifacts. There was less visible artifacts in images from my digital camera I used in 1998. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Daniel, I doubt that noise, posterization and artifacts are all camera-induced if we're talking about 2004 technology. Point-and-shoot cameras were better than that in 2004 (my 1 year old 5 mpx sony point-and-shoot was already 1 year old when this got taken). This picture's histogram was probably stretched one way or another, causing low contrast areas, like fog, to be severly degraded. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beside the compression artifacts - which can ruin any photograph taken with both-handedly wielded best and most recent camera in the world, using state-of-the-art deep-matrix metering system, this photo is just FA-18 in the fog. Looks nice, but not informative enough. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not fog, this is steam from the catapult that is about to launch this aeroplane in the air. This is imho a very illustrative picture exactly because of what you call "fog". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardM (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind that I have written "informative", not "illustrative". It would maybe be informative had the "fog" be visibly being emitted from mentioned catapult. Here, I don't see any catapult. Thus, I have to rely on your written description. Now, that is not enough information in the picture, sorry. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per bad quality, confusing composition, compresion artifacts and image noise. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Longbeach 1 bg 122802.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 11:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknow - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lê (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

—kallerna™ 12:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - 78.96.255.101 10:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous votes are not allowed /Daniel78 (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spider webs in Muir Woods.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 16:47:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info w:Muir Woods is always dark, even on a bright sunny day. The trees are too tall to let the sun through. Yesterday I've noticed many spider webs that were lit by the sun rays in some places. I was amazed by mystic of the lights and shadows that are clearly seen at spider webs and some Autumn leaves. It was almost as Photographing a model #2, only now it was all natural. BTW how many spider webs do you see :)
Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in general a nice scene....but for FP it is imho not enough. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could make a very good picture of the day for next year w:Halloween--Mbz1 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some photo could be used doesn't make it a worthy FP candidate. --Leafnode✉ 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a little too hard to see what's going on in this picture (darkness, no clear center of attention). Also sharpness problems. -- JovanCormac 09:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose messy composition, too hight contrast/overexposure - as Jovan. --Leafnode✉ 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with previous complaints. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too messy of a composition of the picture -- per Jovan. Razor flame 22:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what I like the image, and enjoy your opposes, so please keep them coming

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zvíkov 8.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 22:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Soft and plane is visible in the frame. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without the airplane in the frame, it would have a very good composition. However, the quality is too low. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above, but also I'd like other perspective better - with even horizon. --Leafnode✉ 09:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blurry. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:City Lights at Night.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Never Cool in School - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lê (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's composition and quality are sub-standard to normal FPs. --S23678 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Anyone with some Vietnamese skills could write to Mr Lê and explain him a little about FPC? Out of the 10 FPCs he nominated, he received a total of 1 support vote (considered "weak support" even)... --S23678 (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Understood. :)--Lê (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:360 degrees fogbow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 21:14:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is a very rare indeed 360 degrees w:fogbow. Of course nothing is really sharp at the image because of the fog that made fogbow possible. There is even no need to see the image in the full view. The whole thing is seen better in the preview. My shadow in the middle could not have been avoided. Fogbows are always formed around antisolar point, and besides isn't this fun to see your own shadow inside ghostly looking white circle
Info The image was taken with 8 mm fisheye, and the whole thing hardly fit into it.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a remarkable image and a very interesting one too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really something special. Very illustrative and the background is very pleasing for such an illustration. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture. Durova (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitely VI, but IMO not FP --Leafnode✉ 07:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose have to agree with Leafnode. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is FP. It is a very good image of a very rare phenomena. --Mbz1 (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low modesty levels detected ;) It's a good representation of a very rare phenomena, but IMO it's not an eye-catching image, as the rest of the FPs usually are. That's why we have VIs. --Leafnode✉ 13:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, where we differ. IMO the image, is very much eye-catching, interesting and educational. It surely cautht your eyes, if you bothered to oppose :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Mbz1. Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the phenomenon is rare enough or the composition is exceptional enough to mitigate the low quality. --S23678 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what makes you to think that the phenomena is not rare enough? Have you seen it yourself? Have you taken an image of it? Have you seen many images of the same phenomena taken by others? Were they better than the nominated image? Just wonder :) BTW the quality is not low, it is almost as good as it gets with such images.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that most of your pictures are extremely rare, that word looses a bit of it's value when you use it... But since you provide pictures of this phenomenon on 2 other separate occasions in the Fogbow category, I guess it's not that rare. And, no, I am not a specialist, but I'm probably not more a specialist than the people who supported your picture. --S23678 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that I am lying, when I said that the image is very rare? I have quite a few images nominated now, and I did not use the words "extremely rare" to describe any one of them, but that one. Maybe you could link to my other nominations, where I used the words "extremely rare" to describe my image. BTW I said that this fogbow was "very rare" and not "extremely rare". About fogbows. They are more or less rare. "Very rare" are 360 degrees, full circle fogbows, the one, which is nominated now. But I guess you do not see, and do not want to see the difference. May I please suggest you to give it another thought before making the statements as you did? Please have a nice day. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can agree that we disagree on about everything... Have a nice day as well! --S23678 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference is that I could prove my disagreements with you with the facts, while you are good only at ignorant talking without any proves at all :) --Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm keeping on going with this, but I guess I'm taking it as a challenge. I'm wondering what kinds of facts you need from me, so I added notes on the image about the quality problems. For the rest, it's a mater of personal taste. You think the rareness of the phenomenon is a good enough mitigating reason for the defects that your image have, that's ok, after all, that's why you nominated your image. But I have the right to think that it's not a strong enough mitigating reason as well... If everyone had the same opinion, what a boring place FPC would be. So, is this the last round? --S23678 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in continuing that discussion either, but I'd like yo explain what statements of yours prompted me to respond the way I did. First was that one (highlighted by me) "I don't think the phenomenon is rare enough or the composition is exceptional enough to mitigate the low quality." In that statement you put my statement that the phenomena is very rare under doubt. You had no reason to do it. You know nothing about fogbows. IMO, if a person "thinks" about something, he'd better be able to explain what made him to think that way. Even after I explained to you why this particular fogbow is very rare you did not bother to admit you were wrong about rarety of the phenomena. The other statement was that one: "Given that most of your pictures are extremely rare, that word looses a bit of it's value when you use it..." I asked to give some examples of those. You did not bother to respond.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is going nowhere. I'll give you the joy of having the last word. --S23678 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Quite exceptional. -- JovanCormac 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree that some of the images attributes are not perfect (colour is a little dull), I think that would be splitting hairs when accounting for how special this image this is. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice shot ! - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sanger Institute and Hinxton Hall, Cambridge, UK.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2009 at 21:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Magnus Manske (talk) - uploaded by Magnus Manske (talk) - nominated by Magnus Manske (talk) -- Magnus Manske (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Magnus Manske (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated, even to a point where the tone-mapping software created a halo around the red building in the distance. -- H005 21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per H005, colours are not right--Korall (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Such a saturation would actually not be that bad if there was no man-made objects, since trees at fall can be deeply colourful, but it's not the case. Composition is not optimal as well. --S23678 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foto is too bright and overexposed. --Korman (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated —kallerna™ 12:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The oversatuation makes the photo unnatural. –– Ra-smit (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would this be considered better? (I'm just trying to learn this stuff...) --Magnus Manske (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. Not sure whether I'd support it as FP (just had a quick glance), but it's a significant progress. -- H005 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. At this level of correction you get awful artifacts. Check the shadows on the building on the right side. And why this need for dramatic photographs? --Blago Tebi (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment die andere Version ist viel besser. Für ein QI würde ich erwarten, dass du die Lichter (Fassaden) noch besser in den Griff kriegst, die sollten nicht überbelichtet sein, da sie sonst wie sterne funkeln und so das Bild stören. Bin gespannt auf die Resultate! --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated - Unnatural / weird colors. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiffel Tower at night.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:25:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alarzy - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lê (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's too small --S23678 (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Copyright violation => image to be deleted. Sting (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Echium wildpretii LC0203.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 20:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by LC-de - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful colors, wonderful composition. The cloud looks like a dot on the i formed by the plant. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 09:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very hard light makes the colors more dull than it could be. --S23678 (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A landscape shot like this should have higher resolution. -- JovanCormac 11:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am very fond of this image and I think the techincal criticisms are negligable, infact I disagree entirely with the first. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technical criticims is less important than the composition. The colours are good too. Quite a nice foto with the cloud in sky. --Korman (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good quality and use of lighting. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jivee Blau (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kenyon Cox nude study3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kenyon Cox, with editing by Durova and User:Adam Cuerden - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I discovered this was being nominated here a bit late: I think the original colours are way off for a graphite sketch, but it is too late to just add an edit to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kenyon Cox nude study2.jpg. To prevent what I feel is an inferior and highly questionable levels adjustment passing simply because the edit was uploaded too late, I'm nominating this separately. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. -- JovanCormac 11:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Econt (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puck cover2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Samuel D Ernhart - uploaded and restored by Durova - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering the questions being asked about the role of the USA in world affairs, I thought this was a rather appropriate picture to be featured. As always, thanks go to the wonderful and talented Durova, whose (often overlooked) work contributes so much to what makes Commons a world class image collection.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with thanks. Unrestored version is File:Puck cover.jpg. Durova (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. No wow. --Karel (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--16:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Very interesting. -- JovanCormac 11:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Venezia - suggestiva foto con giochi di luce.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 18:00:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by RimOrso - uploaded by RimOrso - nominated by RimOrso -- RimOrso (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RimOrso (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I won't FPX, since it will generate ridiculous support votes, but : composition (element on top right corner) and quality (noise, low resolution, as in amount of details). I would request someone else to FPX for me. Thanks. --S23678 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, S23678, the technical quality of this picture is a lot worse than that of all of Lê's pictures. --Aqwis (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S23678, IMO it is not the right thing to do to call "ridiculous" support votes of the people, who have an opinion that differes from your own.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of ridiculous supports. Since their opinions is against me (not the picture), I have the right to think their supports are ridiculous. --S23678 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very blurry and noisy. --Aqwis (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Two silhouette profile or a white vase.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 15:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is an optical illusion. What do you see two silhouette profile or a white vase?
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More VI. ~~This image is not of high artistic merit~~ High artistic merit is not intended for such images in the guidelines, so I remove this, but maintain what's written below. --S23678 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)--S23678 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link me to the guidelenes for FPC, which said that the image should be "high artistic merit" ? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add this : (in the sense that it's a widely known optical illusion, hence making it not very exceptional). Don't get me wrong, the illusion is well done. I just can't see it's exceptional character, as required for FP. --S23678 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong, if an image of optical illusion will get FP status, at least it is something different.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I totally agree with you on this point, but as much as a cliché shot of Machu Picchu must have some exceptional character to it to make it better than most of the other cliché shots done at the same spot, this widely done optical illusion must have some exceptional character for it to make it FP, IMO --S23678 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Leafnode✉ 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Sorry, but on what merits you think this image should be a featured picture? --Leafnode✉ 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the merits that I do not think we have a single optical illusion image featured, and on what merits you opposed the image, if I may ask? Not that I am really interested to find out. I mean who cares --Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read featured picture criteria. FP is not a picture that we don't have nothing against. First picture has to fulfill some requirements, that this picture does not fulfill. First of all, picture should be the finest of commons. Exceptional. This simple drawing is not exceptional. We even have a whole category for pictures like this. I really don't see any feature that makes this image better than the other vase/faces images. I don't know what you meant by saying "Again familiar all faces", but I sense that conspiracy theories are coming on soon. --Leafnode✉ 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read feature picture criteria. Of course the nominated image is the only one from vase/faces that could have been promoted to FP because it meets the size requiremnet, while others do not. Besides you did not even bother to read what I said about the image. It is not a drawing. The image was made from a photograpgh of a real young man that I took last night.I am not sure what "conspiracy theories" you are talking about, but IMO it will be better, if you kept your "sences" to yourself, except of course sense of humor that I believe you're missing

--21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Cup or faces paradox.svg is a vector drawing, so it can be any size you want. It is also sharper, and probably would satisfy Jovan's requirement that the vase should be clearly visible. --Leafnode✉ 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with vector drawing, and have no idea how such images are made :( I looked at the category, and saw the images of only low resolution. Then I decided it will be fun to make the same image with the real face and of a high resolution. I still believe I've done nothing wrong, when I nominated the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you did nothing wrong. Anyone can nominate any image. And while I tend to put self-nominations under scrutiny ;), it is still just vote, with no very strict rules regarding the substance of pictures (only technical matters), so (almost) any vote is valid. I could have added more philosophical remarks, but that is not the place for my opinions, and you probably won't like to listen to them, so I'll pass here :) Cheers --Leafnode✉ 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW thanks for telling me about vector drawing. Now I know why my image is an exptional between vase/faces - it is the only one that is not a drawing!

Best, --Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vector images are readily made with Inkscape. Inkscape has a "Trace bitmap" feature that will convert an image like the candidate one to a vector image, which is indeed better suited for the subject. -- JovanCormac 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'd love to see this well-known optical illusion Featured, but it has been done a lot better than in this image. The "vase" is barely recognizable here. Compare [1], where both the faces and the vase are better done. -- JovanCormac 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your example was probably made with the nose of w:Cyrano de Bergerac

. My image was made from the image of a very real young man I photographed last night. The vase is still there only with more gentle feauters than in the example you provided.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Reason: Wow. The lack of it, to be more precise. -- Petritap (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again familiar all faces.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop those stupid and childish insinuations. -- Petritap (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop PA, watch your language, and use your sense of humor, if of course you have one.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop PA, immediately! As for the language, I'm allowed to call your insinuations stupid and childish, if they are stupid and childish. I did not not call YOU stupid and childish. Do NOT make public assumptions about my personal characteristics (my sense of humour, my intelligence, my looks, my skin colour etc.). That is an ad hominem attack. -- Petritap (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop commenting on the withdrawn nomonation. It is a bad tone to say the least.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sigh...everything said --AngMoKio (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right "everything said" :)

--Mbz1 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:011218-N-9769P-047 F-A-18 With Weapons Ready for Mission.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 13:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jayme Pastoric - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by User:Diaa abdelmoneim -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This may be one of the best images we have of the F/A-18 Hornet on Commons giving the front of the jet in a great composition. -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I couldn't resist: http://leafnode.soup.io/post/21983647/o :D --Leafnode✉ 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it time for a new category 'LolJets'? :)) --AngMoKio (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooh, yeah forgot about that... fixed now...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Dynamic range is excellent, as is composition, but resolution is too low. -- JovanCormac 15:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Resolution criteria is over 2 MP. This is 2.6 MP... I know it's close to 2 MP but if the criteria has changed this should be stated in the guideline. How large should it be? 3MP ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That issue has been discussed to death (I don't even know which one of the numerous related threads to link to here; this is a recent one), and it appears to be the opinion of a vast majority that the guidelines are non-binding (compare the repeated refusal of the community to delist File:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg, which has 0.3 MP only). Everyone seems to apply his or her own guidelines (otherwise we'd just purge every single image on this page from FP); therefore, so do I. My opinion is that a Featured Picture should be of sufficient quality to be printable at a reasonable size (say, an A4 page). I will still decide on a case-by-case basis, but in general anything below 5 MP is insufficient for me. -- JovanCormac 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition and lighting are spectacular enough to ignore the regrettable resolution. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per anon dissident. -- Petritap (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per AD. --Lošmi (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:91 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 01:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- S23678 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info HDR image of a small water canal going through Machu Picchu's ruins, taken with ND filter. I'm using this HDR nomination as testing grounds for recent Machu Picchu HDR images (heavy link, may freeze computers) I want to nominate as FPC. Given the general opposition (including mine) to HDR images that don't look natural, I tried limit the saturation and contrast. Hope you think I did a good job.
Support -- S23678 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sharpness is borderline (roof), but at the image's high resolution that can be forgiven since downscaling sharpens the image. -- JovanCormac 09:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that no downsampling has been done to "increase quality". As mitigating factors for the (small!) quality defects, there's quite an important NR done, the DOF required is very large, the lens themselves are very large as well, AND I had to hurry-up to avoid pissing off more people by completly monopolizing the stairs ;) but that's not a REAL mitigating factor I think...! Downsampled versions are available here to compare with standard lower resolution FPC. --S23678 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support /Daniel78 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition - not enough space --Leafnode✉ 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is valid (I can't convince you about liking the composition), but I'll just point the large FOV (14mm on APS-C) and the fact that moving back was impossible --S23678 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that what I will say might sound like a profanity, but with a crop like this, at the first sight it looks to me like an ordinary pile of rubble. And I understand that there might be no space to move back. And while I'm very sorry, in my struggle for better FP level, which recently deteriorated, I can't vote "yes" :( --Leafnode✉ 14:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good for a HDR image. I'm glad you tried to make it look natural. -- Petritap (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Leafnode. Maybe it's not possible to take a FP of this object. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely not a "pile of ordinary rubbles", but the composition does not convince me.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost perceptible! romazur (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know much about HDR, but it seems to me that the shadows are just as dark as the original. The main difference to my eyes is a yellow cast on the stones, and a more blue sky. Is this the intent of the HDR work? --99of9 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HDR is a very wide field, just as a photoshopped image isn't just an optimized image of a girl in a magazine. I used HDR here to get more color saturation, more local contrast and more details. Having put the shadows less dark would have created an image too far from reality, and while it can be pleasing artistically, it would not have stood a chance in FPC. Verify for yourself and check the difference in details in dark areas. As for the yellow tint, while playing with the levels in photoshop, I got this pleasing golden color and I decided to keep it, since the Incas are associated with gold. --S23678 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anser Anser Domesticus.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 11:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cesco77 - uploaded by Cesco77 - nominated by Cesco77 -- Cesco77 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cesco77 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anser is good, but background is noisy. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Amazing --Muhammad (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Noise is not an issue here, but white should be white and not grey. I'd support a version edited in such a way. -- H005 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoModified, is it better now?--Cesco77 (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMHO no, to the contrary. White balance was quite well in the original photo and should remain unchanged, I'd rather add some light to the image, either as a whole or selectively via gamma curve. -- H005 18:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Info Upload original image but I've corrected the light a little --Cesco77 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support Jep, that's much better, great photo now! -- H005 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. —kallerna™ 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 13:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:B17g and b52h in flight.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 17:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Master Sgt. Michael A. Kaplan - uploaded by Pimlottc - corrected by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Wolf (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd give this picture a title like Who Should We Be Grateful To or something like that. Wolf (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is ruining that picture IMO. Having a beige/brown aircraft with a grey one against a... grey background is not pleasing. And on the side, I don't know why people ~~of commons~~ in general should be grateful to these airplanes... --S23678 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- a) Yes, it's called camouflage b) Not of Commons - people in general. Wolf (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition is good, quality isn't (unsharp, noise on tailfin). On a side note, given that those are bomber aircraft, I really don't see how anyone could be grateful that they exist, except maybe for Boeing, the company that built them. -- JovanCormac 11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the B-17 carried much of the tonnage over Germany, and brought many crews home alive due to good design and performance. The B-52 was (and still is) a potent symbol of American military power, which one could argue, counterbalanced by Soviet forces, kept the world in a state of relative peace for 50 years. So I suppose, upon reflection, we do have something to be grateful for. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I and you and a couple million people can probably be very grateful indeed, but it's very americano/western civilization - centric. "We", as far as I'm concerned, includes the entire world, and should be used with a NPOV. --S23678 (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you're mistaking us for Wikipedia. There's no requirement for a NPOV on Commons. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It has nothing to do with official rules. It's just that logic dictates that a worldwide project like Commons has nothing to gain from such nationalist propaganda in it's file names and descriptions, and that a NPOV is the best option. I'm wondering what name some pictures would get if we were to adopt a non-NPOV...! --S23678 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Airwolf and I are merely stating what we think; notice that the file isn't called "Who Should We Be Grateful To.jpg" and that the picture of GWB isn't called 'AmericanHero.jpg" or "howdidthisbuffooneverbecomepresident.jpg" There's a difference between expressing a view civilly, and being POINTy about it. And don't forget, you did ask why people should be grateful for planes like these, I'm simply giving you an answer. I've got no idea whether the 'correct' answer (if there is such a thing), but I don't see why I shouldn't state my opinion if you've asked for it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I saw the comments of you 2 as arguments to change the picture's title. We were both right, just arguing on different levels. --S23678 (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I'm afraid I'm going to have vote Neutral as per Jovan. While I love the composition, the setting and quality (sharpness and noise) aren't the best. Also Jovan, I think you mean 'Boeing' :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I fixed that... -- JovanCormac 07:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who Should We Be Grateful To - what a ridiculous leading question for a title - for a start, that depends on your nationality/allegience, and of course the fact that were not all flag waving morons. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too many irrelevant arguments are used. These are military planes and they need illustrating. Having only "blue arrows" or other colours because that is pretty is rediculous and also does not illustrate the subject well. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the photography (not voting on the title). Durova (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don´t think the backgroung and the plane's body color make the contrast worse. The picture has a very accurate exposure as well as a good DoF and excellent resolution, so I think it´s among the featured-deserved pictures. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe in a Hollywood film the airplanes looks better than this, but this is a real image captured by a normal camera in a real flight. --Cesco77 (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bay Bridge at night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 14:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Much less photographed than Golden Gate Bridge, Bay Bridge is also a beautiful one :)
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think a shot at a time of the day with more light would be better. Yes, it is beautiful, but so beautiful that the loss of detail due to bad light can be forgiven. Plus there are dust spots in the water to the left and a possible one if not a very strong star to the right of the bridge in the sky. I still like the picture, but not enough for FP, sorry. and please keep on with you work, I like it.--Korall (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the caption of the image specificly explains the illumination of the bridge :

The illuminations on the cables, while part of the original design, are actually a relatively recent addition, made practical by the availability of high efficiency compact fluorescent lamps.The original roadway illumination was by low pressure sodium vapor lamps, which while efficient give off a garish monochromatic yellow light. On the lower deck these have been replaced with tubular fluorescent lights attached to the bottom of the upper deck, while on the upper deck the illumination is by high pressure vapor lamps, which give off a more full spectrum light.

It would have been hard to talk about illumination in a day shot I guess :) Dust spots are easy to fix, except I do not see them :( I will appreciate, if you could fix them please. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Because of the slightly off-center composition (not quite thirds rule yet) and the busy composition of the bridge from this perspective (the bridge towers stacked-up one behind the other). --S23678 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is the only perspective that allows to show the illumination of the bridge, which was the idea of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition + quality --AngMoKio (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think the composition is very good, actually, but the technical quality is not quite good enough. --Aqwis (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aqwis, could you please explain to me what quality problems you see at the image? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of sharpness and colour banding in the sky. --Aqwis (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I am not sure about the sharpness. The sparkling lights prove that the image is sharp enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral interesting image, but the glare from carlights are ruining the mood and making bottom of this picture distracting. Also, there are some spots on it - maybe sensor needs cleaning. I'll mark them in a sec. --Leafnode✉ 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the glare, yes there is trafic at Bay Bridge :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed dustspots. Thanks for pointing them out.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'd better support the image now because Bay Bridge got upset over all the opposes and has stared breaking appart :( --Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe composition is a lot better, but the quality is not enough. A 3 mpx FPC should be more crisp when viewed at 100% zoom (the f/14 aperture probably didn't help). HDR, image stacking and/or multiple row panorama would get rid of the quality problems IMO. --S23678 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not right to talk abot 3 mpx. If the image were downsampled, then maybe, but it was only cropped and not downsampled at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of sharpness is more acceptable at higher resolutions. If this is a crop, longer lens would be more appropriate. --S23678 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Panther convention2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 03:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Thomas J. O'Halloran or Warren K. Leffler - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Black Panther convention.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Black Panther Party convention, Lincoln Memorial, June 19, 1970.
Support -- Durova (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition and striking symbolism. -- JovanCormac 07:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, historical value and visual appeal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above --Cesco77 (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this picture is just fantastic! --Phyrexian (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- 99of9 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. Takabeg (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Chrysopa sp. AF 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 06:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --NEURO ^⇌ 06:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW Rastrojo _(D•ES) 11:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW WOW --DPC (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok. —kallerna™ 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition, intense but realistic colours --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, resolution OK for a macro. -- JovanCormac 07:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful --Phyrexian (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Confederate 5 Dollars.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 23:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Swtpc6800 and edit by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by --190.136.165.178 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Scan (= photograph) => Inappropriate PNG format (especially made from a JPG). Sting (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comment It's a transparent image, What do you prefer? GIF ? --The Photographer (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Inappropriate file format. -- JovanCormac 07:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not sticking to the original file: File:Confederate_5_Dollars.jpg? Seems to be much clearer. --Andreas 06 (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Early morning fog over San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 17:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a CW tilt that should be corrected before voting starts. The disruptive foreground elements (some grass and a small tree) could be cutted away at the same time. --S23678 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just brought the image to PS and placed a grid over it. I could not see the tilt. Vertical lines seem to be vertical. If you would like to correct the tilt, please do, but I am afraid I cannot do it because I do not see it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it tonight, I don't have the tools right now --S23678 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During this time, could you upload the original image to limit multiple JPEG rewites? --S23678 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info The image was rotated by S23678. The voting may go on now :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that's fog. I'm assuming all the little yellow dots are streetlights? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are, but not all. Some are traffic lights, while others are lights at the structures. BTW did you see Golden Gate Bridge? It also has a light on.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must be blind today. :P Are you planning on nominating any images in future without the Golden Gate Bridge? :D Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I nominated an image of Bay Bridge down below. The image is getting opposed, and the bridge got so upset that part of it colapsed It has been clossed for few days already. The traffic is horrible. I asked the folks to support the image (not for me for the bridge :)), but so far nobody did...

--00:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Distracting foreground. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a bad picture but not enough for FP imho --AngMoKio (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the image is "not just enough for FP", it is the worst image from current nominations because you bothered to vote only on that nomination today, angmokio :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karel (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fog. Wow. --Leafnode✉ 22:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the fog in the foreground (lower left corner). ~~Otherwise it's great~~. -- Petritap (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Why not to oppose an image of the fog because of.... the fog :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I take it back. It's not great. It's awful. -- Petritap (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who is the judge?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, interesting... romazur (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Feijoa sellowiana .jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 17:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Didier Descouens - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great DOF, illustrative, black background accentuates the subject --Ikiwaner (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful flower. ~~I think it worthwhile to remove the twig in the right side.~~ - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I did it, but there was then too dark. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, but IMHO technically not perfect enough for FP: seems to have lost quite some detail due to noise reduction plus there's a little chromatic aberration on the right side. --NEURO ^⇌ 18:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too stark contrast and sharpness problems around the petals. -- JovanCormac 07:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons given.--— Erin (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by lyzadanger (Flickr) - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An interesting study of your typical supermarket; notice the huge amount of food, and the 2 people in there. A comment on our wastefulness? Jovan, I'm happy to say this is 5.12MP. Is that enough? :P
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit of noise, but great composition. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, didn't you saw the third person? --S23678 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, I didn't. I spotted the wet floor sign, but not the third gentleman. It's like a giant version of 'Where's Wally?'. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! Great picture (even though sharpness could be better; most of the labels are barely legible). -- JovanCormac 06:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Althought there is small quality problems. —kallerna™ 11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice idea, but too noisy and a bit too blurry. --NEURO ^⇌ 12:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually the idea is plagiarized from [2].franklin.vp (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Nice shot, but far too much going on, and there's no defined subject. It's an odd angle as well, so at thumbnail (and indeed at full-resolution as well) all I can see is a mess of different colors. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- which is exactly the point of this picture, isn't it? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps. But it still isn't fit to be recognized as an FP in my honest opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this image can give a false impression that en:Andreas Gursky has donated his internationally acclaimed photo[3] to Wikipedia for free--Caspian blue 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How is that a concern? Simply because someone else has photographed a similar subject, we can't promote it? I'm not liking the slippery slope here... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plagiarism concern, not a slippery slope--Caspian blue 00:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition and subject mitigate for some minor technical flaws. -- H005 23:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blurry. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As other opponents. --Karel (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality problems are too small for me to oppose. --Phyrexian (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People on the right and blurry (maybe cut, smaller version will be better). D kuba (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GIB 2007-09-18.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 21:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nervousenergy - uploaded by Nervousenergy - nominated by Avala -- Avala (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely done and it is a very interesting panorama for a change, not just many images stitched together for no reason -- Avala (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks cool, the resolution could have been higher though. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very different from the usual panoramas. --Aqwis (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this. The angle, the setting, the crisp detail and of course, the unusual sight of a plane taking off in 5 stages...it's exactly what I want to see in a panorama. Great work Nervousenergy, and a nice find Avala. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This panorama is awesome. I'd support if there was a higher resolution (not downsampled), which is probably easily achievable given the very low vertical size (800px) -S23678 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting at first look, but resolution is too low and crop on top too tight IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting time-lapse. Great picture. I don't think there is any resolution problem. There is not need of artifical addition of pixels where they don't exist (which is the case of many photographs here) -- Blago Tebi (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! Diti the penguin — 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - It has some over expsure / apperture in the most left part (not the sky, but in the buildings below). Can that be fixed without the need to retake the picture again? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that retaking the image would give you any different results. It is the combination of sea fog and sun that creates haze and if you want to include that part of the city in an image I doubt you would ever have different results at this time of the day. Maybe it wouldn't be noticeable if there wasn't for the part of panorama on the right, but these are essentially different images as they were taken under different light and geographic conditions.--Avala (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view, high quality --Cesco77 (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. 99of9 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great idea to make such a picture. Grand-Duc (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hurricane Bill in First Full Disk Thermal Image from GOES 14.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 17:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by GOES science team (NASA) - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image shows the intertropical convergence zone, the remnants of tropical storm Claudette, tropical depression Anna and Hurricane Bill.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good!--Kmenicka (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution is quite low - the actual storms are very small even at full size. Compare File:Venus globe.jpg, which has three times the resolution and better detail even though it is of a another planet. The fact that the candidate is a thermal image adds value, but not enough AFAIC. -- JovanCormac 07:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lasiodora parahybana 2009 G03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 08:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky ^talk -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Brazilian salmon pink birdeater, adult female (Lasiodora parahybana). It is one of the largest spiders in the world. This poisonous spider can eat birds, reptiles and small mammals -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image given that it was taken with a DMC-TZ5, but heavily pixellated at full size, especially in the shadows. -- JovanCormac 11:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a good and interesting foto. Nice colours. --Korman (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support if George promises to nominate only one of these. ;-) -- H005 20:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail --Tony Wills (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, rare subject --Cesco77 (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prang's Valentine Cards2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 03:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by L. Prang & Co. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova Restored from File:Prang's Valentine Cards.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love you, Durova. -- JovanCormac 06:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible. --Karel (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, that's it. I'm getting pretty sick of your one word image reviews; they contribute nothing to the discussion, tell the creator/restorer nothing about what's wrong with the image and how they could improve it. That's just downright rude, but 'terrible'? That's just going too far. 'Terrible', you say? 'Great' I say. Durova is one of the most talented people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting, so the next words you type had better be 'sorry' and 'it won't happen again'. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering whether we should consider (i.e., tally) these kind of votes. It does not contribute at all, imho. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but this is great missunderstandg on side of Lover of Waves. I did not mean, that Durova is terrible. I have never seen her, so maybe is, maybe not. And this is not important in this age of plastic surgery possibilities. But what I really claim is, that this image is one of most ugly kitsch I have ever seen and we should vote about it´s deleting from Wiki instead of FP nomination. --Karel (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Kitsch of a certain age becomes historic; this example is from 1883. Louis Prang was an important publisher. Durova (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, forget about surgery, please. But IHMO kitsch is kitsch and if this image is old, it is just only old kitsch. --Karel (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Jovan. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Durova's work is very good, but I don't like the card. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, Durova's work is so good, card is "terrible" maybe, but is a historical document --Cesco77 (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, really terrible :-D --Phyrexian (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bravo Durova ! Takabeg (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:San Antonio Christmas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 04:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Corey Leopold - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this image very beutiful and clear (and big too), so I nominate it. Sorry if I wrong. -- Lê (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everything but clear. Heavy image noise, extremely blurry. You could try denoising & downsampling, but then I would probably oppose it for its small resolution. -- JovanCormac 07:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many quality problems. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better composition and colors, but it's still snapshot quality --S23678 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I subscribe to the previous arguments. --Vprisivko (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seattle Columbia centre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 15:35:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created uploaded and nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the composition, but I think the picture could benefit from some noise reduction (mostly sky). Would support if done. --S23678 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Denoising done. However the difference is only seen in magnifications not in full screen. --Ikiwaner (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a look at this just before going to bed, and I see no differences between the 2 version. I may be tired (or my screen may be dirty), but are you sure you uploaded a denoised version? --S23678 (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The new version is now showing denoising --S23678 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 78.96.255.101 09:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous votes are not allowed. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support works very well for me --AngMoKio (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good perspective --Cesco77 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent point of look --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great composition, but heavily pixellated (noise?) near the top of the tower. -- JovanCormac 07:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SkansenSeptember2007 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 05:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View from Skansen in Bergen, Norway, in September 2007. created by Aqwis - nominated by Anon -- 122.169.86.252 05:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a random snapshot. -- JovanCormac 07:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as the creator, I can confirm that it was, indeed, a random snapshot. ;) --Aqwis (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Leafnode✉ 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tanner scale-female.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 14:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by/uploaded by M•Komorniczak ^-talk- - nominated by -- M•Komorniczak ^-talk- 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- M•Komorniczak ^-talk- 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This makes an excellent Valued Image with its high EV, but it just isn't special enought for FP. -- JovanCormac 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comment - Per JovanCormac, it should be posted in wikipedia, in the valued pictures (instead of here). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tower blocks in Leeds.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 20:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by uploaded from Flickr - uploaded by Mtaylor848 - nominated by Mtaylor848 -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it has very high levels of noise --S23678 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Imehling (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe you're not trying to make a point against me right after challenging the cleanliness of my screen. If you don't see the noise here, I think you need some glasses on your side. Could you explain why this picture is better than 99.96% of all the files in Commons?. --S23678 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just regard it as a protest against your arrogance. --Imehling (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bad quality. --Korall (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality --Avala (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise is ridiculous. Bring back the FPX. -- JovanCormac 06:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request As the poor hapless idiot who took this hopeless apology for a "picture" can I ask that it be removed from this "competition"? I have never entered a photo competition, and never will. It was taken standing in the middle of a busy road in the rain, so of course it's not a "great" picture, of course there will be "noise" and I don't any of you lot to tell me so, thank you very much. Tdgreen (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here --S23678 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A piece of friendly advice to Tdgreen: do not give Creative Commons licences to your pictures. -- Petritap (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Can somebody fix the image noise in the picture? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noise can be corrected, but it's not the only quality issue here (although the most visible). I don't think any post-processing can make this FP, if this is your intent. --S23678 (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) during shock trials - 080816-N-6031Q-213.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 09:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the US Navy - uploaded by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, edited by Lycaon - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does one go about testing the capability of a war ship to stand up to the rigours of combat? By detonating a 10000 pound (4 535.9 kilogram) charge next to it, of course. The ultimate product demonstration. :P Special thanks to Lycaon for his unsolicited (but much appreciated) cleanup of this image.

Stupid Question Does these tests ever fails (or it's just an excuse to do a 5 tons blast from time to time...) ?--S23678 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting image ruined by a bad crop. Also blown whites in the explosion cloud. -- JovanCormac 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anchors aweigh! Durova (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral interesting, but crop is definitely too tight. --Leafnode✉ 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VW Wolfsburg.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 18:31:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by High Contrast - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High Contrast (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it has very high levels of noise in the sky --S23678 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think the reason given for excluding it from featured picture candidacy is poor. There is little cloud in the sky and in my mind it does not detract from the image. If cloud isn't aloud then how does one take a good picture of the North of England. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please look here. Noise has nothing to do with the clouds. --S23678 (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Serious quality problems. -- JovanCormac 07:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. I'd also add oversharpening (visible on the left edges of the chimney) --Leafnode✉ 10:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Original one, but with noise problems. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /{{{sig}}}

File:Water Dolphin.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Normally I restrict myself to one nomination per day (if I nominated all 650 odd images I want to, there'd be chaos) but I couldn't walk past this interesting piece from our resident water photographer extraodinaire, Noodle Snacks. I doubt you could replicate this easily. Water dolphin indeed.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think the lighting is among the best of the water drop photos. But dolphin shape is fun. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Noodle snacks. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 78.96.255.101 10:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anonymous votes are not allowed - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jan Garbarek-2007-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 21:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dimitris Papazimouris from Halandri, Greece - uploaded by Jocian - editing by Carschten – nominated by Jocian -- Jocian (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jocian (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment /me is puzzled by the horizontal banding in the noise in the background. What is it ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice work correcting the exposure, but the extreme image noise is a no-go for me given the low resolution, and it also looks like the color balance is off (red). -- JovanCormac 07:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best quality (see JovanCormac), but the way you look at the musican in action is imo so brilliant that i would Support --ka ʁs tn 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much overexposure and noise. --Korman (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kleiner Fuchs bmn3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Maxe.wiki - uploaded by Maxe.wiki - nominated by Maxe.wiki -- Maxe.wiki (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maxe.wiki (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main subject too small, we have very high standards for macroshots. —kallerna™ 17:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Leafnode✉ 22:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paradiesbrücke.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 00:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by je-str -- Je-str (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Up to the task quality-wise, but problems with composition (that left handguard should be cropped, and it's shade is creating a non-pleasant straight line where there should not be). As well, a bit more color saturation would make this fall scenery look a lot better --S23678 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per S23678. -- JovanCormac 07:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as S23678 --Leafnode✉ 09:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are some strange unsharp areas in the photo. Composition is imho quite nice. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It has some blurry parts, and the red colors on the left part seem a little bit strange. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notting-Hill Carnival-Beauty.JPG[edit]

Romazur 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 21:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Romazur - uploaded by Romazur - nominated by Romazur -- romazur (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality isn't perfect, but resolution is high and the colors are striking. -- JovanCormac 06:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, first of all for honesty! romazur (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Petritap (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose she is a beauty, no question, and the colors are nice too but I don't like the extreme tilt. Really too bad bcs the scene in general has the potential for a great shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank You for above opinion, too - I accept Your point of view. romazur (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Econt (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop and too extremly tilt. Typical for the Notting-Hill Carnival are the afro-caribbian members and mainly their fancy costumes, but you reduced it to a nice face. What a pity... -- Ra'ike T C 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, typical for present NHC parades is almost everyone, probably from the whole world. Watching it live you may find out it's already transformed into a multicultural event. So, one is able to take a lot of extremely different pictures... Nevertheless, Your undoubtedly important remarks are being appreciated. romazur (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as Ra'ike and AngMoKio. Maybe you have some other pictures like that in your collection? --Leafnode✉ 10:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've got few more, but in my opinion this one is the most interesting... Thank You for Your point of view - of course - too. romazur (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Little quality problems, just too little for me to oppose. I very like the child looking in camera. --Phyrexian (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to say... at last! Little girl is cute, isn't she? When I discovered her on this picture, looking stright at camera, I started to think it is the best actress in supporting role I've ever seen. Pretty and misterious, as well. And what caused it? Tilt! :) romazur (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tilt, bad quality. —kallerna™ 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tlit was essential... Quality is everything what my compact camera can offer - I am only amateur in photography. Thank You for not long but concise statement, indeed. romazur (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Took me quite a time to think about it (tilt or no tilt?), and now I think the tilt is artistically valid here. But it's quite subjective. Overall, I feel it's an awesome picture (and model...!). --S23678 (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much for deep insight into the picture... romazur (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I want to see full costume. I think that a nice face is not enough for FP, especially with her eyes being closed (sadly, it makes the pic less interesting and lively for me). Also background could be better. And quality... Nice try though :)--Tired time (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly You have a full right of expecting to see nothing more but each one imagination of Yours. To be honest, this year there were parading several adult women I would be glad to see without any piece of costume... Unfortunetaly rules of the reality are heartless for daydreams :( Nevertheless, above expression of Your thoughts is important for me, too. romazur (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per kallerna. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "Per kallerna", ok - "Per kallerna": "Tlit was essential... Quality is everything what my compact camera can offer - I am only amateur in photography. Thank You for not long but concise statement, indeed." + I appreciate You were so kind to express some opinion. romazur (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sometimes a bit of tilt does an image the world of good. In this case, it adds a dynamic feel, making you feel as though you're right there shimmying alongside her. Well done! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right - in relation to the facts: this is a picture with content focused on the one particular moment of the NHC, and I was not going to "photoshop" it to get anything more but real portrait of true beauty. So, thanks for wide reflections on this "raw"... picture! romazur (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too much like a snapshot IMO, sorry. Distracting background, tilt etc --Muhammad (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank You for Your opinion, too. In fact it is not graphics, so... romazur (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sapona Panoramic.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 09:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Compsciscubadive - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A slightly different panorama than what we're used to...
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, slightly different - including the minimum of software... Well done! romazur (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness could be better but given the high resolution it can easily be improved by downsampling. -- JovanCormac 16:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Support}}, ~~interesting and good technical quality~~ –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further examination, there are indeed many visible stitching seams that, at full resolution, detract highly from the otherwise excellent quality of the image. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've marked some visible stitching seams. The ones in the water are almost unavoidable, but I'd prefer to see them blended more smoothly. The one on the top right of the wreck should probably be fixed before featuring. --99of9 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth did I miss those? Would there be someone more adroit with image editing than me, willing to assist? I gave it a go myself, but it ended up worse. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk)
  - A proper job would probably require the original shots. Otherwise all I can suggest is blurring down the seam lines, which will look much better, but probably wouldn't get up to FP standard. 99of9 (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stiching errors. —kallerna™ 16:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, nothing extra. --Karel (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --— Erin (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

I'll suspend this until I can contact the author, and get the original images. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-16 refuelling, Exercise Green Flag East - 081201-F-3071N-235.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 09:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Master Sgt. John Nimmo Sr. - uploaded by Alaniaris - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, this is excellent! -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP --Cesco77 (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great quality, interesting composition --Leafnode✉ 10:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality, great composition, high resolution. -- JovanCormac 12:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, now this is the shit. --Aqwis (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful capture of a difficult operation. Durova (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High guality and I have no chance to take it. Takabeg (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great, but, I think it could even be better by cropping the foreground element, which has some sort of bizzare double-edge in the top right corner. --S23678 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEURO ^⇌ 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 05:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Works Progress Administration - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Created circa 1936-1938. Lake Placid, New York hosted the 1932 and 1980 Winter Olympics.
Support -- Durova (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGreat work --Cesco77 (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. Mer30 (Mersī). Takabeg (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The restoration is good, and the image itself may be valuable, but there's no wow for me. It's just an advertisement? 99of9 (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a Works Progress Administration poster it is technically a public service announcement. An editor had requested a historic featured picture that pertains to the Winter Olympics, to run for next year's games. This was the only available file that was public domain and high enough resolution to restore for featured candidacy. A blog post explains the technical challenges. Durova (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously just because we (someone) *want* a FP on a particular topic that doesn't argue for or against support of any particular image. Nor does it increase the wow. I don't doubt that there were technical challenges, or that you've done a good job. It's just that you're restoring a fairly unimpressive original. --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Great work[reply]
Oppose As 99of9. --Karel (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stadtkirche VIT (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 19:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mike aus dem Bayerwald - uploaded by Mike aus dem Bayerwald - nominated by Mike aus dem Bayerwald -- Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good quality, but needs perspective correction. -- JovanCormac 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Jovan, plus needs a slight CW rotation. As well, is this a downsample ?(seems to me, from the corners resolutions) If yes, why not upload the full size version? Maybe the alternating red and green artifacts seen on the tagged window would disappear at full resolution. Finally, could you explain a bit the HDR processing done here? Thanks --S23678 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello. No, this is no real downsample, the original resolution was 3872x2592, but I rotated it to correct the perspective and lost some pixels. I also tried to remove the purple CAs at the windows, but its not perfect, unfortunately I am not a photoshop freak. And Jovan, how should it be corrected? My eyes don't see the distortion and thus I can't improve it, sorry. And: The HDR is made out of 5 pictures, (from Pentax PEF to JPG) and then with Photomatix 2 combined to the HDR. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, obviously the vertical lines (window edges and benches) should be vertical, but in the picture they are leaning towards the center. This is what needs to be corrected. -- JovanCormac 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I just tried a new version, now the CAs are smaller i think. I also could save some pixels and now it is the highest quality. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose washed-out colors, some strange artifacts and CA on windows, perspective, overexposed windows (if it's HDR, this problem should be fixed by making additional exposures), the altar is unsharp. As this is a static setting, it is possible to make this photo again, and I'd support improved version :) --Leafnode✉ 09:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
retouched version
I've played a bit with curves and saturation and uploaded a retouched version - I think it's a bit better. --Leafnode✉ 10:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but this version is not what I wanted to intend. Nobody wants to know, what's behind the church windows. The point of interest is just the altar and the interior, and from my point of view, focus and exposition are just right and create a certain ambiance. We can talk about aberrations and perspective correction, but not about the image itself. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Your new version is better than the first one, but my eye is drawn more on Leafnode's version, which is even better IMO. Still, I' m not convinced that I would support that version, so, I will not nominate it as well. --S23678 (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think retouched version is better... --Phyrexian (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dammit... this means I have lost, righto?! -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken the liberty of perspective-correcting the retouched version (automatically using ShiftN) --99of9 (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love this shot, but it's hard to not see what it could be. Here's my take. --Calibas (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
by Calibas (talk)
Comment This really looks quite nice, but if we go on doing this, we will soon have trillions of versions ;) What shall we do now to get a fair result, everyone is happy with? -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any and all versions. Dull. No wow factor.--— Erin (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 b.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś, Konflikty.pl - uploaded by Airwolf - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sad fate for this airplane. I have no comments about the quality, but the composition feels too simple, not developed enough for FP (slightly rotated CW, slightly off-center - but still too much centered). --S23678 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per S23678--Tired time (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:View over haifa-other.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 13:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photos.com - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I thinks it perpect. Big, no noise, no exposure, excellent color, have focus and depth, with some my edit by MS Paint. I hope I understood Image guidelines. -- Lê (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aqwis, I need your help here as well. --S23678 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the noise in the upper part of the sky is really weird. Is this a composite of two pictures? Otherwise it's a good picture; I don't think the slight overexposure in the lower part of the picture is a major problem. --Aqwis (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image isn't bad, but not FP. Too noise in the sky, overesxposure in the lower part. And in image like this the resolution is too low. --Cesco77 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose This brings back wonderful memories of my visit to the Baha'i Gardens 5 years ago, but the resolution is much too low for such a shot. -- JovanCormac 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise and overexposure --S23678 (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 14:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like leaning to the right --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trieves from hauts plateaux du Vercors IMG 0002-IMG 0027 v2 fused.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 09:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by David.Monniaux David.Monniaux (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- David.Monniaux (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. There is a weird image bug in the middle of the sky - weird pixels. I'm regenerating the JPEG file. In the meantime, can you please evaluate the picture apart from this bug? Thanks. David.Monniaux (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bug fixed. David.Monniaux (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support oh wow, pretty :o DarkoNeko 10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the tone mapping effect makes parts of the image look really weird (see: the plants to the right). --Aqwis (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You can clearly see the transition between pictures. Either vignetting was not eliminated, or each section of the panorama was tone mapped individually and then assembled. --S23678 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As aqwis and S23678. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Hugin is giving me weird tone/fuse bugs... David.Monniaux (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create a panorama with each exposure then use enfuse (either with hugin or as a standalone). Hugin is doing the opposite when creating HDR panoramas (tone mapping then assembling frames). It's faster but not ideal. --S23678 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose stitching 99of9 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valby Kirke 01-09-07 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 22:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Broadbeer - uploaded by Broadbeer - nominated by Broadbeer -- Broadbeer (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Broadbeer (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quality issues : artifacts in the almost blown white wall. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough for FP. And the wall in front of the church is a bit annoying when it blocks the lower parts. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly composition (the white wall cutting the bottom of the picture) and colors. --S23678 (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very visible JPG artifacts. --NEURO ^⇌ 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clifton Beach 6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 11:25:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure who constructed the bridge. It is made of two steel RSJs with chicken wire and a plank or two between them. The steel girders have corroded rather significantly. I didn't cross it. Seems to be the only way to reach the point however. --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a bit on the small side, but highly impressive. Wolf (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive... romazur (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --Tired time (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grand-Duc (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC) . A beautiful picture.[reply]
Support -- Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the water. Very cool. Tiptoety ^talk 06:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like Wolf --Phyrexian (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is very small for such a static subject (a 1/4 of your sensor's resolution). Why not upload a full resolution? --S23678 (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find about 95% of reuse ignores the licence and treats the image as free (as in beer). I don't care about this when it is for personal or educational use. I am less happy when it occurs commercially, hence the downsampling to protect my images a bit. If I met substantial opposition here because of it, I would just stop nominating. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. --99of9 (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 01:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice ambience for fishing. Excellent photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice, but you've done it many times. New style? ;) (but I admit, this one is eye-catching :)) —kallerna™ 17:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kallerna, it is the very first time I nominated an image of a fisherman. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great atmosphere :) --Leafnode✉ 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Juliancolton (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Karel (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Arguably nice atmosphere isn't enough. Rather dull, no wow factor and bland. Distracting sun.--— Erin (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Pilatus Agusta A109 Flug.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created uploaded and nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEURO ^⇌ 20:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot -- Tobi 87 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Cesco77 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture could use a denoise IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support some minor quality issues. But still a nice shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S23678 (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, but needs denoise before I can support. —kallerna™ 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Impatiens lawii.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 18:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cj.samson - uploaded by Cj.samson - nominated by Cj.samson
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's too small --S23678 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gaucho1868b.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 17:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Courret Hermanos Fotogs. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Gaucho 1868.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Argentine gaucho, photographed 1868. Durova (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good as always! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, GerardM (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support encyclopedic. Takabeg (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait. -- JovanCormac 07:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cesco77 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Oregon Convention Center Dusk 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:35:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Oregon Convention Center in Portland, Oregon, USA. Taken at dusk, 4x2 segment stitched image. created by Fcb981 - nominated by Anonymous -- 122.169.68.145 07:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's insanely detailed. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've marked an apparent minor stitching error. The cable has a sudden kink in it. --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong tilt on the right side of the picture (or a lot of wind). I'll remove my "oppose" if corrected. --S23678 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't like the composition.--— Erin (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition isn't good enough. —kallerna™ 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 16:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, definitely! --Aqwis (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, idem ! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of detail, noisy. inisheer (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition, bad quality --Muhammad (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per inisheer. -- JovanCormac 06:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures! The magnification is fine but the beetle is nothing than unsharp mush! Sorry. --Leviathan (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome capture. Quality is not so good on full view, but it's still very good. Downsampled to 1700 x 1200 (minimum size) looks perfect. --Lošmi (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, thats the worst argument I´ve read here for a long time! So we take, for example, a little unsharp 40mp (10000x4000) panorama and downsample it to 1700x1200 so it looks perfect?! The loose of quality is uninteristing or what??? Sorry but voting like this is pure nonsense!! Why should we upload the highest possible resolution if you vote by downsampled pictures? Cant understand... --Leviathan (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Leviathan, you said "Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted". Do you think this is a right argument to oppose? --Cesco77 (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "...wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures!" That was what I've written. And the next sentece tells why I think so. The link to my nomination is only an example. --Leviathan (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This picture may be "blurry and noisy", but it's not overexposed and its composition is, frankly, a lot better than that of your candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually it does make a sense. Images for web are usually in resolution of 72 px/inch, and for printing are in 300 px/inch. Thus, size of downsampled image and printed image might look similar. Full resolution of printed image won't be that big as full resolution on the web. That's what I taught. --Lošmi (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 13:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that, if the image was just a little bit better quality, and had just a little bit more details, it would not have been safe for the kids to look at

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in my opinion very good shot --romazur (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perhaps oversharpened, not convinced about quality inspite of the excellent composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per inisheer. Our FP standard for macros is quite high. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Striking.--— Erin (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tasman Bridge Dusk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Tasman Bridge crossing the Derwent River as seen from the North West of the bridge at dusk. created by Flying Freddy - nominated by AnonR -- 122.169.68.145 07:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm under the impression of already having saw this nomination before. I oppose because I feel the composition is not developed enough. The subject itself is quite ordinary as well. --S23678 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for the nomination, but this was very early in my photography, and overdone hdr was very much overdone. + per S23678 Flying Freddy (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, composition could be better and it's bit overprocessed. Could be QI thou. —kallerna™ 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as all above --Leafnode✉ 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dead Vlei 3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 18:43:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't like this one compared to the one that was just featured and this one which I mentioned last time I preferred. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very good image, however, a bit blurry at the top and there isn't a distinct contrast between the tree and its background.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good photo for me --Pudelek (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- JovanCormac 15:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Diaa --S23678 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Ikiwaner (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Along The Riverwalk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 04:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Corey Leopold - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think it is very clear, with the light river, but too dark, I think, but it is not opaque when I zoom it. -- Lê (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of low quality (heavy noise, low amount of details) and composition (intrusive foreground elements). Overall snapshot feeling. You obviously did not understood. You should ask advice from regular contributors BEFORE nominating further images. Next time, I might be a little less polite. Google translate : Bạn rõ ràng đã không hiểu rõ. Bạn nên xin lời khuyên từ những người đóng góp thường xuyên TRƯỚC cử thêm hình ảnh. Tiếp theo thời gian, tôi có thể là một chút ít lịch sự.--S23678 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't look like a snapshot to me. And what exactly "Next time, I might be a little less polite" means? --Lošmi (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Means I was very polite to take him by the hand another time, as it has been done numerous times in the past by me and other contributors. Mr Lê has difficulties understanding FPC quality concepts, but doesn't seems to learn from his mistakes. So if the childish way doesn't work once again, I might be tempted by a more direct approach next time. --S23678 (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree that it's not as bad as previous candidates, but still quite far from FP quality. -- JovanCormac 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image, not even close to a snapshot, should not have been FPXed.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, S23678, your impoliteness is far more damaging than Lê's nominating a few pictures that may not be of the quality you expect of an FP candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Aqwis. It is impolite to bite newbies, who have difficulties understanding English.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but the noise isn't the only problem here, low details for me --Cesco77 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 15:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subpar. Takabeg (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now, I uploaded a new full-resolution version of my picture. I tried to improve its quality by denoising some parts (e.g. sky, roof and field). Obviously, my picture arises a strong controversy. Thus, it is hard to please everybody. Please give me a chance, because as Calibas has already mentioned, it's quite frustrating. If you have other propositions how my picture could be improved, don't hesitate to tell me! Thanks:)
Support Looks good to me. -- Petritap (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cesco77 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 99of9 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most confusing nomination ever. --S23678 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why does this nomination keep jumping to the top of the list? -- JovanCormac 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the quality problems have been solved. The bright part of the soccer field is overexposed, contrast in the crowd is low, and the whole picture suffers from extreme artifacts and noise. -- JovanCormac 12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jovan. —kallerna™ 16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ??? --Simonizer (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jovan & mediocre. Takabeg (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think there aren't great quality problems. Good work. --.ds m. 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Shows the atmosphere -- Je-str (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late votes (note I removed the time extension that the edits got, I have not seen any other candidates getting that privilege so I just follow the usual procedure). /Daniel78 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

first version[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Tobi 87 - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the too-much-noise-in-an-ISO100-image group will decline this pic for having too much noise. However this is an excellent composition and esposure is perfect under difficult conditions. Last but not least it is very informative. Because the brightest part is where action takes place I think this version is far better than i.e. this day shot. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shows the atmosphere --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a lot of quality issues (noise, moiré pattern on the track, very high pixel level defects), but these are almost invisible at 2 mpx downsample. As well, I would have liked to have the ring of flags not cropped on top, but, as for my final verdict, I can't help but really like this picture. --S23678 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tolle Atmosphäre. -- H005 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~--Cesco77 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, great atmosphere and so on, but the noise is just too much. Noise removal & downsample? —kallerna™ 17:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of the size noise can be ignored. Great picture --Simonizer (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI don't think we can obtain an image without noise in this extreme low light condition. The atmosphere is beautiful. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compression is here really too much. And also, what’s the point in having that many megapixels, when the information simply isn't there? You can downsample this picture by 2/3 and still not loose any detail. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How everyone can prove this is wrong:

Use JPGSnoop to determine how the original image (18.7 MB big) was saved. Result: Adobe PS CS4, Quality 12
Open the image and downsample it to 66%, Save as with quality 12. Result: 11.3 MB file
Open the new file again and upscale it so it's 7149 pixels wide again. Result: 17.1 MB file
Final result: We lost 1.6 MB or 8.6 % of information.

A few years back I was thinking like you Blago when I uploaded this file as a downsampled version to reduce noise. A few weeks later we had to upscale the same image because we needed a large format print for an exhibition in Berne. That was when I realized that downsampling images is not useful for pictures here on commons. Besides: Take your favourite pictres and make some large format prints yourself. You'll notice how much harder to see noise is on paper compared to screen. Some noise might even increase subjective sharpness. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care so much about the noise, but I do believe that the image will look better (both on the screen and on the paper), if it is downsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, fine by me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality problems are too big IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At reasonable downsampled resolutions, it seems more than good enough quality. Some images should not be evalutated only at 100% size IMO. Diliff (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Blago Tebi. IMO the image will be better off, if downsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Durova (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Diliff. --Lošmi (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Mbz1. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the guidelines that this is the version to choose. --99of9 (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please note, that the picture above is the new (third) version (and not the first!!). If you think that it is of inferior quality as the first, please tell me, so that I upload this edited version as independent file. --Tobi 87 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

second version[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info As some of you proposed, I downsampled my picture. Is it now satisfactory for you?
~~Support~~ --Cesco77 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, do not erase previous votes when trying to nominate alternative. --S23678 (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Downsampling is not a way of enhancing quality, regardless of how bad it looks at 100% view. It sure look better, but this look can be recreated anytime using non-destructive downsampling (through software, not the image itself). In about 30 seconds, you can make your own non-destructive downsampling using the the wiki software, as I did in my previous vote. The old version should be the one featured. --S23678 (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it much better.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original preferred per Diliff and S23678, but I support this too. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not because it's not good enough for FP, but I prefer the full-scaled version. You can always downsample depending on the need you have for your image but not vice versa. -- H005 13:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with H005 --Simonizer (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we should come to some conclusion about downsampling here. People are opposing the original because it isn't, and the alternative because it is. Not very fair for the photographer, and all this is going to lead to is people automatically downsampling without telling anybody to avoid oppose votes. --Calibas (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to come to some conclusion. Some like it better in full resolution, others prefer downsampled version. FPC process is not fair I am afraid, yet I believe one of the version will probably pass. Tobi 87, please revert the file you overwritten with the downsampled version, and let the first nomination to proceed. Please upload downsampled version as a new file. That way the reviewers will have a choice between the two versions, which will go parallel to each other, and you will have more chances that one of the two is to pass. Good luck :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Calibas that having this debate here is unfair on the photographer. ~~We need clear guidelines for if and by how much an image should be downsized, but lets establish them before we oppose images either way based on downsizing. 99of9 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)~~ EDIT: Given that the guidelines are clear, I think some votes need to be revised - even if both sizes are separate versions, the high-res version should be featured. Voting the way we are, there is a chance that both version could fail. 99of9 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is not fair to oppose downsampled image. The passing size requirement is only 2 megapixels. The nominated image is much bigger. Some users claim that the image could always be downsampled as needed, but not the other way around, but I believe that Internet connection of some of our readers and reviewers might be too slow to load big resolution images. That's why I believe we should have both images as separete versions. Each will link to other version in the image's description. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On image summary pages, it says something like this:

Size of this preview: 800 × 234 pixels Full resolution‎ (15,150 × 4,430 pixels, file size: 25.28 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

In my opinion it would be nice to extend this to some common widths, heights, or percentages, so that the downloader could choose their own resolution. It seems odd to have duplicates with different file names. 99of9 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me the guidelines are very clear :

Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.
Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file.

I see nothing indicating to voters and nominators that their image should be downsampled. I especially like the wording "in order to appear of better quality", since it's clearly stating (and it's a fact) that downsampling is just an illusion of quality, and that voters should be aware of it. Since I've started contributing on FPC, I've always tried to upload my images at the highest resolutions possible, unless strong mitigating reasons (such as keeping uploads under 100mpx...). I would personally make it mandatory for FPCs to be at the camera's native resolution, with the evaluation of quality done at a standard resolution for all nominations. This would put all nominations at the same level, encourage nominators and alleviate a lot of problems such as right now. --S23678 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that rule is all, but impossible to enforce. An image could be cropped, and one will never be sure, if it is downsampled or just cropped. The same with panoramas. Also, if that rule is enforced somehow, not only FPC, but Commons will loose some good and rare images IMO. Besides, if one would like to be consistent, one should oppose all downsampled images, and not only some of them. We have few that are nominated now, Would you like to go ahead, and to oppose all of them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please note, that the picture above is the new (third) version (and not the second!!). So, please support the new version! --Tobi 87 (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Big quality problems. -- JovanCormac 11:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg

File:天安门夜景.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 06:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gate of Heavenly Peace, Beijing.2009-11-1

Info created by Charlie fong - uploaded by Charlie fong - nominated by Charlie fong -- Charlie fong (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charlie fong (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only one, redlinked category. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High image noise. HDR can do wonders for shots like these. -- JovanCormac 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the haloing, it has either had tonemapping or perhaps a highlight reduction (which is a form of tone mapping). Noodle snacks (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting, I didn't realize that at first. But still, better results can be created by mapping multiple exposures rather than reducing the highlights on a single shot. -- JovanCormac 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a side note, it would be helpful if you used latin characters only in the file name, since older non-Chinese systems cannot display Chinese characters correctly, while all computers worldwide can handle the latin alphabet. -- JovanCormac 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - noisy and blurry.--Avala (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing bad composition-wise, but nothing exceptional as well. The light trails would look better if they were longer. But mainly quality issues as above. --S23678 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Image motion. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy. Takabeg (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chalciporus piperatus LC0182.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 22:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Peppery bolete (Chalciporus piperatus) is named after its hot and peppery taste why this mushroom is also used for flavouring meals. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morning after Halloween.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 02:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is that, exactly...? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly what the image's name explains: "Morning after w:Halloween" :) The girl is still wearing a costume (horns on her head,and something on her legs), the guy has special shoes. IMO this image is like a story with no beginning and no end. We do not know what happen on Halloween party and why they were sitting like that for half-an-hour (I found them like that and went for a walk. When I came back half an hour later nothing changed in their position). We do not know how it will end up.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read that recent news article (can't find the link) about an old man who was laying dead for 3 days in front of his house, with his neighbours thinking it was an Halloween decoration... Were this couple breathing? --S23678 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not read the story. Let's hope my image's story is a happy one :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link --S23678 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Subject too dark, not particularly interesting --Leafnode✉ 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... I didn't see the guy at first. Thought it was someone peeing in the bushes... :-) --Dschwen (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Daniel, I would have never allowed myself to upload image of "someone peeing in the bushes" leave alone to nominate it for FP :) --Mbz1 (talk)

Well, users have asked for more nominations of people... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too hard to see what is going on. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided on this one. I'll think about it a bit more. Also, thanks for trying something different; we need more photos like of interesting things like this. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something different from Golden Gate Bridge :) Thank you for your comment! --Mbz1 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that, but yes. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's an interesting composition. I'd love to know what their story was. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed. What an interesting composition. JalalV (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great confusion. --Karel (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons given.--— Erin (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PalenqueAc.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 02:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ricardo Almendáriz - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:PalenqueA.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Detail drawing of a Mayan ruin at Palenque made at the time of its original excavation in 1787.
Support -- Durova (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another perfect restoration. -- JovanCormac 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detail drawing and useful for related articles. Takabeg (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment uploaded an image to show the differences between the actual relief and the sketch, which turns out to be idealized and contains artistic liberty from not one, but two artists (see the en.wiki nom for more info on the history of the artwork and archeological dig), limiting its accuracy. Take it or leave it. upstate NYer 06:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO the fact that the artist who drew this picture in the 18th century took some liberties adds value to the picture, rather than taking it away, by showing that "reproductions" back then sometimes were inaccurate - probably on purpose (omission of the bosom). If someone today wants to see how the actual relief looks like, he or she should look at a photograph rather than a sketch. -- JovanCormac 12:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that's quite fine; I just wanted to give everyone the heads up. upstate NYer 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support in spite of any differences in the drawing to the original. --— Erin (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99of9 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Stanley Steamer at 2009 Newport Hill Climb 1.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 23:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Huwmanbeing - uploaded by Huwmanbeing - nominated by Huwmanbeing -- Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing to see one of those in running condition. Durova (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Quality, composition, the mood of the people. Especially the queen. :) --Lošmi (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you please explain why you're using PNG format? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Just for its losslessness, particularly when performing successive edits on a photo (generation loss). Thanks ~ Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Omnedon (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Somehow I fail to see how this image is special. The quality is good, but not stellar, composition is mediocre at best (several heads cut off in the foreground), and the use of the PNG format appears nonsensical. It just isn't made for photos, results in a ridiculously high file size, and given the average image quality is simply unneccessary. -- JovanCormac 13:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Thanks for the comments. I see what you mean about the heads; however, in dense crowd shots such as these it can be impossible to find a crop that doesn't cut through at least a few individuals, so I chose to give precedence to the placement of the central subject. As for filesize, it could be reduced as a JPEG, but it didn't strike me as ridiculous or prohibitive given that other featured images and candidates in JPEG format range much larger (some above 10-15MB). Thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with other oppose voters.--— Erin (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Also agree with other oppose voters.PieCam (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Suggestions on how this can be improved? I'm happy to make adjustments, but "too much going on" seems an odd critique of a photo of a race. I'm also not sure how a photo of a crowd can reasonably be cropped without cutting through someone. Thanks Huwmanbeing ☀★ 03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's usually the front row shots that get featurable composition. 99of9 (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Chopped heads in foreground. 99of9 (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I honestly can't believe that someone oppose this image with reasons like that. Too much going on? Well, this picture actually is about too much going on. The composition is anything but mediocre. You can't put the whole Universe in the image - something needs to be cut off. These heads in the first plan are just the part of the composition, implying that there are people on the other side, siting and watching. There's no need for them to be seen more than they are. And what does it matter if it's PNG? It's now 7,55 MB. If you save this as jpeg it's 3,71 MB. Big deal. Gee, you oppose this picture for really dull reasons. --Lošmi (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'd better believe that, if one wants to oppose an image a reason could always be found :) --Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Question Would any of the oppose voters support this alternative version which has the heads removed and is a JPG file? Note that I needed to use the clone tool to get rid of the tops of some heads as I didn't want to crop off the shadow or wheel. I also narrowed it slightly to make up for decreasing the height. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would. --99of9 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vatican angle° 0.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by juanRubiano - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lê (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of quality (overexposure, noise, resolution) and composition (tilt and crop) problems --S23678 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and be it only to remove that once again precipitate FPX by S23678. Where is your problem? Resolution is many times higher than required, can't see any noise, overexposure only in few spots, tilt is hardly noticeable and can be fixed, and after all, even if these were issues, they can't really destroy the excellent atmosphere in this picture. I'd really like to see more constructive criticism here than to piss of anybody who nominates pictures that just don't meet your personal preferences when it comes to technical standards. FPX is for clearly insufficient pictures, that's it. -- H005 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overexposure masks all details on both sides of St-Peter's basilica, noise is very visible on the out-of-focus areas, image resolution (the amount of detail in an image) is very low on the sides, tilt is very visible and the cross on the top of obelisk is cropped. You may think it deserves to be FP because of it's atmosphere, and I respect your choice, but given what I said, FPX was clearly sufficient to me. About personal preferences, I'm wondering what's FP is, if not a bunch of personal preferences... Your support is as much a personal preference as my FPX is. As for constructive criticism, Mr Lê has some difficulties understanding FPC rules, as it's suggested by his nomination history and some votes about it's nominations. There's some limit at holding someone by the hand, hence the lack of constructive criticism in my comments. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've never heard or read of Lê but can't see any evidence from this nomination that he/she "has some difficulties understanding FPC rules". It's a nice image with IMHO only minor technical flaws, and I value the mood and content of an image higher than technical perfection to a level that only enthusiasts like us here see who inspect every single pixel, but not all those millions of Wikipedia users who just will see a nice image. Sorry for being a bit harsh with my comment, no offence intended, I just found it very annoying to see repeatedly what in my humble opinion is a misuse of FPX. -- H005

23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per S23678. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of an unbalanced composition. Takabeg (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing can fix or make up for the crop at the top. --99of9 (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paeonia lactiflora 'Bowl of Beauty'-2459.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 08:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Maedin Tureaud - uploaded by Maedin Tureaud - nominated by Erin Silversmith — Erin (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Erin (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Trivial composition, underexposed. Yes, flowers are pretty, but this picture has nothing which sets it above other flower pictures. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will support if the background is denoised. I don't understand the "underexposed" comment... any brighter and the delicate whites will blow? 99of9 (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you are wrong here. Check the histogram. The brightest white is at only 90% prightness, the upper 10% of the dynamic range are unused, which, with a subject like this(!), points to underexposure. --Dschwen (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, dull colors/bad light --Leafnode✉ 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I withdraw this? I appreciate the nomination, Erin, but this is not FP quality, by a long shot . . . I'd rather not have lots of opposes telling me what I already know about my own photography! Maedin\^talk 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, just say the word. --99of9 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination As per request by Maedin. I'm still trying to figure out what gets supported and what doesn't. Seems to be a very fine line, as even ones which get lots of support will still have one or two oppose votes. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Erin! Sorry to be so crotchety about it, I'm just rather sensitive, :-) Maedin\^talk 07:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that this doesn't mean your uploads aren't appreciated, right? Just making sure :-). --Dschwen (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comment, Daniel. Maedin\^talk 18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exército no Rio.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wilson Dias/ABr - uploaded by Rafamaxpires - nominated by Econt -- Econt (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Econt (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated this image because it haves a important social contest in Rio de Janeiro.--Econt (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey Econt, I can tell you right away that the tilt will need to be fixed. Aside from that, it looks good, and yes, the contrast is quite interesting. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'll oppose based on what I saw on travels. This is indeed an impressive sight based on a western country point of view. However, it's extremely common in a lot of latin american countries I went to. I did not went to Rio, but I saw the armoured vehicles guarding the Peruvian president's palace in Lima, I got searched at military checkpoints in Colombia, etc. Being such a common sight for that region of the world, I would expect more from such a FPC, in composition and people's visible emotions for example. --S23678 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment People's visible emotions? You don't go see this in Brazil, sorry. It is only appearance, the army of Brazil never can react. Even when attacked by criminals.--Econt (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good try, but... a simple search through google can easily contradict you claim... --S23678 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right, but I was talking about the army of Brazil, different of Colombia and Peru.--Econt (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read again, I'm not talking about Colombia and Peru for Google search. As well, I personally remember sharing some common facilities with brazilian military members, and I can assure you they were not emotionless robots. --S23678 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is really good (though it would be even better if the civilian was wearing red clothes), but quality problems are there (noise and sharpness mostly), which makes it difficult for me to support this. I cannot say how common such a sight is in Rio, but S23678 does have a point in that this isn't a war photograph and can probably retaken. -- JovanCormac 12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Econt. Yann (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm with Jovan, great composition. I love the fact that there is too much going on - this kind of image always has hidden treasures if you scour it. However the people's faces have defects in them, and there are other minor quality issues that stack up against promotion. --99of9 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have to few pictures about ordinary life.. Certainly when it is different from a Western experience it is valuable.. 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)This unsigned comment was written by GerardM --S23678 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. On the basis of quality. I would love a better option to come along. --Silversmith Hewwo 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 12:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Grand-Duc with digital manipulation (background edit, original image is hyperlinked on description page) by Niabot- uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Grand-Duc -- Grand-Duc (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Grand-Duc (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice shot, good edition. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the composition isn't on FP-level. —kallerna™ 16:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gruß Tom (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MittlererWeg (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As above L-Bit (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Gypsy Girl Mosaic of Zeugma 1250575.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tineye search

Info created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Nevit -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally, PNG format for a photograph is no-go for me (9 MB for 4 MPx), but the transparency is put to good use here. I can see a lot of interesting ways this photo can be used in print media. Reproduction quality is quite high. -- JovanCormac 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Durova's version is better quality-wise. I'd support that version if it was masked like the original candidate. -- JovanCormac 06:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Thanks... --.ds m. 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image but the trimming isn't successful. Takabeg (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question I wonder your trimming idea Takabeg. What should be done to do better? --.ds m. 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shapes of mosaic have to be kept in edge part. In short, this is Mosaic and its characteristic features must not be destroyed. Takabeg (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trim parts of photo aren't included in mosaic. The original parts are missing. I think the picture is sufficiently characteristic and succesful. --.ds m. 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Oppose per Takabeg. Would love to support this with a better edit. Durova (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to full oppose; see below. Durova (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Offtopic: What is it Zeugma? Please write it in image description. --Umnik (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, link added. Wolf (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't a perspective crop have been preferable? Durova (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWhat's wrong with the trimming? I'm supporting until someone can show me something wrong. 99of9 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is Mosaic and its characteristic features must not be destroyed. Takabeg (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did notice that! It's in the filename. I can't see any tesserae that have been deleted. So which characteristic features were you referring to? By "original parts", are you talking about the mortar behind where some of the original tesserae were originally in place? --99of9 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Durova's lighting argument. I still prefer the idea of transparency where there are no tiles, but it's nice to have Durova's natural colours as a more accurate base from which the erasing begins. --99of9 (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 12:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing the original and the nominator's crop makes a big difference. There are several problems with the nominated version in addition to Takabeg's comments above. Uncorrected perspective distortion is worth noting, but more important is the failure to correct for uneven and highly directional lighting. It stands to reason that the background tiles above the subject's head ought to have been made from the same stone as the background tiles behind her hair at far left, yet in the nominated version the former are nearly blown whites while the latter are quite dark. Also there's an unexplaned overabundance of red in the balance on the version nominated (no edit notes at all were provided on the hosting page, although significant digital edits to historic artwork should always be annotated). Here's hoping it doesn't offend the good intentions and hard work of the nominator to say that the result is not very successful: it really is necessary to correct for perspective and lighting before attempting that sort of edit. Have uploaded an alternate (displayed at right) which endeavors to address those issues. Over 100 layer masks were used to create this re-edit; could possibly tweak it further if people agree with this assessment. Durova (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Support the version by Durova only.--— Erin (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Question Are you opposed to the one currently nominated? --99of9 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Oppose the current nomination, but I would support the version by Durova. --— Erin (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background has not been extracted well. --Manco Capac (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa, Joska Josafat & Kari Hulkkonen.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO this one has really nice mood. Asa is finnish rapper, Teosto-award winner and he nowadays plays with his band, Jätkäjätkät. The image is bit soft and noisy, but the lightning conditions were very challenging (and please check out for instance these FPs to compare noiselevel: 1, 2, 3). —kallerna™ 19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness, composition. -- H005 19:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Leafnode✉ 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guisard - Milky Way.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 11:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Stéphane Guisard (ESO) - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The location of the starscape in relation to the rest of the galaxy.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The link to the original file is broken, which seems to be against the licence~~ --S23678 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --S23678 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice to have an astronomy picture Featured that was not created by NASA. -- JovanCormac 11:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please fix the link to original file. —kallerna™ 12:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed source link (sorry). Originalwana (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source link ([4]) mentions a 24 403 x 13 973 pixel mosaic image available through Stéphane Guisard. Now that would be great to have on Commons. Anyone know how to contact him? -- JovanCormac 14:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think we should put this FPC on hold until Stéphane Guisard has been contacted and replied. --Aqwis (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolution is above the 2 megapixels requirements, we can still vote. The resolution is a different matter and we can deal with it despite this nomination. Diti the penguin — 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. This should be promoted regardless of the bigger image that we might get. Btw, the website makes a weird claim about the mosaic being a gigapixel in resolution, when 24000x14000 pixels is actually only 0.3 gigapixels. Am I missing something? -- JovanCormac 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The claim is based on 0.34 gigapixel per color channel as there is one exposure per channel. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahh, that makes it clear. Thank you. -- JovanCormac 09:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stéphane Guisard has a WIKIMEDIA account if you want to talk to him. Looks like he doesn't use it that much. The 24 403 x 13 973 mosaic can be found at Stéphane Guisard's website but it is copyrighted.
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lookatthis (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 11:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Ceridwen (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Romanbathparis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 14:33:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of a Roman bath beneath the Latin Quarter of Paris

Info created by Mkooiman - uploaded by Mkooiman - nominated by Mkooiman -- Mkooiman (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mkooiman (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice atmosphere, but composition (cut off chairs) and color balance leave to be desired. -- JovanCormac 15:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's an attractive image, but the crop at the top is too tight for me to support it. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not bad, but the noise no. Cromatic aberration on the windows --Cesco77 (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality and composition, as mentioned by previous opposers --S23678 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3Hagebutten 2008-2-10.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 06:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hedwig Storch - uploaded by Hedwig Storch - nominated by Erin Silversmith — Erin (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good quality, pleasing colours, sharp focus, different. — Erin (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DoF. Even the front-most bud is not fully sharp, not mentioning the other two. --Leafnode✉ 12:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:M-danilov-2009-01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 18:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Troitse-Danilov monastery in Pereslavl, Russua, on Easter 2009

Info created by User:PereslavlFoto - uploaded by User:PereslavlFoto - nominated by User:PereslavlFoto -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is very noisy IMO. I am not sure about the composition either (the building is cut off). --Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I agree with Mbz1 --Cesco77 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special about the lighting arrangement—why take the photo at night? —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with others --AngMoKio (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Mbz1 --Leafnode✉ 12:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FPX? --S23678 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Dear people, I appreciate your comments and now I agree with them.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Papilio.machaon.7553.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 07:13:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Olaf Leillinger - uploaded by Olaf Leillinger - nominated by Erin Silversmith — Erin (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Erin (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Composition, serious smear from noise reduction. More compelling images of Papilio machaon in Category:Papilio machaon --Ernie (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've spent quite a few hours over the last couple of days scouring the categories and most images are too small, anything under about 2,000,000 bytes isn't good enough (for macro) and even when they have the sharpness, there is composition, focus, exposure etc. At first glance some images there might look better, but if you open each one up you might only find one or two good enough to nominate, only to find they already have been, and either rejected or featured.--Silversmith Hewwo 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are saying the image you nominated is the only Papilio machaon left that meets the FP standards? --Ernie (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look through the category you linked to, and there are a few (ignoring caterpillars) that are high quality, but they are a bit noisy or blurry when you zoom in, and many have bad lighting or distracting backgrounds. this one is about the best that remains (excluding the one that is already a FP) and I doubt it would get voted in. If you think there is one that is worth nominating then please show me. And actually, having another close-up look at this one, it certainly has a few problems. I won't withdraw it at this point though, I'd like to get more feedback. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took myself the time to have a closer look at Category:Papilio machaon too. I made a quick selection over at my talk page. To be honest, I think the currently featured picture is the only one that deserves to be. --Ernie (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wicked Witch2.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 09:52:52

Info Comparing this to the original, it becomes obvious that some details at the bottom of the image - the line on the right side of the lower left puddle has been cropped through. It's a minor flaw, but so incredibly careless: paintings have been opposed for far less, and it was entirely avoidable with minimum competence and care. At worse, the creation of a small amount of paper could have been used to fix the awkward angle of the cutting of the pages in this particuar copy of the book. As this has not been done, I do not think this can be considered as amongst Wikipedia's best work, and it should be delisted. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not delist it on Wikipedia then? ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly object to delisting-nominations for images that have recently been promoted. The problems sound minor, why not just fix the problems and nominate the improved version, if it gets promoted then automatically delist this one. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is impossible to fix without going back and redoing the restoration, because the restorer foolishly committed to a rotation and crop even in the partial restoration. To accurately match a rotation with certainty is very difficult, far more difficult than redoing such an apparently easy restoration as this one. Redoing it is the only safe option. Furthermore, I kept quiet about these problems during the original nomination only because I was promised this would be fixed, a promise that has clearly been broken. If it could have been fixed easily, it woould have been. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. --Karel (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Tony Wills --Phyrexian (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have never voted to keep a delisting candidate before, but here I do. Calling the flaw minor is an understatement. Given the low-quality, low-resolution crap that often gets kept when nominated for delisting, delisting for half a cut-off line would be plain ridiculous. -- JovanCormac 08:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Tony Wills and JovanCormac -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a better version comes along, and if it never does, this one is almost perfect anyway. --Silversmith Hewwo 00:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't see a reason to delist this. --Coffee (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:P1160778 Melitaea athalia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--— Erin (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice macro --Cesco77 (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the better butterfly macros I've seen, both in quality and composition. Sharpness is good, resolution is relatively high. -- JovanCormac 11:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For Jovan Cormac. Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very boring and common picture. Quality is ok, and I like the colours, but there are many other better pictures of butterflies out there.
- Boring - this is not an argument. Next time commenting on your post name, and comment are generally written in the order, in this case the bottom of the list. Remember also to put your signature. Anonymous votes are not allowed. Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 09:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good IMO. Sharp, subject in focus, nice colors and composition. -- Petritap (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! Very nice colours and good sharpness. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posterized. —kallerna™ 13:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --Simonizer (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Muhammad (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Posterization is borderline, but the overall impression makes it a pro for me. --NEURO ^⇌ 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Snowfall.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 17:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Almost nothing is in focus, and the composition is very very ordinary. --S23678 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't have too many photos of snowfall. —kallerna™ 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are absolutely right, but it is not an argument for approval. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Living in a city that can recieve more than 5 meters of snow per winter (!), I am sadly not very impressed by a light snowfall. --S23678 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As above.--— Erin (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with S23678 - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No. Tiptoety ^talk 06:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just think that "No" isn't a valid reason. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe the foreground is in a good focus as well as many individual snowflakes are. Not an easy image to take.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Almost nothing in focus, messy composition, no clear subject. --Leafnode✉ 13:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per a number of the above. Not FP standard for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP standard for me -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Leafnode, sorry –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young muslim woman in the Thar desert near Jaisalmer, India.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 09:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Paulrudd - uploaded by Paulrudd - nominated by Paulrudd -- Paulrudd (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paulrudd (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing composition and quality. -- JovanCormac 12:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And even more amazing is the fact (which I only realized after checking the EXIF data) that this was taken with a camera that you can buy used for 290 Euros! Yet it looks as professional as it gets. That's what I call a triumph of skill over equipment. -- JovanCormac 18:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment thanks, but really it's equipment over skills, i just did my best with the framing and pressed the button. praise the D40--Paulrudd (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting, maybe I should buy that camera as well. Btw, the picture somehow reminds me of this very famous one. It's easily one of our best portraits. -- JovanCormac 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love it – I love it! How handy wouldn't a small reflector in situations like this one be? --Ernie (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic colors and a great atmosphere -- Je-str (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. Care to share with us how you did the beautiful lighting? --Calibas (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment again, no technical skill whatsoever, the sun did everything...--Paulrudd (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The strong shadows caused by the harsh sunlight are a point to criticize the image. I guess it is a candid shot and for that it is an excellent portrait. --Ernie (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Silversmith Hewwo 23:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S23678 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice composition. Tiptoety ^talk 02:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She is not a muslim. Judging from attire and the fact that she is showing her face, I would say she is a normal Rajasthani village girl.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.86.92 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2009 November 14 (UTC)
  - Comment "normal Rajasthani village girl", interesting choice of words. i guess muslim is abnormal? but she is : her brother (our guide in the desert) told us he's a muslim.--Paulrudd (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I believe what he meant is that in Rajasthan the vast majority of the population follows Hinduism, so normal would be his synonym for average. Wolf (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well done! --Kjetil_r 13:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot --AngMoKio (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice lighting. Chinmay26r (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leafnode✉ 13:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not religious, but whoever is her god, here he made a masterpiece of beauty and a miracle of photography :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:A couple of Tadorna ferruginea.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 14:21:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the composition, but is too much noisy for FP... --Phyrexian (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a beautiful picture! Please do a denoise so I can support it. -- JovanCormac 16:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The denoise was maybe a little extreme, but it's good enough for me to support already. -- JovanCormac 08:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks, I denoised the file.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose left-bottom duck's head almost blends with the background. Generally objects do not pop out of the background enough. --Leafnode✉ 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative version is too tight - composition needs some "air" and perspective --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1.[edit]

I was going to oppose the original because the ducks blend into the background too much, but then I decided to see if I could rectify that problem. I've cropped closer to the ducks (from the top and left only) and darkened the image using levels - the lower duck's head was the main issue with brighness. I would support my version or a version like mine, but not the original as it is now.--Silversmith Hewwo 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The edit is well done, and looks even better than the original. -- JovanCormac 12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This version is too tight - composition needs some "air" and perspective --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now it's FP for me :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:A couple of Tadorna ferruginea.2.jpg

File:Alluvial fan, Taklimakan Desert, XinJiang Province, China, NASA, ASTER.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 13:15:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info 'ASTER' stands for Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer, so this isn't your standard photo. It's quite stunning.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 13:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support informative, interesting, nice quality --Leafnode✉ 08:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! And many thanks to Kallerna as uploader -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Question The Aster instrument has limited vision in the visible spectrum. Do you know which bands were used for this image? And if it's the case, could you write in the image description that it does not represent true colors? --S23678 (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I think it would be better to turn the file upside down. The water flows from the river downwards into the alluvial fan. That's ok. - The file shows now: the water flows downwards from the alluvial fan into the river.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Ceridwen (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ AWESOME PIC. LOVE THE DIFFERENT COLOURS AND LAYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^W^

Anonymous votes are not allowed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brahmaea wallichii insulata (Brahmeid Moth).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 21:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arthur Chapman - uploaded by Flickr Bot and Lymantria - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- — Erin (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Erin (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the harsh flash-lighting is not very attractive and DOF is a bit too shallow. --Dschwen (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I was concerned about the flash. I believe this photo was taken at night, which is when moths tend to come out. — Erin (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but even at night an umbrella or a diffuser can be used. --Dschwen (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rare shot -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Karel (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite slight DOF issues this is gorgeous. Are we seeing individual scales? Durova (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shallow DOF, harsh light. —kallerna™ 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good use of a shallow DOF. --Aqwis (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting is unfortunate but it's hard to insist on having an umbrella/diffuser when you see an amazing moth. Shallow DOF is appropriate for subject. --99of9 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting. I learned some things with this picture. Ceridwen (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Golf balls kallerna.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose High resolution & good quality, but colors are a little dull, and there is some image noise. There also appears to be a color balance problem (blue shift). -- JovanCormac 16:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any better now? —kallerna™ 12:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lighting, general flatness --Leafnode✉ 07:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough for FP -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Simonizer (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice image, could be a quality photo, but missing the wow of a featured one. Jonathunder (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ochlodes sylvanus MichaD.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 21:45:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Apel| - uploaded by Michael Apel| - nominated by Erin Silversmith — Erin (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Erin (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality, nice colours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks great as thumbnail, however on full resolution there are some artifacts. --NEURO ^⇌ 22:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than almost all currently Featured insect macros. -- JovanCormac 08:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posterized or something. —kallerna™ 12:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Artefacts should be remove, after that i will support --Simonizer (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionWould someone be able to remove the artefacts as I don't even know what that means and therefore can't do it myself. :( — Erin (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so easy to get rid of the artifacts without affecting the rest of the image. The artifacts possibly occured during postprocessing, e.g. sharpening or denoise with sharpening. If you have postprocessed this image, you should upload the original, so someone else can give it a try. --NEURO ^⇌ 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Prominent post-processing artifacts (too much noise reduction perhaps). Kaldari (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great foto. Nice colours. --Korman (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scale Common Roach.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:16:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 15:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 15:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness could be better, but at 12 Mpx resolution is very high for a close up, and downsampling improves quality. Probably the best photograph of a fish's scales we have. -- JovanCormac 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is quite good, but the composition isn't exceptional. More colors or different scales shapes, or some sort of symmetry could improve composition IMO. --S23678 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This makes a great desktop. Absolutely awesome. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness far not enough for good macro of this simple object. Right bottom part is very blurred, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per George Chernilevsky Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per George Chernilevsky. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with the other oppose voters.--— Erin (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Macro pictures are always full of interesting and awesome things. This one is really good and like a kaleidoscope. Ceridwen (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 15:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard to believe this is a photograph. -- JovanCormac 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Roquai (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The arcs at the top are cut, which is generally a deadly sin for an FPC, but the image is just too nice to turn it down. Wolf (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject cut by crop. --99of9 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop at top. Can be retaken easy. To Kallerna: idea is good, try better realisation -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per George Chernilevsky + CA. Would be more impressive if some volume was added to the drawn shape by "painting" around objects. (Low quality example of added volume). --S23678 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Leafnode✉ 07:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but yes the crop is unfortunate. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. Idea is nice, but this is kind of a standard thing to do on New Years Eve where I'm from... --Dschwen (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surfer in Santa cruz 11-8-9 -1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 18:21:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image of course is much more about the wave than about the surfer.
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me it's more about the surfer - and that's what I like about it. Wolf (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent captured dynamic range. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --NEURO ^⇌ 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW This is one of the best image of surfing on commons, I think --Cesco77 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive. I'd be interested to know the processing on this one. --Dschwen (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is very impressive, indeed, but I don't like the way the post-processing has been done here. The contrast is too high and doesn't look natural. Unrelated to my oppose, but again : downsampling. Pixel-size droplets of water can be seen here. Please upload the full resolution, everyone would benefit from it. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic. -- JovanCormac 08:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed —kallerna™ 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really an impressive and great shot....but again it got spoiled by post-processing. You really shouldn't try to "dramatize" your pictures. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with that statement, there is clearly no point in making it :-). Apparently voters on commons dig dramatized pictures, so you cannot blame Mila for sexing up her shots. --Dschwen (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess you got a point there....it is the inconvenient truth. It is just always a pity to see all those good photos getting spoiled. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- GerardM (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Because of the tiny surfer this picture is hardly usable as an illustration.[reply]

As I said in the image's introduction, which I assume the user did not bother to read, the image is more about the wave than about the surfer. The "tiny surfer" is a very special bonus because he provides the scale for the wave. The image does illustrate the big, beutiful and special wave just fine.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did, and I perceive the surfer not in the same way as you do ... GerardM (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the image is about the wave and not about the surfer. That's why I do not understand what "Because of the tiny surfer this picture is hardly usable as an illustration" suppose to mean? Is it hardly usable as an illustration of the wave or it is hardly usubale as an illustration of the surfer? Would have you opposed the image, if there was no "tiny surfer" at all, and what oppose reason whould have you used then? I am just curious :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this picture looks artificial, the surfer is an unmistakable detail that is too tiny. I have imho valid reasons why I do not like this picture. I do not like it either. I oppose this for a FP GerardM (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - lovely image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Pudelek (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 03:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 --99of9 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is very high. But composition is not optimal IMO for such a perspective. A panorama where the clock tower would be in the middle would be more appealing. --S23678 (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now that you say so, it seems so obvious. I've put up an alternative. You'll have to excuse the shadow - it is not possible to have 3 sides of a quadrangle lit while the jacaranda is in bloom :-). I'm switching my support to the alternative. --99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama 270.jpg[edit]

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. Not perfect at full zoom, but a 1000 px high downsample shows that this is a non-issue. As an advice, I would suggest some HDR post-processing (enfuse) could be done to reduce contrast with the shaded area, but this could lead to bad results as well. --S23678 (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole thing looks slightly tilted (the bottom edge of the left wing is lower than that of the right one). -- JovanCormac 06:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very high quality, but I agree with JovanCormac. --Cesco77 (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done How did you know I was equidistant from the two wings? Anyway, you're right, the correct rotation was 0.26 degrees - good eyes! I'd been lining up the verticals, but this horizontal is a much more accurate measure. Thanks for helping improve it. 99of9 (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, now is perfect! --Cesco77 (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect now. -- JovanCormac 16:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't like the strong crontrast. The left corner is very dark. Too much sky. Too bumpy.--— Erin (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good, nice sky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ?! The lighting conditions are unsuitable for an image like this. --Dschwen (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I agree with those who are not happy with the strong shadows. Fine image, but not FP in my opinion. How to get a more even light? – I would shoot at dusk. By the way, is it just me or are there some heavy distortions going on? --Ernie (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your suggestion, but at dusk the buildings are nearly all in shadow (it is the inside of a quadrangle). --99of9 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By shooting at dusk I mean the moment when the sun disappears but there still is some rest light. The light is so even then that it produces hardly any shadows. Some people simply take an HDR during daytime though. --Ernie (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't like panorama's, but this one is enchanting.L-Bit (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:SydneyUniversity MainQuadrangle panorama 270.jpg

File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 23:02:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3444-7 Begrafenis bij plantageslaven.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Slave burial at a plantation in Suriname, colored lithograph circa 1840-1850. Image donated by the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam.
Support -- Durova (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It has historic values. Encyclopedic and elucidatory. Takabeg (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As always. -- JovanCormac 08:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--GerardM (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like this image. --Karel (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose. I agree with Karel. I don't support historical value alone. --— Erin (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Info is it not great that it is restored as well, has good annotations and is of historical value ?
It's just such a horrible illustration. I don't think it captures the scene well at all, and therefore isn't so great for historical value. It's good enough to go on an article, not good enough for FP. — Erin (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you know something about the subject matter, you will find that there is hardly any material about this subject and at that this is among the best I have seen. There are discussions about this one and similar ones.. one of the questions is "why is the boy blindfolded, what is his role". The dancing on the head of two people is to get a clue if the deceased lived a good life. The one thing that puzzles me is that everyone is in white .. this is not in line with what I know about Suriname clothing.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a bad illustration like this one can lead to misinformation. I don't think the boy was deliberately blindfolded at all, as he is wearing the same white head scarf that the woman bending over is wearing and a couple of blokes in the back. He could have easily pulled it down himself, or it slipped down etc. Just because a picture has a lot of historical value doesn't mean it needs/deserves to be a featured picture. I will change my vote to

Weak oppose though.— Erin (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is known and used extensively in literature.. It is considered a good illustration and the blindfolding is found in other pictures as well, it is just not understood. GerardM (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Brombeerlaub.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2009 at 22:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by je-str -- Je-str (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely fantastic. AlexAH (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's some ~~posterization~~ quality issues on second look, I can't tell for sure if it's posterization in the top left corner, and the file size is very small (less than a Mbyte). I doubt this was uploaded at the best quality. I'm sure this can be arranged. I'll support if it is. --S23678 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quality issues were not adressed --S23678 (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quality issues revised je-str (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the modifications you did, as I still see very visible banding in the sky. As well, was this picture taken with a FinePix F30 (a camera you used in other uploads)? I hope no, since this image would be twice as big as your sensor resolution...! --S23678 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--— Erin (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is beautiful, though the quality issues mentioned above should be adressed. -- JovanCormac 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. Takabeg (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Categories? Easy subject and the quality is far from perfect. —kallerna™ 12:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the crop and the changing color of the background (the sky I assume). Nice image, but not special enough IMO.Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are absolutely right, I could superimpose a flawless sky.But I believe, genuine is the original sky. je-str (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine? Nothing in photography is genuine or "original". It's always images. Do you think the way we see the world through the human eye is genuine? --Ernie (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per JovanCormac. --.ds m. 08:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

Oppose - come to this a bit late, but it does not appear to be a Rubus species, as the filename suggests. More information needed. - MPF (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asa & Jätkäjätkät @ Bar Kino - Asa 10.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the colours of this one. Asa is finnish rapper and Teosto-award winner. The image is bit soft and noisy, but the lightning conditions were very challenging (and please check out for instance these FPs to compare noiselevel: 1, 2, 3). —kallerna™ 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise is not an issue to me, but sharpness is, and I am missing the wow! -- H005 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posterization, sharpness --Leafnode✉ 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 19:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 20:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per above. I understand the difficult conditions, but the result is far from FP IMHO. -- H005 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head is out of focus, sorry --Cesco77 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colors, sharpness --Leafnode✉ 12:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

File:Cygnus olor LC0201.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2009 at 21:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of an adult Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) in the typical posture of the head
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main subject is overexposed. -- JovanCormac 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me it looks just right, great image. -- H005 19:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Jovan. — Erin (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed --Leafnode✉ 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely shapes and curves. I think exposure is great. It is a white animal after all. --99of9 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose GerardM (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) incomplete picture ... what is the point ?[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Horse market in Lorenzkirch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 00:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by an unknown German photographer around 1900 - restored by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and valuable. I'd appreciate it if you could upload an unrestored version as well for comparison. -- JovanCormac 09:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is the unrestored version: File:Horse market in Lorenzkirch (Scan of the photography).jpg. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking at that version, I would say you have lost some detail through the brightness correction, notably on the horses. Compared to the scan the candidate looks a little overexposed. -- JovanCormac 13:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jovan. Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the contrast has been pushed too far. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks, I made an update with lower contrast. By the way: this file is large and optimized to the resultion of 1600x1200 on the screen for the best view on the highly detailed and sharp image. It is a picture story with many freeze frames of the life in Germany 110 years ago. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral The contrast is better now, but I agree that VI might be better suited so I'll go neutral. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – one of Wikimedia's finest? To me it seems more like a valued image. --Ernie (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it is more a valued image than a featured one too. It's very difficult to make out anything as it's so far away, it's also very ugly and I don't like the glare. I'm also not sure the house is correct perspective-wise but I could be wrong there. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not thrilling at first look, but very good in full size. Quality adequate to its age --Jklamo (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by N/A - uploaded by Kweniston - nominated by Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Encyclopedic, and possibly feature-worthy if a higher resolution version becomes available. Not quite up to par as nominated. Durova (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Resolution is far too low.

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.

-- JovanCormac 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kralicky-Sneznik-03.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 06:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Kralicky Sneznik mountain, Czech Republic. Author - Marek Stránský - nominated by Anon

Comment I know the size is small but this picture just can't be ignored.
Oppose Sorry, no chance with me at that size (1.6 Mpx). Also, color balance is off to put it mildly. -- JovanCormac 06:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It looks oversaturated and, whilst it is nice, it isn't exceptional. Also the quality. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated --AngMoKio (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: size is below guidelines without mitigating reasons --Leafnode✉ 15:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ružomberok - Hrabovo pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 10:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice landscape -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop on the left and overexposed (see image note). -- JovanCormac 12:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop --S23678 (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop should have been made somewhere :)--Mbz1 (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good composition. --Vprisivko (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Wolf (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zlin Żelazny Góraszka 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 21:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very good. I love the composition. --Aqwis (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition, but the main subjects are tiny indeed. -- JovanCormac 08:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with JovanCormac, but it is nice for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The size of the aircrafts is what makes it look beautiful. Chinmay26r (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the main subjects are too small, sorry. —kallerna™ 15:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The trails behind the planes show their paths, which is an important part of the composition. Durova (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support You're making quite an art form of these. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kozuch (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Wolf (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baha'i House of Worship, Evanston.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 22:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by karaian - uploaded, nominated by JalalV -- JalalV (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JalalV (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is some red CA at the right-hand side snow and blue CA at the right-hand side of the dome, but I could live with it :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The building is leaning very slightly to the left. I will only support if this is rectified. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong image noise, blurry, composition slightly off-center in a strange way, harsh contrast with the left hedge. -- JovanCormac 09:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad image at all, but not FP standards in my opinion. --Ernie (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate to use that argument, but the scene is missing a wow. While a simple and symmetric composition can work well on some pictures, the surroundings here lacks the grace and refinement I would expect to go with such a building. Different atmospheric/weather conditions and foliage could drastically improve the scene IMO. --S23678 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the simple and symmetric composition in this case, and I realy like the building, but the image is too noisy and yes, very slightly to the left... --Phyrexian (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fjærlandsfjorden2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2009 at 21:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fjærland and the Fjærland Fjord in Sogn og Fjordane, Norway

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aqwis (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some blown areas (see image notes). Maybe they can be corrected with Photoshop. Besides that the picture is of great quality. -- JovanCormac 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only parts of the picture that are blown are the window frames of the green house. Neither the boat (whose brightest spots have the RGB values 248/248/235) nor the roof of the brown building are blown. If you see them as blown, you may need to calibrate your monitor. Also, this is not a tone-mapped HDR picture, so it is only natural that the picture has both bright and dark parts. --Aqwis (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't the colors a bit off? The image could use some cooling if you ask me. --Ernie (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to suggest an alternative white balance, but I think the current white balance corresponds approximately to how I saw the scene when I took the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really nice!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded a version with better WB IMO. I simply used the mountain's snow as a neutral color. I encourage you to do the same with the original file (IOT avoid multiple JPEG rewrites) --S23678 (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upload it later if I can replicate your WB settings. --Aqwis (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice shot --AngMoKio (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've replaced the picture with a slightly adjusted version; thanks to S23678 for suggesting the adjustment. --Aqwis (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S23678 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:I35W Collapse - Day 4 - Operations & Scene (95).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 08:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Submitted Photo - nominated by Anon

Cars rest on the collapsed portion of I-35W Mississippi River bridge.

Neutral – It sure is a story-telling picture with lots of value. On the other hand it does not strike me as an image with FP photographic quality. Maybe valued image? --Ernie (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as above --Leafnode✉ 12:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, grainy and blurry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Nominated by H005 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this edit has better photographic quality. Not excellent, but the subject is intriguing enough to mitigate for that issue. -- H005 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Better indeed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this edit fixed only white balance/levels, while generally its quality is bad. Very blurry, lots of strange purple haze (CA?) --Leafnode✉ 07:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CA. —kallerna™ 11:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Paulrudd (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues as mentioned. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition (size and shape of rubbles) and the very dramatic scene are mitigating reasons IMO against the numerous quality problems --S23678 (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, purple haze / all around --Aqwis (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – as per others. --Ernie (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per S23678 --Jklamo (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Image-I35W_Collapse_-_Day_4_-_Operations_&_Scene_(95)_edit.jpg

File:Ice cream truck beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:25:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Support --Dschwen (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition doesnt convince me --Simonizer (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition - There is too much space behind the truck and not enough for it to drive into. Would have been also good to have the hint of icecream on the beach...visible icecreams, children queuing to buy and so on - Peripitus (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leafnode✉ 16:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katholische Kirche Werdau.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 12:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by je-str -- Je-str (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obscured view --Leafnode✉ 13:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many tress in picture. The foto should have been taken closer to building. --Korman (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Leafnode --S23678 (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Love What is It.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 22:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A delightfully poignant picture, in these days of strife and fear.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - image as image is nothing special and the inscription is not universal, it bears some meaning only for English language speakers.--Avala (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with Avala. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Cesco77 (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just leaves me emotionless as a question. --S23678 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oppose As Avala --Phyrexian (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lettering is quite out of focus and the image doesn't really have the "wow" factor. Compostion and position of lettering could be better as well (a crop here would work a treat). Garden. 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Napa Valley.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 08:26:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Vineyards in Napa Valley. created by Mila Zinkova - nominated by Anon

thank you for nomination --Mbz1 (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really appropriate for you to withdraw the nomination when you are not the nominator? I am aware that you created the picture, but still... --Aqwis (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where were you when we discussed this? I do agree that author withdraw is nonsense, and really could have used your support in the discussion. You should check out FPC/talk more often. -- JovanCormac 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I believed that the rule was voted for and added to the gudilens. I guess I am mistaking. Please acept my apology, everybody. Go ahead with the votes. One more humiliation one less, who cares

--Mbz1 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, it was, and you won't see me saying otherwise. What I am saying is that this rule shouldn't have passed in the first place (which I already argued for during the voting process) and that I could have used Aqwis' support for my position then, rather than now when it's all over. -- JovanCormac 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny. I thought that "Where were you when we discussed this? " was addressed to me :). So, I thought to myself that some users are unhappy, when I nominate my images, others are unhappy, when I withdraw nominations of my images :) I kind of got lost in translation :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't read FPC talk very often anymore. --Aqwis (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Aqwis, "sorry" is not good enough anymore. Now you should support the image. :) Otherwise ... I do not know what I will do... Maybe misspell your user name like I did last time :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic colour. Very nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, amazing. --Vprisivko (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Farbharmonie --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much contrast. To much details are lost in the black/dark parts of the picture --Simonizer (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose As I said over at Wikipedia, it would be nice to have a shot without a line of power pylons ruining the view. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Simonizer -> another case of excessive Photoshop use. Furthermore i think there is not enough space above the hills. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed —kallerna™ 11:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{Support}}~~ See below. --Aqwis (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated – An hour or two of editing (or damage repair?) might make it work. --Ernie (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mila, I sincerely believe you are doing more harm than good by the extensive postprocessing (although the support votes seem to send a different message...). The colors are indeed fantastic, but rather as in fantasy ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, please take a look at the image my husband took with his point-and-shot Nikon File:Napa valley vineyard 10.JPG. I am sure,some users would say it is "Oversaturated", except... the image is the original one not post-processed at all :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh, ok. I'm not quite sure I trust the color reproduction of a coolpix, but I trus you if you say the colors really were this vivis. The grass looks a bit iffy and there is a red blot somewhere in the right half of the frame. But it has been a while since I saw grapevines in fall. --Dschwen (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)s[reply]

Support natural colors -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The scene is magnificent, but the crop is too tight (bottom and top). As for the colors, they are on the limit of being too saturated, but it would still probably get my support if it wasn't of the crop --S23678 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop. Alternative looks much better. --Dschwen (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how that one File:Napa Valley vineyards 8.jpg looks to you, Daniel :) --Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --High Contrast (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The colours are better, and in general I prefer this version, but it still has power pylons in the skyline. Could they be cloned out, or would people object to that much alteration of reality? --Silversmith Hewwo 04:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnifique --S23678 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image made a great progress since the first version uploaded. Colours look more natural now and composition of the alternative 1 is much better than the original nomination. --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Ikiwaner, excellent -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very good. --Aqwis (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated – The colors still don't work for me. Distortions. Yes, I work on a calibrated screen. --Ernie (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very good. --87.90.98.111 17:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We say: "Goldener Oktober" - this is it. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you! ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better...i really don't know why you didn't nominate this in the first place --AngMoKio (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you do not know because ... I have never nominated the virst image myself :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overprocessed —kallerna™ 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - processed - yes, overprocessed - not to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Böhringer (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

The chosen alternative is: File:Vineyards in Napa Valley 7.jpg

File:Orsopapera-cigno 013.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2009 at 15:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Orso della campagna & Papera dello stagno - uploaded by Orso della campagna & Papera dello stagno - nominated by Dom De Felice -- Dom De Felice (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dom De Felice (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unfortunate crop... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop and background.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunate crop --AngMoKio (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop and background as mentioned. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop, background --Leafnode✉ 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilsudski 1910 1920 LOC hec 14263 restored.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 12:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by someone named K. Pęcherski - restored, uploaded & nominated by -- Wolf (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info on the picture itself, today is Independence Day in Poland, so I'm nominating a portrait of the man to whom we - i.e. Poles - owe the independence to a large extent. I chose this particular picture for two reasons. 1. It was most probably taken some time during World War I, so Piłsudski was soon going to become the architect of Poland's liberation from over a century of partitions. 2. I simply like the mood of the picture and his appearance here, it perfectly corresponds with how he wanted to be percieved.
Info on the restoration, this is my very first attempt at it so I'm not going to mind even strong crticism providing that it's backed with some feedback about what I should've done better. Thanks in advance.
Support -- Wolf (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good restoration. My only complaints are relatively low resolution and the tight crop on top. I'm sure this great man deserves a little more headroom ;-) -- JovanCormac 15:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not know why you cropped the top so tightly; I see that there was an inscription near the top in the original image, but if you had wanted to remove that, I suppose you could have cloned it out. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question And if I left more headroom with the inscription? Wolf (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Inscription is very small, it should be easy to remove it. If you want, I can do it. But on the other hand, the writing itself is quite interesting. --Leafnode✉ 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's what I think to. I'll give it try today. Wolf (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Info I've been trying to do it, but I just don't have enough skill (yet), apparently. Any help of yours would be appreciated. And yes, I think it will be better with the photographer's signature. I does add some value, after all. Wolf (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. Takabeg (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ehre, wem Ehre gebührt! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Proskowski-Lobkowitz CoA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 15:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness problems, lots of JPEG artifacts, awkward lighting. -- JovanCormac 17:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sharpness problems? I don't see... ---Pudelek (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I voted on pl.wiki - this shot is about details, and harsh lighting hides the details. --Leafnode✉ 07:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --S23678 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raindrops on grass.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:16:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Hooray, water droplets! Dschwen (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – In my opinion the best light of the water droplet series. The composition is a no-no if you ask me. --Ernie (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spider Nephila clavata 0911.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 03:50:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by masaki ikeda - uploaded by masaki ikeda - nominated by masaki ikeda -- masaki ikeda (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- masaki ikeda (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clever angle which gives a great view of the spinning. Obviously full DOF is consequently impossible, but the main body is sharp. None of our current FP spiders show this educational aspect of web production. --99of9 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unexpected shooting angle, excellent color, deep enough DOF. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique foto from a different perspective. Nice colours. --Korman (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Per Korman --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find most insects images to be quite boring, but this one is really interesting! I would like to have this in full resolution however. --S23678 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really intresting and beautiful --Phyrexian (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! —kallerna™ 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --je-str 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mer30. Masaki Ikeda ? Takabeg (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The burning of Columbia, South Carolina, February 17, 1865.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 09:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Waud - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by Pmlinediter -- Pmlineditor ∞ 09:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pmlineditor ∞ 09:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 17:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral- doesn't really strike me as amazing.-- † CR ₉₀
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support H. valuable. Takabeg (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is an highly detailed image with historical significance. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-5 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I think considering all the water drop pictures there are one has to be extra picky on featuring them. What I really like about this picture is the green background – nicely done. I guess the goal was to frame the string in combination with the plant and thats where the picture does not succeed imho. The focal plane is not aligned to the plant too well, which renders most of it out of focus. Not a featured picture to me. --Ernie (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vineyards of Napa Valley panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 13:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anything could be done to bring up the color saturation a bit (sky, foliage) without bringing quality down? Mid-day shots bring hard light on scenery.--S23678 (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to change the color of the sky without changing the color of the hills? One should also remember that so-called "mid-day" shot in November are very different from "mid-day" shot in June. The sun never goes high up in mid November (of course I mean Northern Hemisphere :))--Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, please don't alter the colours. --Aqwis (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that the hard light generates some white spots in the foliage which make it appear less colorful when seen in smaller sizes. Yet, when seen in full resolution, the picture appears saturated enough and seems realistic (well, i've never been there, otoh. ) So, I support this version and I'm not convinced it'd benefit from an increased saturation. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict with Aqwis, with whom I agree).[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Admirable --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hooray, the colors work this time! Nicely done. How about putting scrollbar around the image? I guess not every screen is 1881 px wide ... --Ernie (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Infofile:Vineyards of Napa Valley panorama - levels edit.jpg This is not an alternative version open for voting.
Comment This is a quick edit about possible modifications. The entire image was darken a bit, then the sky alone got it's levels adjusted (darker, again). As you see the sky quality is now terrible from posterization, but such problems should not be visible if done from original RAW images. --S23678 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit is a bit too saturated – especially the sky. --Ernie (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that darkening the land part of the picture makes it appear less sun-drenched and thus less compelling. As for the sky, well... I truly prefer the "natural" version over this one, per Ernie. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Diti the penguin — 08:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality and high resolution. -- JovanCormac 10:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with both hands up - great! --Leafnode✉ 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the current version 99of9 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support knapp, aber ok. --High Contrast (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of your best, nice work! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow²! Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sturnus vulgaris in Napa Valley.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 01:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The crop, the quality and the small section of plant on the bottom edge. --Silversmith Hewwo 04:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the crop, if I may ask?--Mbz1 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that you can't see all of the birds in the flock. I appreciate, since it was obviously a large flock, that it probably wasn't possible. The photo to me just looks like lots of dark flecks on blue and even the largest birds aren't clear when zoomed in. For me, I'd either like a picture with beautiful composition where you can see an entire flock but not make out the birds clearly, or a small flock where, when you zoom in, you have great focus on at least some of the birds. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a beautiful image that I'd love to support, provided that the plant is cropped out and maybe a gentle denoise is done. -- JovanCormac 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support But it would be better without the plant. --Lošmi (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is messy, which seems to be a deliberate choice by the ~~author~~ nominator (same thing). Evaluation of this scene is therefore very subjective. I praise the composition for being somewhat against the norms, but I don't consider this picture to be exceptional. --S23678 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My deliberate choice???? What in a world do you mean?For everybody else here's how those birds are flying In my situation that "bird cloud" just happened to be all around me, so I guess it really was my "deliberate choice"

. I wish I had many more choices like that one, I really do because it is a sight to behold--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer to the points you've added after my answer below, even though you do not control the birds, you do control the composition to a large extent, and you are the nominator of this FPC, which makes the choice of such a composition for FPC to be deliberate (or, in other words : calculated, advised, intentional, well though out...) --S23678 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These thousands of birds fly in a somewhat chaotic way, which is expressed in the composition. It seems to be deliberately chaotic, a picture nominated for it's absence of apparent order. --S23678 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Leafnode✉ 13:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1[edit]

Any better? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect now. Great picture. -- JovanCormac 15:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some of the birds has been cloned. I don't get why... Plus, I like natural sky color more. --Lošmi (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this a lot. can you point out the cloned birds? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the original File:Sturnus vulgaris in Napa Valley original.jpg. As you could see there was not just one plant, but two plants in the image. I did not want simply to cut the the plants off because then some nice birds would have been cut off as well. So I removed the plants using cloning. Of course I added "retouched" template to the edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per my comments above. --S23678 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Lošmi. *sigh* A typical Mbz picture... --AngMoKio (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not like Lošmi *sigh*. Lošmi supported the original one, while you only opposed alternative. On the other hand it is good that you opposed as Lošmi and not as S23678 :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Leafnode✉ 13:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:42:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

WARNING:

Some browsers may have trouble displaying this image at full resolution: This image has an unusually large number of pixels and may either not load properly or cause your browser to freeze. Downsampled versions are available here.

Info All by me -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm nominating 2 versions of the image, since I think the larger version (which I prefer by much) may get opposes from 2 reasons : quality problems on the left tried, but can't get rid and shade from the Wayna Picchu, on the right, hence the smaller second version. A third version, getting rid of only the left side, is also available, but I'll bring it up only if necessary. Both images were uploaded at full resolution and do suffer quality problems when viewed at 100% zoom, so they should be viewed with some downsampling. To do so, or if the image is crashing your browser, please view downsampled versions here. Some flare got removed on the left side by cloning as well. These are HDR images taken from the small ruins on top of Wayna Picchu, looking down on the Lost City of the Incas.
Support -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both versions could use a denoise IMO. -- JovanCormac 11:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded denoised versions, and they are shown on the downsampling page. I'll replace them in the nominations if people think they are better versions. Beware as well, on the downsampled version, of trees in the shade that may look like noise. --S23678 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Support NR version Much better. I was talking about the noise in the sky mostly. -- JovanCormac 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that you provide "fake downsampled" versions. That's enough to be seen how the image will look if it's downsampled, so there's no need for actual downsampling. --Lošmi (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality. --NormanB (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this not cropped version --Phyrexian (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version. The visible sun makes it more dramatic/exciting --Simonizer (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crop[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Support -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NormanB (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality foto of Macchu Picchu. --Korman (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Böhringer (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

The chosen alternative is: File:99_-_Machu_Picchu_-_Juin_2009.edit3.jpg

File:Buchenwald-bei-Weimar-am-24-April-1945.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 12:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Senator Alben W. Barkley of Kentucky, a member of a congressional committee investigating Nazi atrocities, views the evidence at first hand at Buchenwald concentration camp. Weimar, Germany. Source- US Gov. Archives - nominated by Anon.
Oppose Mainly the composition. Maybe valued image? --Ernie (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the composition is great and interesting, but this needs to be restored before I support. -- JovanCormac 14:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lest we forget L-Bit (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good heavens this deserves to be featured, restored or not. Thank you very much for one of the year's most important nominations. Durova (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When there are obvious ways to improve the image, it should not be featured yet. --99of9 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs restoration. —kallerna™ 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support it now. If a restored version will uploaded I will support it and we can delist this. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd prefere a restored version of this important image. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to prior commitments I am unable to restore this image at this time, but would be glad to coach if some other editor would like to work on it. If interested please email for my Skype ID. Durova (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very important historical image. Can't expect the best quality for a 1945 foto. --Korman (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What a stunningly moving image. Even with worse quality this would be a great featured picture - Peripitus (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - GerardM (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I love the composition, the man has to realise what happened before he can more further .., yes, a higher resolution would be good, but is not essential ... this is not a digital snapshot ...[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Historically precious. It is a valued picture, but it needs restoration for being a featured image. --High Contrast (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kozuch (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Cross sections of teeth ru.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2009 at 11:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map-Novi Belgii Novæque Angliæ (Amsterdam, 1685).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 11:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nicolaes Visscher II - uploaded by Moyogo - nominated by Polca -- Polca (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Polca (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could do with a restoration to remove stains and some restoration in the top left hand corner. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with the above: this is a good candidate for restoration. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probably, not quite sure though. JPEG2000 compression sometimes produces a milky artifacting pattern. If someone would like to try their hand at this I'd be glad to give it a look and coach the restoration. Durova (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sandsculpting, Frankston, Vic jjron, 21.01.2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jjron - uploaded by Jjron - nominated by Jacopo Werther Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning --99of9 (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Excellent -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Beautiful subject, but crop should be wider and resolution higher. -- JovanCormac 12:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Isnt this a derivative work? Is this pic OK to upload on commons? Cause if it is a have loads of similar pics.--Korall (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, of course you can nominate this pic (and others) for deletion. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR start uploading and see if thay stay? =)--Korall (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image was taken in Australia which allows freedom of panorama in its copyright law. Other similar images would depend on the local copyright law in the location where the photograph was taken. Durova (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on if the sculpture is a permanent installation or not. Im not sure I would see a sculpture made out of sand as a permenent installation, because it will fade in much shorter time than something made from a more time-consistant material.--Korall (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Perhaps this nomination should be suspended? We actually can't promote if this has licensing issues. Durova (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I think is just the time to suspend this nomination and nominate this file for deletion. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we all had a big fight over any potential licensing issues at WP:FPC at some point. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to read the previous deletion debate: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sandsculpting,_Frankston,_Vic_jjron,_21.01.2009.jpg and: en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Sandsculpting,_Frankston,_Vic_jjron,_21.01.2009.jpg -- Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a sand sculpting exhibition in Portugal where they change the the sculptures once a year? Would those images be OK to upload? Cauase if they are I have some pictures.--Korall (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Jovan, plus, high levels of noise in the sky. --S23678 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful ! I like the "mise-en-abime" effect (sculptors in sculpture). Ceridwen (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Durova (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisionally withdrawing support per licensing issues above. Durova (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jovan. —kallerna™ 15:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winterthur Stadthaus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 15:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk)
Support One of very few pictures here taken with a shift lens. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Logical, they cost too much! Good. :) Diti the penguin — 17:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But also, in this age with good panoramic stitching software and panoramic heads, there's little reason to use one for architectural photography IMO, unless you absolutely have to capture the image with a single exposure or you want to use the tilt/shift for creative DOF. Diliff (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO, it is overexposed, and thus displays a very harsh contrast. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The sky is stunning, the building may well appear over-exposed - or it may be that ashen, the foreground is (to me) incomplete. L-Bit (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true the generousity of the 19th century is partially lost today. Just on the left there is now an ugly bus station and the garden on the right adjoins a not less ugly footpath. Seee street view or this commons image. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice colours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose. Perspective distortion is rather severe. Durova (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right there is some left over perspective distortion. However just because you have a shift lens or a panoramic software that doesn't mean you have to correct it fully. Nothing looks worse than an over corrected perspective. For my pictures with a natural distortion of 10-15° I will leave about 1.5°. This avoids that not perfectly staight lines are tilted the wrong way round. --Ikiwaner (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 99of9 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 11:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Diliff (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Durova. --Karel (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is high, and the use of shift lens is interesting, but the overall feeling I get is a normal picture, not exceptional. Hard light and not very appealing composition in the foreground detracts me from supporting. --S23678 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The 24mm T/S really is exceptionally sharp and at f/13 the usual light fall-off is not too harsh. On the other hand there really are some composition issues in my opinion. I think the wide angle look cries for more depth, but the building is pretty much the only object standing out. --Ernie (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Compliant Guantanamo captive is allowed to stroll the exercise yard.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 23:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Patrick Thompson - uploaded by Geo Swan - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Jovan said, "...unlike the infamous "Camp X-Ray" pictures showing people in orange suits gagged and tied up, this one presents a much more balanced view of the subject. IMO, it is definitely not a propaganda picture; it shows a pretty ordinary scene, while not attempting to hide the fact that the Guantanamo issue is far from overcome. Also, the fact that we cannot see the man's face takes all emotion out of the picture, which is a good thing in this case as it allows the viewer to deal with the subject as objectively as is possible when dealing with a controversial subject like Guantanamo. With a hard-to-take picture like this, the blurriness can easily be excused."
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality, Multichill (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues are too important IMO for FP. Unrelated to my oppose, but, as for the propaganda issue (or non-issue), I think it's a little bit simplistic to view this as candid snapshot, made and published in order to present a balanced POV rather than being a subtle but possibly efficient counterweight to the enormous controversies surrounding this detention camp. I am not against featuring shots that can be considered to be propaganda (this one is, IMO), since they can "have a life of their own" and can even be used against their publishers once released, but I don't buy into this "more balanced view of the subject". Sorry Jovan to hit on your citation that may be taken outside it's context (didn't found the source), but since it was used here as an argument, I am just offering the counter-argument. --S23678 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hehe . Even the Guantanamo pictures released by the mainstream press were of worse quality than this one mostly. Add to that the fact that this photo, to my knowledge, hasn't even been published in the press before. This picture is so valuable and unique that I am more than willing to overlook almost anything in order to proudly present it as one of our best. -- JovanCormac 07:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's originality vs quality decision. I like the idea, but when looking at photo without context I see just blurry, out of focus image. --Justass (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is not good enough. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is not there but this is not QI and exceptions can be made. I love the DOF effect and the man holding the rosary walking away. --Muhammad (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice composition...but the quality is really problematic --AngMoKio (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Composition. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor quality. —kallerna™ 15:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality --Phyrexian (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.--Ankara (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blonde Woman.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 17:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Barun (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC). Sorry. I think I made a mistake. I was a bit hasty in selecting the picture. I concentrated more on the person than the picture.[reply]

Info created by

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbrambley/ - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too noise on background and on hairs, jpeg artifacts. --Cesco77 (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – White balance, ordinary fill flash. Nothing special. --Ernie (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose snapshot, boring composition --Leafnode✉ 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flags of Europe Andalusia and Spain.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:33:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So if I understand right, these are all flags which apply to the autonomous community of Andalusia, because it is a part of Spain, which is a member nation of the EU. I'll annotate to clarify which flag is which. Is there any special significance to this image beyond its ability to demonstrate the political hierarchy (for lack of a better phrase) of Andalusia? —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you.—Notyourbroom (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A majority of official buildings (administration, town council, etc) and castles in Andalusia have in front of them (or on them) these three flags. These ones are on top of the Alhambra, in Granada. Geoloc : Done --Gregory Zeier (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should be de-noised --S23678 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality problems (looks like a mixture of noise and JPEG artifacts). Good composition, though. -- JovanCormac 06:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this picture has potential, but apart from the aforementioned quality problems, front-most flag IMO is too dark - maybe other environmental conditions (different hour, other wind) would make it better --Leafnode✉ 15:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jardines de Murillo 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The palm in foreground, and the tree in background are cut-off, and nothing special IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The palm trees are nice, but foreground elements are distracting. --S23678 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – One thing I often recognize is the yellow cast Nikon Coolpix cameras and digital SLR's produce by default. Just by looking at the image I could tell it was Nikon. --Ernie (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition - highest palm is cut, as well as right side column --Leafnode✉ 15:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oliviers Andalousie.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me, this lacks the value of a closeup shot (not enough detail) while also lacking the value of a landscape shot (not enough context). Because it falls into the middle ground and does neither of those things well, it's an unexceptional image. There are also distracting elements in the bottom-left of the image. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough IMO, also lower left corner does not look good IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Notyourbroom --S23678 (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notyourbroom wrote everything. --Leafnode✉ 15:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pabellon Mudejar.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 22:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image quality is mediocre, the composition has some problems (I would like to see more space on the right-hand side), and there is a tree blocking part of the subject. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Put differently: judging from the composition and the portrait orientation, this is a photograph of a building and some trees; but to be a featured picture, it should really just be a photograph of the building itself. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, cut-off tree.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Un-refined composition. The scene has potential for FP (warm tones, nice building), but this picture left it un-exploited. --S23678 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Mbz1 --AngMoKio (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know what's the object of this picture - trees? Building? Both? Now both of them are presented badly - trees cut, building obscured. --Leafnode✉ 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 02:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Julien Bryan - uploaded by Jarekt - nominated by NormanB (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read the full description of the picture to understand its horific context and historic relevance. --NormanB (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NormanB (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately this is too small. Can someone access a high-res scan? --99of9 (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Silversmith Hewwo 10:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it is quite touching. But it's quite small. Chinmay26r (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{~~FPX|Size below 1Mpix --Leafnode✉ 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)~~}}[reply]

The image was supported by an user other than the nominator. It might be a good idea to read the rules before using the template.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake --Leafnode✉ 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size. —kallerna™ 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is one of the best pictures we have, and one of the best I've ever seen, but I can't support it for the size --Phyrexian (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with NormanB. High horific context and historic relevance. Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support From FP guidelines "A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph" --Cesco77 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution (VI) /Daniel78 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small & low resolution. Takabeg (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes it is small, but the artistic and historical value is exceptional.--Korall (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cerkiew w Zabludowie obraz 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 11:15:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Polimerek - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting image, good quality, but no wow for me, sorry. Would benefit from perspective correction (right side vertical is not vertical). --99of9 (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apophysis 3D fractal ball.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

$A tile ball created with fractal art program Apophysis.$

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Garden Garden. 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Garden. 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request This is a beautiful artificial image, but would you please elaborate on why it is a valuable addition to Commons? I do not know much about this area. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell it's the only example of a 3D Apophysis flame (i.e. one made with that program) on this website. Garden. 10:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great educational image since it shows that the concept of a fractal is wider than the Mandelbrot set and Sierpinsky triangle laymen typically associate with the term. -- JovanCormac 07:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request None of that theoretical context and detail is present on the image's description page. Would you (or George) mind adding more information to help a layperson such as myself? Maybe a few well-placed wikilinks, too. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added a few words (in English) highlighting the two fractals shown in the image. The parameters given on the description page didn't work for me, though; therefore, I cannot give detailed information on the projection that links the surface of the sphere and the plane. It looks deceptively like a stereographic projection but I don't think it is, since the tiles are not evenly spaced on the surface of the sphere. -- JovanCormac 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. Also i support it as an mathematician, per JovanCormac -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never knew you were a mathematician as well. Cheers! -- JovanCormac 13:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For Jovan Cormac. Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others --Cesco77 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent image. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! -- Ra'ike T C 08:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! --Karel (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:M-nikita-kolokolna-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 15:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - uploaded by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - nominated by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Overexposed (I believe) and the buildings detract from the main feature. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per foreground issues stated by Silversmith --S23678 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. There is no extra exposition, as a bell-tower is white itself. The foreground roofs help to see the belltower in its historical context — as the monastery was always surrounded by village.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inflatable structure in Bad Schallerbach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 00:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. (I hope the license is not a problem here)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well seen. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There are things I like, like the colours and quality, but I'm not sure about the composition. I appreciate the cleverness of the children running towards the castle, but I think the castle isn't made a big enough feature of the picture. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Erin Silversmith. —kallerna™ 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition feels very lopsided. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ahh, Notyourbroom has hit what I was trying to figure out about this image. Otherwise I liked it. --99of9 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laughing Kid.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 06:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by http://www.flickr.com/photos/vatobob/ - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Barun (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great expression, colour and lighting. My regrets are the big white scarf label, and the fact that you can see the shape of the flash umbrella reflected in his eyes. --99of9 (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have the feeling that this picture got nominated before. Most likely with another filename. Is my mind tricking me or am I wrong? Does someone else has the same feeling? :) --AngMoKio (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Well-clothed baby.jpg. Ayack (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  - Ha, I knew it. Thanks for the link. My brain is better than I thought. :) --AngMoKio (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunatelly the photo has the same problems as 2 years ago. I like the photo but the PS-work on the skin of the baby is really too much. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per AngMoKio GerardM (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per AngMoKio --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support atmosphärisch stark --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belgian F-16 Radom.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 14:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you have the impression that this picture has already been nominated, you're almost right, this one has and now that I think of it, its failure was justified. The one here has a slightly lower resolution, but is definitely less blurry and I really like the diagonal composition (a rarity in aircraft photography) and the shadows which prevent a feeling of flatness. Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Significantly oversharpened. I can see the halos even at thumbnail size and they are rather distracting. Apart from that I love the image. Perhaps those from Konflikty.pl can be asked to upload the original so it can be more sympathetically processed ? - Peripitus (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InfoChromatic abberation has now been corrected. Additionally some compression artifacts have been removed or gently softened. Chalger (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Info There's a less processed version (just cropped in relation to the "original original") in the image history. Wolf (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question How about now? Wolf (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - edits have significantly improved the image but there are a lot of dust spots that need removal. I've marked the ones that I can see at even modest resolution as image annotations. - Peripitus (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's also been corrected. What do you think now? However I just must add those dust marks were hardly visible on two different properly calibrated monitors. Chalger (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupportChalger (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lagoon Nebula (ESO).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 10:10:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the ESO - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The location of the image in relation to the rest of the galaxy.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very subjective but, while the quality is gorgeous, the position of the nebula in the frame is not optimal (bottom center), and the nebula's shape is too vague, not "charming" enough --S23678 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing quality, I like the vague nebula shape --Phyrexian (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality. -- JovanCormac 10:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is with sunsets, almost every image from space telescope is beautiful. Just two days ago we've featured other skyscape, which I find far more interesting than this one. And just basing on a comparison - I vote no for this image --Leafnode✉ 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, all telescope images like this are beautiful, but all beautiful images, I suppose, can be featured. --Cesco77 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kozuch (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Leafnode. Wolf (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Millesgården 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 09:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Holger Ellgaard - uploaded by Holger.Ellgaard - nominated by Lidingo -- Lidingo (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lidingo (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urbourbo (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hard contrasts (under and overexposure), noise, CA, low details, messy composition (sculptures + tree + clouds all mixed up)... Wished I could FPX... --S23678 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy --Phyrexian (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FPX. —kallerna™ 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others (noise, lack of sharpness, cluttered composition). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but cannot be FPXed. It was supported, by an user other than the nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 09:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Pbroks13 -- Pbroks13 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pbroks13 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cannot speak for the accuracy, but the illustration looks clean, and all text is embedded as SVG text objects, allowing for easy translation of the labels. -- JovanCormac 11:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support just as Jovan said :) --Leafnode✉ 14:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. Takabeg (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bleah!! ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I trust that it is accurate. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – detailed and easy to follow. Perfect for a diagram. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Buteo magnirostris -Goias -Brazil-8.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 20:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wagner Machado Carlos Lemes - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by - Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice hawk, nice colours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish that there weren't so many distracting elements in the bottom-left, though. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Nixón^〃 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW. Takabeg (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Phyrexian (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good angle, composition and background. Feather barbs are visible. Please add to Buteo magnirostris. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Added to gallery on species page. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support SQUAAAAWWWWWWWK!!!! Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great foto of eagle with nice colours. --Korman (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Walter Siegmund. Jopparn (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ComputerHotline - Water droplets (by) (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a beautiful image, but I don't like the fact that the lighting is artificial. (Full resolution shows a rectangular light source reflected in the droplets) —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flash-gun or not. I have to oppose the composition. It simply does not strike me as a featured picture. --Ernie (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Easy target, not the best result. —kallerna™ 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Family George V of Hanover.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 22:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Julius Giere (1807-1880) - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The caption in the bottom margin (see annotation) is faded and illegible. I think it should either be removed or restored. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Thank you, Notyourbroom, I removed the illegible inscription. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strike my opposition. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mer30.Takabeg (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Sean Astin 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Actor Sean Astin (Rudy, Lord of the Rings, The Goonies etc.). Photo created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Support --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's true that we don't have enough good portraits, but the quality is everything but stellar. Even the face isn't entirely in focus, and there is significant image noise in the background. -- JovanCormac 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant image noise in the background? That's a bit too picky in my opinion. Noise/grain has always been a part of photography and always will be. Even high-end digital cameras produce noise at their lowest ISO/ASA settings. Personally I prefer noise over any smeary NR. Noise reduction always means some detail and color will be lost. Demanding noise-freeness is simply unrealistic. --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – I like it, but it really is slightly out of focus. Or is it motion blur from shooting at 1/50 sec. when zoomed in to 150mm? --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weakly) I agree that it looks slightly out of focus. Otherwise, it's excellent. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Peripitus (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with JovanCormac. --Karel (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-6 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 16:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you please describe what this is exactly? Wolf (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info It's some water droplets on spider web. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Silly me... Wolf (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not much stuff in focus. --Dschwen (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Ireally like it, but Dschwen is right after all... --Phyrexian (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support if there was not that red thing (is it lens flare, I don't know) on the top of the image. As well, the sky shows some levels of posterization. Are you using your RAWs and converting to JPEG only at the last step, since it's not the first time I see this issue in your nominations, or it's only from post-processing?

I cropped out the red thing. If you add notes to posterization I will try to fix it, but I am not sure where it is.Is it all over the sky or only in a few places? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember how large my previous note was, but that red flare (I'll call it flare, without knowing exactly what it is) is still very visible below the sky/mountain transition on the red side. As for the new crop, from comparing with the previous image, I feel something important is missing in the composition of the image. Rather than being part of the scene as previously, the cliff is becoming more an intrusive element in the picture. For posterizating, I don't consider it a "pass or fail" issue here since it's barely visible, but it could be a point to improve on for future nominations. As for where it is, it's all over the sky. Just more the image from left to right at full zoom to see some Colour banding where we would normally see a nice gradient (and I'm not talking about the clouds themselves). Finally, is this a downsample or a crop? --S23678 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix it once again.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing has been well done at some places, but not at other, as per the new notes. The darkening of the sky caused the picture to lost a lot of it's charm as well. Fixing a problem creates other ones, I'll make you stop doing edits, and I'll just abstain from voting. --S23678 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nothing very distinct. Too dark. --— Erin (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could be agreat image but the left dark side spoils it --Simonizer (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The left dark side" could be cut off.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as Simonizer - probably this scene can't be taken properly from that position. --Leafnode✉ 08:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 cut off "the left dark side"[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now the aspect ratio is improper imo --Simonizer (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice scene. However, either way the beach is cut in half, so I can't vote to feature either composition. --99of9 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Between vote to feature and oppose is still a choice not to vote at all :). Both images provide a very good idea how the Ocean Beach looks, but who cares...--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astrid Vockert - Projekt Landtag edited.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 22:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mathias Schindler - uploaded by Mathias Schindler - nominated by Durova with minor shadow/highlight edits -- Durova (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Amazingly detailed portrait, but I could do without the blown background and the cut off collar. -- JovanCormac 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the crop and the background and the 0 wow factor. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Silversmith --AngMoKio (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Media needing categories as of 24 November 2009" —kallerna™ 11:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So I fixed it, and you could have as well.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support this is a quality picture of a German politician. Wikimedians have reached out and went to the parliament to make these pictures. These are not American politicians and they deserve equal respect. These pictures have additional value because of the effort involved.. An additional reason to support this image. I strongly urge the nay sayers to reconsider. GerardM (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took the original image, so I will not comment on the nomination itself. However, I fail to see how the points you raised have anything to do with the quality of the image. It shouldn't really matter who took the image under what circumstance. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC) and since there will be roughly 500 images coming from up to 100 members of parliament, taken by 4 Wikipedians, you might just want to wait until the upload is finished. Again this would not be a statement on quality, just on procedure. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durova (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 16:11:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Infoeverything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Leafnode✉ 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please provide a reason for opposing.--Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There's no clear subject of this picture. Most of the picture is blurry. Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed (just like the rock in the bottom-right). Sorry, but I don't see any single feature of this picture that could fit in featured picture guidelines. --Leafnode✉ 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed" Hahaha. It is really funny :), and I cannot agree more, I really mean it . Yet I still like the image because it is all about shadows and light, and the light was really amazing! About the sharpness. Of course the image is not sharp because it is reflection, yet it is a rare reflection because one could see every individulal leaf.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. --Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeBlurry and nothing exceptional. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Erin. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reflection. Have you ever seen a sharp reflection? Not all images should be sharp. Some just should be beautiful.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is beautiful as it is rather murky. Also, the leaves which aren't reflections are blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know we have a very different ideas what is and what is not beautiful. So far you have opposed few of my images, and never supported any. The image is as sharp as it gets in such situation. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think a reflection can't be sharp? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the water should be absolutely still in order for the reflection to be sharp, and it is really rare. Please take a look at that image (not mine) [5]. See how sharp the mountain is and the reflection is not so. If you have a sample of the image with a sharp reflection in a natural body of water I'd be interested to see one please. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with on what you focus and the shutter speed you chose. Right now i don't have such a picture at hand but I am sure a google search can give you a lot. Your photo was made with a shutter speed of 1/20, this way the reflection can't get sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular reflection was not sharp, wnen I looked at it with my own eyes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralQuality is good, but chaotic composition for me. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for some reason the (dirty) water does not seem to be level; the duck's head is just a black blob. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO "dirty" water still is much better than dirty people.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above too. Composition is poor. --Korman (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Secret Service WMG.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 20:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Secret service by William Gillette , 1897. - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Barun (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wholly undocumented attempt at restoration on this image, broken source link at upload page. Appears to be a good faith attempt, though. Would gladly work with the nominator toward a viable nomination. Durova (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 02:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Notyourbroom. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is the current valued image of the Cathedral of Learning, a Great Depression-era Late Gothic Revival skyscraper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Support as nominator. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~I'm not convinced by the lighting/point of view/time of the day combination. Architectural features are difficult to see, given the angle at which we see them. Right side of the building has less perspective distortion but is in the shadow, and thus dimmer. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)vote striken by MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are only perhaps two angles from which a relatively-unobstructed shot may be obtained- remember, this is a skyscraper in an urban environment. Also, when the building is uniformly well-lit, it appears exceptionally bland and "flat." For comparison on these points, see this alternate version. My intention with the submitted shot was (1) to illustrate the structure in a way which would not confound the viewer with other buildings in the frame, as well as (2) to use the angle of lighting to my advantage to reveal the volume and ornamental nuances of the building, rather than leaving it to appear homogeneous and flat. In a sense, I am not attempting to photograph a structure, per se, but an art style or a design philosophy, and I am trying to do so in a way that will not confound the viewer with extraneous details. (Crazypaco, an expert on this structure, articulated a similar analysis in his review of the photograph for valued image.) I hope that this helps to clarify my decisions. —Notyourbroom (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these details and explanations. I agree that the alternate view you provided almost looks like a cardboard cutout of the building itself, whereas this view actually shows the intricate volumes that comprises this tower. Is it one of the best views one can get of this structure? I'm willing to think so. Is it superior to many others we can see on Commons and elsewhere? Once again, I'd think so. Is it thus a featured picture, a valuable picture, or something else ? Well, I don't know... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the explanation provided by Notyourbroom --Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Voters may also find it instructive to see more of Crazypaco's assessment and comparison of these two images (stitch 1 and stitch 2) here on my talk page. And for fun, here is what it looks like in typical rainy Pittsburgh weather. ;) —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really do like the contrasts in the composition : that imposing, grey, and, to some extent, scary architecture presented in such a vivid and empty blue sky, and surprisingly green surroundings (very cartoon-like). Everything fits in place. Bravo. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just barely acceptable quality in my view, but the lighting leaves much to be desired. Return just before sunset (or just after sunrise) for a better picture. I'd keep the same composition. Noodle snacks (talk)
- Thank you for the suggestion—I may try that. I believe that sunset would be better than sunrise for this angle (because sunrise would provide almost full front-lighting), but in either case, it is now too late in the year to capture the lawn and trees in a non-dormant state. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nineteenth century watercolor of a coastal settlement in Suriname.
Support -- Durova (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Garden. 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine. But I've never been to Coronie. Takabeg (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- JovanCormac 07:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 08:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jarod Hodge (US Navy) - uploaded by Cobatfor - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this picure. But the resolution is too low. Takabeg (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What? It's over 12Mpx! How much larger do you want it to be?! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you supported this one, which is one third the size! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I sopport Spider Nephila clavata 0911.jpg. The resolution of that picture is enough. Bu in this picture the shapes of planes aren't sharp. Takabeg (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolution is low or file size? --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Quality is not ideal, however as a whole it is fantastic view. Rare shot -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak SupportMaybe Takabeg is talking about the fact that none of the planes is very focused and there are also a lot of artefacts, especially in the sky.--Silversmith Hewwo 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suggestive and rare image --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great picture, but spoilt by overzealous JPEG compression. 1.22 MB for 12 Mpix is simply ridiculous, and it shows. JPEG artifacts are all over the picture. -- JovanCormac 12:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition, but too much JPEG artifacts and noise IMO. —kallerna™ 15:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is great of course, but the quality is really bad due to the high compression. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great combination --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues, per Daniel, especially in the top portion of the sky. Given this was a photo ops, I see no mitigating reasons for the quality not being better. --S23678 (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the quality related compression. Even at reasonable resolution (screen size) the clouds above Mt Fuji just look wrong with what looks like lots of posterisation. - Peripitus (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with heavy heart, but I have to oppose because of a poor quality --Leafnode✉ 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Lošmi (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I saw the thumbnail at first I thought it was fake - impossible! 99of9 (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What's so impossible about it? Rare, certainly, but not impossible. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Obviously I was wrong. It just wowed me. --99of9 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Distracting and irrelevant background. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Irrelevant background? That's Mount Fuji you're talkin' about. I vote for this picture particularly for that reason, because it reminds me on modern version of Hokusai's series Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji. --Lošmi (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 99of9 --Jklamo (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 11:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Stougard - uploaded by Stougard - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tiny resolution, but what a picture! -- JovanCormac 12:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well captured dramatic action. --99of9 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 15:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could geolocation of the image be provided please.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And it could be renamed. —kallerna™ 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Don't forget about the {{Geo}} template ;) —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but it has to be renamed. Wolf (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the file name and the poor quality of the description page. It would be great to have a species name and a geolocation tag, and why is there essentially an extra license in the "Permission" field? —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Also, what's happening here? Has the pelican just landed? It is flying away? Is it just flapping while floating in the water? This would also be nice to know on the description page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The name is now File:Pelecanus crispus-Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg and the description is Dalmatian Pelican washing. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Path on water Nanjing.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 09:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Stougard - uploaded by Stougard - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Over-sharpened! I doubt I would vote for it if it was in color. --Ernie (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't support desaturated color pictures. Post the color picture instead; if someone wants to see it desaturated, he or she can to so with a single click in Photoshop. But posting desaturated already simply robs the picture of color information without giving anything back in return. -- JovanCormac 12:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh contrast (left-hand side), confusing composition, bad crop.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one would benefit from colours. Oversharpened. —kallerna™ 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the several above points. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very ordinary picture IMO, sorry. --S23678 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poorly desaturated picture, also bad contrast and composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interno cattedrale ortodossa Fira, Santorini.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 21:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zitumassin - uploaded by Zitumassin - nominated by Zitumassin -- Zitumassin (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zitumassin (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this image is very small and has much too tight a crop. Some portions are also severely underexposed or overexposed. I encourage you to stick around to learn more from the community here and get a better idea of what images are considered FP material. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A surfer in the air.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 20:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, and much better post-processing than the other similar nomination. I would still like to see full resolution, if this is a downsample. --S23678 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite a capture. Durova (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral great capture, but I don't like the composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support excepionally! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strange photo, not in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is being used in an article on en.wikipedia - so is in scope.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are thousands of the images on Commons that are not used in any project, which most of the time does not mean they are out of the scope. What is out of scope here is the oppose vote of kuiper, who opposed not the image, but me personally. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the concept that this image is "out of scope" simply bizarre I'm afraid. This is action photography of a sport. I look forward to seeing the deletion request removing all such images. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the composition is awkward - the surfer is too close to the right edge of the image.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well captured, but in a FP surf's photo I prefere action --Cesco77 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not an action shot, I do not know what is.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - This is an action shot of surfing. The surfer is on the board and is making a manouvre. Your image isn't bad, but isn't good to illustrate this sport well. --Cesco77 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for clarifying your position! I cannot agree with you. For wxample, please take a look at that image File:Surfer in santa cruz 14.jpg. It is of a a surfer exiting a closeout. So the nominated shot is an action shot, and it is what I observe quite often. Please take a look at one more image File:A surfer in the air 2.jpg--Mbz1 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand your position, but wipeout isn't the best moment in this sport to take a picture, for me. The two surf pictures you have upload and featured, are simply perfect (this and this), but this one don't have the same quality IMO --Cesco77 (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear sport photo in action -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shows the wave better than the surfer. To me it looks like the individual in the picture is falling of the board, so I think that the wrong moment is captured for a FA. If not, perhaps the surfing manoeuvre could be illustrated better in a video. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he's falling of the board. They all usually do in the end :) It is a normal , and usual part of surfing. We already have few FP images of surfers on the board. It would have been nice to have one out, and btw IMO to show a surfer without the wave is not nearly as interesting. The wave by itself has EV. A surfer provdides a great scale for the wave, which makes EV of the image only higher.BTW what "FA" stands for in your comment above?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, I think that the image description should say that he is falling off the board. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info The image's description is corrected, the situation is explained, now you could take out your oppose vote :)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the image description has been amended to explain the picture better. I have changed my additions above to a comment, and I might vote again later when I have considered the image again. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case I'd like to thank you for helping me to improve the image's decription :) --Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't understand the out of scope comment (above). I found no other pictures on Commons with the surfer in the air that shows the underside of the board clearly. It appears to have high illustrative merit, is probably difficult to repeat, and meets the other criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mainly for the composition, but also that most of it is a bit blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As above, mainly composition problems. --Karel (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macaca sylvanus feet and hands.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 19:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Grez - uploaded by Grez - nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Decent level of quality, but if it's meant to illustrate the feet and hands (per the image's title), it does a relatively poor job due to the way the monkey is positioned. On the other hand, this is a photograph of a wild creature which is an understandably difficult subject. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and unusual look --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rub' al Khali (Arabian Empty Quarter) sand dunes imaged by Terra (EOS AM-1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 06:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team - uploaded by Elipongo - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who knew sand could be so reflective?
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic view! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, I had considered nominating it myself once. Observe that the "water" between the dunes is of course actually air. -- JovanCormac 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan, it is not a mirage. One cannot see a mirage looking down like that. Here's a good place to learn about mirages.What we are seeing here is rather an optical illusion I guess.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an air reflection, similar to the phenomenon called a "Highway mirage", which is described in the article Mirage (even though it arguable doesn't fulfill the classical definition of Mirage being = Fata Morgana). -- JovanCormac 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is no air reflection! There are many little salt lakes between the dunes dry or filled with saltwater. Look a long time to the enlarged image: You can see, the salt lakes are lying in holes between the dunes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that, it might also be the "Typical pale gravel plains" mentioned in the WP article on the en:Rub' al Khali. I do think I see reflections of clouds there, though. Strange that the NASA page doesn't explain the phenomenon. -- JovanCormac 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a former river delta with brown yardangs between the small arms of the former river. The delta is now oversaltet and contains many little hypersaline lakes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Question Why didn't you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't quite remember. I think I nominated File:Oil platform P-51 (Brazil).jpg instead, and then forgot to nominated the Rub al Khali picture later. In fact, I only remembered when I saw this candidate. -- JovanCormac 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kosiarz-PL 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish I saw it in real life :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure how you'd get back down though... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I meant I wish I were able to see it from above, let's say from ISS :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely as an abstraction, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Durova (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99of9 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Jklamo (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mercedes SL 500 front.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 15:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by S 400 HYBRID - uploaded by S 400 HYBRID - nominated by 320td -- 320td (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good picture. -- 320td (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support gestochen scharf und wirklich realistisch. außerdem nicht verzerrt wie fast alle Auto-Bilder auf der wiki dazu gehören auch viele bilder von S40 Hybrid oder wie er auch heißt. -- Luft+ (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Belle. Mais pourquoi la voiture parque à l'arrière-plan? Au total cette image est excellente. -- Autofan45 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jag tycker tycker det ser lite artificiellt ut at censurera nummerplåten, och den avhuggna bilen i bakgrunden är störande. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. That's my picture nominated here. Thanks a lot for it. Thinking that that is my best picture I hope that it will be a featured picture. -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition: second car in the background distracts. --99of9 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion the picture has a sense. In the background we can see the little brother of the SL the SLK. So, I mean this composition is organized very well. For me this picture is also a featured picture because there are not so many good pictures at wiki like this. --Lukas.zz (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the second car is also a subject (which sounds fair enough), then I would prefer it was not chopped at the top. --99of9 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Since so many languages have appeared here... Sama obecność automobilu w tle nie wydaje mi się wadą godną sprzeciwu, jednakowoż fakt, iż wzmiankowany automobil ma ścięty dach, jest z pewnością niejakim minusem rzeczonej fotografii. Wolf (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a solid shot and might be a case for QI. But for FP the composition is too straight forward. And the SLK in the back is distracting. To combine those 2 cars is in general a good idea, but with the cut off roof of the SLK the composition seems random. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hmm...it smells a bit strange here. Does anyone else smell it? --AngMoKio (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that was my dog. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - :) ok..now i know one source of the strange smell. But it also smells of socket puppets here. Don't you think? --AngMoKio (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know anything bout that; but what I can tell you is that my little dog did the most unholy fart just as I was looking at this nomination. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That must be a sign :) He is thinking the way i do. Some pro voters are suspicious. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normal, good quality image with samo small composition problems. No reason for FP, IHMO. --Karel (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

320td (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC) There is no chance any more for FP -- 320td (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no chance any more? There are 6 pros and 4 opposes... --AngMoKio (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because in five days the picture has to have at least 2/3 pro's and that is not the case right now. --320td (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CoA Città di Milano.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 09:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fale - uploaded by Fale - nominated by Fale -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coat of Arms of Milan city (Italy)
Support -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Molto ben fatto. --Ernie (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A valued image for sure, but not nearly as spectacular as this recent nomination. -- JovanCormac 15:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Purtroppo devo concordare con Jovan, ma se puoi continua a creare gli stemmi dei comuni italiani con questo livello di accuratezza, ne abbiamo bisogno su Wikipedia ;-). I have to agree with Jovan, by the way please continue creating CoA with this high graphic level of italian municipalities, we need it on Wikipedia ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jovan --Jklamo (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 07:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simply amazing.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I withdraw my nomination~~

Whoops, forgot to denoise first. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Looking at the noise I am quite sure a lot of detail will be lost due to noise reduction. The picture is fine the way it is and noise is just natural. --Ernie (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll let the nomination run it course. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support A lot of educational value in a difficult photo to reproduce. --99of9 (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like Ernie, I think that denoising would only hurt this picture. -- JovanCormac 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ultra-rare shot! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I know it's hyper-rare shot and so on, but the noise is just too much for me. NASA can make better photos (even though this was taken in 2002). —kallerna™ 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastica! Too educational value and rarity to care about quality, that is not so bad... --Phyrexian (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Peripitus (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 13:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Oversaturated, also resolution is too low for a landscape shot IMO. -- JovanCormac 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Jovan, this image has the colours and the saturation of the former Kodachrome 25 film. I worked with Kodachrome 25 in the years 1974–2001 and know what I say. Kodachrome 25 has been one of the best films with great sharpness, and I try to bring the Kodachrome 25 feeling into the digitally world. Maybe you worked in the past with other films and likes therefore another feeling with soft colours and saturation, but that is your own window to the world of photography and is ok for your own images. - This image has the resolution 2,602 × 1,645 pixels (4.28029 pixels), that's more than the double of the needed 2 million pixels. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, after seeing this Kodachrome picture I'll have to say you're probably right, the saturation seems to be a feature of that specific film, though I would consider that image on the verge to being overexposed as well. Nevertheless, I believe that photography (especially landscape photography) should mirror reality as closely as possible, and I've certainly never seen grass as green as it is in your candidate shot. If I understood you correctly, this is a digital image that you edited to look like it was taken with the Kodachrome film. If that is the case, it should be clearly marked as auch ("retouched" template).
    As for the resolution, this is a matter of personal taste; I myself believe that landscape shots should have at least 6-8 Megapixels unless they are absolutely spectacular. -- JovanCormac 08:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I retract my vote of "Oppose", the color issues have now been corrected AFAIC. Still don't know whether to support, though. The view is rather ordinary. -- JovanCormac 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Actually leaning toward oppose due to the tight crop, but I do have an unhealthy-powerful zeal for giant photostitched landscapes, so I think that's probably influencing my opinion too much. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leafnode, what is your problem with my composition? Please see this Featured picture. It has the same composition. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  And as it could be expected, I don't like the composition of the second photo either. And now why - horizon is in the middle, and as a consequence in this particular shot there's too much of the bottom part - even grass is rather boring. IMO this picture would be better with some cropping. --Leafnode✉ 12:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice landscape. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO bit boring composition. —kallerna™ 21:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made an update, cropped the Blumenwiese and made the green colour of the grass light. The "Blumenwiese" is an essential part of the high mountain region of Europa and IMO an important part of this image. Therefore I leaved a part of it. I didn't found any word for the "Blumenwiese" in the English language. JovanCormac, Leafnode and Kallerna, I hope, the colour and the composition is now ok. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I like it - almost perfect. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. You want to walk into it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice foto of mother nature. No oversaturation of colors and great composition. --Korman (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition for me and nice landscape --Pudelek (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition, i like the meadow in the foreground --Jklamo (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2009 at 15:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dmitry Kardovsky. «V. I. Lenin in Gorki village, of Pereslavl uezd». 1926. — Created, uploaded and nominated by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Source: Own work"??? Please supply more detail. -- JovanCormac 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This photo is my own work. Clarified at the file description.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it does not look like a photo and the justification or the explanation of the "own work" may explain things but it unreadable to me. GerardM (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? It's a photo of the picture on the wall, of about 4*2 meters size. The picture is by Kardovsky, published in 1926; the photo is by myself, made in 2009. Where is the mess?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I assume it's in the public domain like this other Kardovsky painting? --Silversmith Hewwo 11:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pre-1917 paintings are not protected in Russia. Thinking about the current law -- Kardovsky died in 1943, thus in 2013 all his works will be in PD. But, as far as I know, Kardovsky's date of death removes his work from the coverage of the current civil law because of the regulations of the Law of Implementing a Civil Codex. That law states that only works of the authors who died after 1943 are under this current 70-years protection.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Silversmith Hewwo 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RhB Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 22:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Two multiple units hauling the narrow gauge Bernina Express over the alps, at Lago Bianco. The picture was taken more than 2200 meters above sea level.
Support -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Das Problem des Bildes ist, dass der Bernina-Express als Hauptsache zur Nebensache wird. Das Bild ist groß genug, dass Du das Nebensächliche entfernen kannst. Vom See darf nur ein schmaler Streifen mit der Spiegelung des Zuges stehen bleiben, und auch vom Himmel kann ziemlich viel entfernt werden. Die Mindestgröße des Bildes (über 2 Millionen Pixel) muss erhalten bleiben. Dann hat der Zug mehr "Bodenhaftung", und das Panoramabild verstärkt die Wirkung des langen Zuges. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vielen Dank für die gute Rückmeldung, ich werde es mir für nächstes mal merken! (vielleicht sollte ich doch mal einen Kurs besuchen, bei dem man lernt, auf solche Dinge zu achten...) Diese Nomination werde ich jetzt aber nicht mehr ändern, bringt wohl nicht mehr viel. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torre del homenaje.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 16:14:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Qoan - uploaded by Qoan - nominated by Qoan -- Qoan (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Qoan (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Only a little foreground in shown making orientation less easy. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow ... looks like any other old stone tower. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much vignetting, and it's very soft in the edges. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose vignetting, composition, perspective --Leafnode✉ 08:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosquito Tasmania.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 23:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- ZooFari 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support More disgusting than nice. Noting the abdomen swollen with blood. I hope you killed it. ;) Durova (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support like Durova, disgusting but also wow! -- Ra'ike T C 08:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of our better macros. Resolution is acceptable given the high magnification. -- JovanCormac 09:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disgusting WOW ;-) Great macro! --Cesco77 (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do get some Dexter-feelings from this one! Very good! Jopparn (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome :o Fale (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice arm :P Noodle snacks (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe, ;) --Muhammad (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a sip more blood ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vineyard in Napa Valley 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the vibrancy of the colors, but the composition is messy :branch on the left, line of horizon right on top of the trees, background trees blending with the "main tree". --S23678 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with branch on the left, but what could have been done to avoid "background trees blending with the "main tree""? I wanted to show the hills behind the vineyard, so I could not play with the DOF.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a different perspective would have worked, but as a personal opinion, I think a shallower DOF would have had more advantages than disadvantages. --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, interesting and really visually appealing –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as S23678 - there's no one focus point. Everything blends together making this picture very messy. Here shallow DoF would be appropriate. --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 (cropped out branch on the left)[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as with original one --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per top discussion, less the branch --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as with original one --Leafnode✉ 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cluttered composition --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per top discussion again, less the branch --S23678 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please, try some self-criticsm before nomination. Just look to number of your nominations! Images are good, but do you really think, that every of them should be FP. --Karel (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I understand you right? Did you opposed my "good image" because in your opinion I nominate too many? I'd like to let you know that I could nominate as many images as I want, and you could oppose them all, or better yet you could ignore them, as I am ignoring your nominations that are way too boring to even bother to review, but please do not tell me what to do. Okay? Thanks. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that the nominated image (as well as others I nominated) is good enough and different enough from other FP to get promoted. Of course I never know what reviewers would say. How, for example, should I have known that one will oppose an octopus taken in a wild with "no wow" reason, and in few days is to nominate a boring, dull fish taken in a local aquarium :) BTW here's advice for you - please try not to look at the name of author/nominator, just look at the image itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forget to express that my Oppose is becasue I think (as others here), that this image is not good enough for FP. That´s all. But additinally I just wanted to give you friendly advice, but from your nearly hysteric reaction I see, that it was not the best idea. Regards, --Karel (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So was my reaction "hysteric" or "agressive" :) Ah, anyway... I am glad you understood that I could do just fine without your "friendly advices". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Commons:Staying mellow - please bear that in mind. You usually aggressively respond to any critics of your behavior or your works. People have right to have their own opinion, to state it, and to have different opinion than yours. And if there are no strict rules in given subject, they can use any criteria they want. --Leafnode✉ 07:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that I know your take on self nominations, Leafnode, which is the same as Karelj has. It is against the rules. I have the right nominate as many images as I'd like to. I will just repeat that a good and fair reviewer should not even look at the nominator's name, but only at the image.Oh and btw could you please provide few diff of my so called "agressive responds"? I mean, if it is "usually" you should be able to provide quite a few diff, don't you, Leafnode? --Mbz1 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't start a new pointless discussion. Just be mellow! :) --Leafnode✉ 13:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - IMO it is a bad tone to claim something without be able to provide the diffs to confirm the claim. I've no more questions to you. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I haven't said that I can't provide diffs. I just said that it won't help in anything --Leafnode✉ 15:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course it will help, if you are to provide the diffs. How should I know what of my comments you consider to be "aggressive", if you do not want to point them out to me? How would I be able to correct my "usually aggressively respond", if I have no idea what you're talking about :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, but only if it'll help you ;) [6] [7] [8] [9] And yes, I find it aggressive - negative reaction towards one's personal opinion. --Leafnode✉ 16:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks so much. They are really soooooo agressive and there are soooo many of them that I believe it is a time for another block :) Everything is clear to me now. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]