Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2012

File:Crematorium at Auschwitz I 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2012 at 14:36:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- sfu (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- sfu (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support You guide me to the page which I never want to read again. -- JKadavoor Jee 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Idobi (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSome flare at left, but good (and impressive).--Jebulon (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support You made it, perfect atmosphere with that lighting (agree with Jebulon though on his comment, maybe you can apply a gradient filter to the left part and reduce exposure) Poco a poco (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 18:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peter23 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. - c. 1902.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2012 at 16:36:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Henry Jackson - retouched and nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 16:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 16:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historical document by one of the finest photographers of his time -- MJJR (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MJJR. JKadavoor Jee 06:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hellbus (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palacio de Comunicaciones - 14.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2012 at 11:18:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Interior of the Palace of Communications, Madrid, Spain. It was created and uploaded by Kadellar - nominated by Poco a poco -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support jaja ya te pillo... Thank you very much for the nomination! --Kadellar (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---- Tuankiet65 (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive and FP, in spite of some noise in the dark parts.--Jebulon (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peter23 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's some noise, but very well done anyway. - A.Savin 11:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon and A. Savin --Llez (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following Poco a Poco's advise, I've corrected a slight CA I hadn't seen and I also applied some more noise reduction, but just a little bit, not to lose detail. Thank you all for your support. --Kadellar (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alfeñiques and girl.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2012 at 13:46:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: too much noise, photo looks like its been taken at an unnecessary angle.Fotoriety (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question ... and what is precisely a necessary angle? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this photo at an angle in no way improves the composition. Angles can be used, and in some instances improve a composition, but definitely not in this photo.Fotoriety (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that this picture is tilted? I can't find a good reference point. While checking the hanging legs of the small doll in white skirts just left of the big yellow doll near the seller, I assume no tilt. JKadavoor Jee 05:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is "angle" and another is perspective. What we have in this image is perspective, not tilt. I almonst never, ever tilt images on the X axis. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; and I think Fotoriety was confused by the perspective. JKadavoor Jee 06:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please add {{Personality rights}}. Yann (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - DVIDSHUB - Operation Enduring Freedom (8).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 12:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Operation Enduring Freedom - uploaded by Matanya - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slick (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad title, Propaganda. Kleuske (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kleuske. The file description makes the subject feel inferior. -- JKadavoor Jee 16:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus should have been on the eyes. Framing and postprocessing could be better. Reminds me of the w:File:Sharbat Gula.jpg shot. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Stas1995 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very stereotypical portrait of a poor child. A cliché. Kitsch. Sorry but I really dislike this image.--ArildV (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graellsia isabellae MHNT male dos .jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 08:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this view a bit confusing since this moth prefer to perch like this? I assume there should be some reasons (to show more body parts, etc.) to capture the museum specimens like this. -- JKadavoor Jee 09:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the eternal debate between naturalized specimens and photos in vivo. The two are complementary. This is not the physiological position does not show the hind wings. This species is fully protected in France (eggs, larvae, pupae, adults, dead or alive). The butterfly is remarkable that in the typical male antennae, which are used to find the female, following pheromones.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the reply. So this positioning is to show the hind-wings otherwise hidden? -- JKadavoor Jee 09:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Peter23 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gidip (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RedSunrise2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2012 at 11:56:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mahdiz - uploaded by Mahdiz - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -great and much EV. Peter23 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The EV escapes me, i must say. Kleuske (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but noisy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just another sunset/rise. -- Colin (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not categorized, noise level still pretty high, many bright spots. --Ivar (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Cayambe (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality at the sides is too low (see sharpness of dark areas) Poco a poco (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry (at the bottom), sorry --Stas1995 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soufresicile2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 08:25:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peter23 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it feels to me it would benefit from more room on the bottom. Tomer T (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer's right I modify the frame. Thank you to Alborzagros --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JKadavoor Jee 08:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Tomer T (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support C'est beau, tout simplement.--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:FileSchildenstein, Blick in die Wolfsschlucht.jpg

File:Marco Rossi-Doria - Festa Unità Roma 2012.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 16:52:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jaqen -- Jaqen (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jaqen (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Not sure about the unnatural orange-tinged lighting.Fotoriety (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neuhardenberg Castle 04-12.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 20:43:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by A.Savin. Image shows the neoclassical manor built in 1823 by Karl Friedrich Schinkel in Neuhardenberg. In spite of cloudy weather, we have a nearly optimal lighting for this motif, as the depicted main facade is a northern one. The image appears in the TOP 100 of WLM-Germany 2012. - A.Savin 20:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 20:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality, good perspective lines. -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 16:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Der Sorfjord.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2012 at 13:45:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pater lukas - uploaded by Pater lukas - nominated by Pater lukas -- Pater lukas (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Pater lukas (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- not enough edits --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit too dark, but really great composition of the clouds! Tomer T (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great atmosphere. Not too dark at all. This is Norway, not the Sonora-desert. Kleuske (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kleuske. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed (but fixable) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten; the mountain on foreground is too dark. -- JKadavoor Jee 09:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (removable). Per Carschten, especially at right.--Jebulon (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I know from experience how challenging these big all over surrounding vistas are to capture inside a picture. But I would have liked to see more of the foreground too. That's mostly what I'm missing in the composition in this case. The clouds make a nice mood but now I feel the weight is a bit unbalanced between the foreground and sky. I also wish it had a little more exposure because the foreground and the shadows are very dark indeed. --Ximonic (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info modified Exposure a bit --Pater lukas (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info edited version by User:Carschten incl. crop, white balance adjustment and dust spot removing. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt. -- JKadavoor Jee 05:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contributor and nominator can vote anyway. So 7-4; but no change in the result. :) JKadavoor Jee 16:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Progress M-17M spacecraft launches.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2012 at 23:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kolchak1923 - uploaded by Kolchak1923 - nominated by Kolchak1923 --Kolchak1923 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kolchak1923 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: not really captured at the right moment, poor composition, unremarkable.Fotoriety (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is far less than 2 megapixels and very poor quality. - JDP90 (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Das Lächeln von Angkor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2012 at 15:21:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Hans Stieglitz - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting composition. Idobi (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kleuske (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uebersbach8362

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PierreSelim (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Regenbogen am Sognefjord.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2012 at 13:52:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pater lukas - uploaded by Pater lukas - nominated by Pater lukas -- Pater lukas (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pater lukas (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: Looks a bit soft, foreground trees & dinghy ruin composition.Fotoriety (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Oliver (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PierreSelim (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salle de lecture Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve n03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2012 at 07:10:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created / uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by PierreSelim -- PierreSelim (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info The impressive reading room of Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve in Paris and its architecture with voutes and metallic structure.
Support -- PierreSelim (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the light through the window made some distractions. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice. --Selbymay (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view Poco a poco (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --This is a beautiful image. Almonroth (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, way overexposed on the windows, which spoils this otherwise great view to me. HDR or a simple exposure blending would have helped, but so it is not the "very best" of Commons imo... - A.Savin 21:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This pic results from the blending of 5 pics from +2 to -2 EV. The light from the windows was blinding to the eye; the dynamic range required not to blow out the highlights is far too great for a realistic picture. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support this comment. I thought the demand was unrealistic or would produce unrealistic results. I actually like the glare from the windows. Colin (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why unrealistic? Perhaps a different time of day (or different weather conditions) may provide a better result, even without blending. - A.Savin 16:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I had a special authorisation to take this pic, thanks to the French chapter. The interior of the library is rather dark: I'm not sure the dynamic range can ever fit a sensor, even with HDR. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - As Jastrow says, I'd expect the interior to be relatively dark compared to daylight. These are huge shining bright windows designed to let the sunlight flood in as much as possible and to which the eye will react, as Jastrow notes, by being blinded by the glare. If the camera wasn't similarly blinded by glare, it would look unrealistic IMO. Yes, an evening shot might avoid that, but it would be a different shot and the huge windows wouldn't be as spectacular IMO. Colin (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even the picture is overexposed, I love this Tuankiet65 (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment, tending to support (I need to think about a bit more). Very impressive to me (I know the place, but have never seen it like this -it is a compliment-) and nice, but in spite of the above comments I understand very well, the light through the windows prevents me from a support vote...(+ some magenta/violet CA in the upper left corner -metallic structure- to be corrected maybe)...--Jebulon (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't need to see out the windows, there is enough inside the room. --99of9 (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cut table on the bottom bothers me a lot, otherwise FP --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PierreSelim (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mauritia flexuosa MHNT.BOT.2005.0.974.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 10:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it; especially the first view. -- JKadavoor Jee 16:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I was asked to make fruits and seeds, I was not excited. I know nothing about botany. But I recognize that from time to time there is an aesthetic emotion to see a fruit unknown. This is the case of the latter. thank you to kasir --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Go on with botany! There are thrilling shapes and beauties to discover. --Schnobby (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hellbus (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Obertilliach Pfarrkirche St Ulrich 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 07:37:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Thoodor - uploaded by Thoodor - nominated by Achim Raschka (talk) -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely picture. --Llorenzi (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Idobi (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very successful. But can someone tell me who walked on the roof? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit tight crop in the bottom but wow! anyhow Poco a poco (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support For some reason they all look like miniature houses - cute! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ice Ice Baby! JKadavoor Jee 04:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Kadellar (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Atractomorpha lata, Burdwan, West Bengal, India 27 10 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2012 at 13:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Grasshopper Atractomorpha lata male. Taken at Burdwan, West Bengal, India. Created / uploaded / nominated by JDP90 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent. --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect demonstration of camouflage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and highly competitive to this. And I think more real colours here. JKadavoor Jee 08:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gidip (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stu Phillips (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eta Carinae Nebula.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2012 at 18:36:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO, uploaded and nominated by Stas1995 -- Stas1995 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stas1995 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This makes me crazy =)) Tuankiet65 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peter23 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Ximonic (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --sfu (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:PL - Leżajsk - klasztor bernardynów - 2012-05-02--17-11-14-05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2012 at 18:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kroton (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC) - uploaded by Kroton (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC) - nominated by Kroton (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC) -- Kroton (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kroton (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness and perfect symmetry do it imo. - A.Savin 21:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. Tomer T (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean no wonder/amazement; but it (Adbhutam) is only one emotion among the nine essential mental states. I think this picture well portrays Bībhatsam (Disgust, Aversion) and Bhayānakam (Horror, Terror). -- JKadavoor Jee 04:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tomer T. The Commons:Image guidelines do require a "wow" factor. A closer crop of just the head provides a bit more "terror" :-). Colin (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect Vātsalya (Parental love) from the face of an evil character? :) -- JKadavoor Jee 04:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow certainly there is! ;o) Yann (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Wow!~~ Terrific! I like the 3D feel. JKadavoor Jee 06:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good symmetry but I don't feel any 3D here. --Selbymay (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfeñiques or sugar fugures.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2012 at 03:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: not sharp enough, too much noise.Fotoriety (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; compared to File:Catrinas 2.jpg. Further the "cut" hat on top is unfortunate. -- JKadavoor Jee 06:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Tomas has so many Day of the Dead pictures; but not well categorized. -- JKadavoor Jee 09:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, quite colorful, high quality image. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-10-12 16-13-03-musee-histoire-belfort-denfert.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2012 at 07:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alexandre Monségur - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-10-12 16-22-28-musee-histoire-belfort-clairon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2012 at 07:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alphonse Deneuville - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eiszitterpilz Pseudohydnum gelatinosum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2012 at 10:23:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like it has some room for more exposure. --Ivar (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stu Phillips (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Gumball machine, Wanfried, Deutschland IMGL0459 edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 10:01:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, edited, uploaded and nominated by Peter Weis (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely old machine. --Llorenzi (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Llorenzi, I like the sticker at the top. Kleuske (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliconius sara sara MHNT.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2012 at 10:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 14:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank for me and sara. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stu Phillips (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pikajärve mõisa peahoone2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2012 at 12:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Ivar (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Ivar (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: Bad direction of tree shadow on building, bad composition (photo should have been taken from foot-path to lead the eye to the building), bad building shadows (especially on the right end right of entrance), needs cropping of sides, should have been taken under minimal human activity.Fotoriety (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice picture, but I prefer this one nevertheless. --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technical note: Please do not use the {{weak support}} template, as this makes it hard for the bot to count votes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. The other one mentioned above is also nice, but is the back side of the building. -- -donald- (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this picture because I think it deserves the label, but I support it more because my vote is the seventh "pro". Ivar was "class" enough to abstain as author, and I'm happy to give him my vote for that reason too.--Jebulon (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revealing the secrets is not so good; do it silently. JKadavoor Jee 06:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No "secrets" here, I just wanted to pay tribute to the author's behaviour and highlight it, it is rare enough I'm afraid...--Jebulon (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lapide Acuedotto Acqua Vergine.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 19:48:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nicholas Gemini - uploaded by Nicholas Gemini - nominated by Nicholas Gemini -- Nicholas Gemini (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicholas Gemini (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Cons: poor foreground, unsharp.Fotoriety (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this picture is far below the current standards of the "Featured Pictures" of "Commons". The quality is very low (it is unsharp), and the fence in foregrounds ruins the compostion, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:00031 6 cm grossular calcite augite skarn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2012 at 20:21:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Siim Sepp - uploaded by Siim Sepp - nominated by Ivo Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Not sharp enough.Fotoriety (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The specimen was unexceptional. The photographic point of view clipping is poor and many areas are blurred. There is not the origin of the specimen in the caption.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:0 Verdun - Cimetière de Douaumont (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 07:15:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - nominated by Achim Raschka (talk) -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Horizon is not straight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Minor tilt or perspective distortion, CA and lack of fine detail. --Vamps (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice but tilted. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)OK, no tilted. I removed my oppose. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no tilt here, nor perspective distortion. The picture is perfectly straight. I know the place: the terrain is just sloping. -- MJJR (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on the "cut" cross on left bottom and the flag pole, I can see a small CW tilt. JKadavoor Jee 04:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kikos (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The tilt at the flag pole could be fixed. The lines are what make this picture special so the not straight view is not a problem at all to me. Basvb (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chiesa di San Zaccaria Venezia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 15:55:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by -- Peter23 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~perspective distortion~~ Please see the notes. --Ivar (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~And something wrong in the "info" too (created by, nominated by). :) -- JKadavoor Jee 16:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)~~ Now OK. -- JKadavoor Jee 04:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I fixed the frame. I corrected the perspective, I think it was actually false. But I must say that I came to correct perspectives on monuments veniciens, which in reality are twisted. Thank you to Peter23 and Ivar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Crop is way too tight.Fotoriety (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is true but it is impossible to do otherwise on a single shot. In fact, it is necessary to assemble multiple images. As soon as I have a moment I would do this facade. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colchicum hierosolymitanum 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2012 at 20:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: poor composition, lighting and quality.Fotoriety (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a little more detail please? Gidip (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What detail do you desire? Wasn't my comment straight-forward enough?Fotoriety (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is poor in the lighting? In the composition? In the quality? Gidip (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Lighting: pretty straight-forward; look at the strong shadows. Such photos shouldn't display these harsh shadows. 2) Composition: you have left too much space on the left, too little on the right, the dirt then grass background is aesthetically displeasing, the 3 flowers themselves are not too pleasing in their positioning. 3) Quality: the photo is not sharp enough.Fotoriety (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. The photo was taken at twilight to produce a soft light and a long shadow which bears the shape of the flowers and is part of the composition. Since the flowers are quite far apart from each other, DOF is almost as deep as it can be to catch both the back flowers and the snail shell in the front flower. The only thing I agree with is the dirt vs. grass. It seems that my criteria for judging plant photos are quite different from the majority here. I dislike the flat, perfectly symmetrical photos of flowers shot from above that are often promoted here, for instance. Gidip (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems that my criteria for judging plant photos are quite different from the majority here. I dislike the flat, perfectly symmetrical photos of flowers shot from above that are often promoted here, for instance." -You are not alone. I always prefer a side view over photos taken from above. This is quite applicable for other subjects like animals too. But a dorsal view also has some educational value; so I prefer them as a "secondary view". (The DOF may be a problem of your lens, as I commented earlier.) JKadavoor Jee 04:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jee. Why a problem of the lens? Maybe it's because I don't use a tripod. On second thought, there are only 103 FP of flowers, much less than the number for arthropods, which are moving and therefore harder to capture. It seems to me that the community is very harsh on promoting flower FPs. Gidip (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macro lens with small focal lengths have very shallow DOF; they are mainly for small subjects like a stamen of a flower. You need a long lens like a 150-200mm macro for an entire plant profile like this. I assume you are using a 85mm macro; not a normal lens with some closeup filter or ex. tube. Flowers are difficult to get appreciated here; I too take many photos, never got any FP so far. :( JKadavoor Jee 09:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But entire plants are large subjects. I had to get away a few metres even with my lens, so a longer lens wouldn't be practical here. In smaller subjects it would help. Gidip (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I mean this plant. Isn't it an entire view? JKadavoor Jee 10:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)~~ So the subject distance here is more than one meter? Increase in subject distance will improve DOF; but reduce details. So for such views a normal tele lens may ideal. JKadavoor Jee 10:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Requesting H. Krisp's advice may help you; His mushrooms are much like your plants. I think he is using a 55mm in most of his works. JKadavoor Jee 16:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gidip (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Composition can be considered as balanced if we include the shadow as part of the subject. But not sharp enough. JKadavoor Jee 12:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darwinius masillae PMO 214.214.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2012 at 06:11:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez (?) - uploaded by Llez (?) - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Tomer T (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Ivar. Tomer T (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fabulous. Alborzagros (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but resolution is below 2 megapixels. --Ivar (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is not by me. It is obviously a from a scientific publication of Franzen JL, Gingerich PD, Habersetzer J, Hurum JH, von Koenigswald W & Smith BH (2009); see [1] --Llez (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Considering the importance, the low file size is not a big issue for me . Can delist when better picture ever available. -- JKadavoor Jee 16:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per JKadavoor --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution to low -- Oliver (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution to low. We have our rule >= 2MP for an FP-image nomination! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp. There is no mitigating circumstances.--Jebulon (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Need 2Mpx (per above) --Stas1995 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The size is 2.91 MB. Alborzagros (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the file size is unimportant! Only the image resolution is important: 1118*1712=1.914.016 are less than 2.000.000 MP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - ggallice - Monkey treefrog (2).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2012 at 18:37:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by Matanya - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slick (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely picture. --Llorenzi (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please put the binomial name in the caption.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dont know it. Anybody else? --Slick (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a White-lined leaf frog (Phyllomedusa vaillantii) as stated in "other version". But some places it spelled Sharp nose monkey tree frog (Phyllomedusa vaillanti); so I'm a bit confused. -- JKadavoor Jee 06:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, the harsh light (due to the flash light ?) create a disturbing background. Please remove all the background. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh lights; but this is a mid-night shot (23:01 from the EXIF). JKadavoor Jee 15:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support What are you looking at? Albertus teolog (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The name is Phyllomedusa vaillanti The species is dedicated to the French Zoologist Léon Vaillant. Double i is a mistake. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vely lovely frog! --Ximeg (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grot pavilion in Tsarskoe Selo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 08:32:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image. The highlights are a bit bright but not overexposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above, perhaps a little bit (!) sharpening would do the image good additionally. - A.Savin 10:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice perspective, good quality. -- Felix König ✉ 16:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per A. Savin --Llez (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Much better than the one above, the human presence gives a nice touch to the composition. But I would crop it a bit more. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition and angle. Agree with King of Hearts, expo just below the limit. Beware of the magenta chromatic aberration on the grid of the left window (acceptable)--Jebulon (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parque Olímpico, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-28, DD 18.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2012 at 15:26:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Idobi (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JKadavoor Jee 05:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also like it, indeed. Thanks for nominating Tomer! Poco a poco (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution + exposure good, but the composition is very boring. It looks like a snapshot to me. --Nikopol (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Composition is fine, simple but nice with nice colours. Basvb (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The reflections on the surface makes it truly magic! A snapshot, Nikopol? Very far from it, I would guess that the picture was very carefully composed and framed! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously people seem to love it, but to me this composition seems cluttered and the motif uninteresting. I don´t like the branches going all over the picture, I don´t like the sides of the canal hitting the frame where they do, I don´t like this nearly central vanishing point. But that´s why pictures are judged by the community instead of individuals: in order to minimize the effect of individual preferences :)--Nikopol (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Porto Covo October 2012-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2012 at 19:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The fortress and island of Pessegueiro (Peach tree) in a very quiet end of the day. View to south from Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: very poor & dull composition, poor lighting.Fotoriety (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fotoriety. I feel this time of day has a lot of potential, which was not realized in this image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pumpkin Spider seen on October 2012 in San Francsico.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2012 at 07:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by aarya0141 - uploaded by aarya0141 - nominated by aarya0141 -- Aarya0141 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aarya0141 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Uploaded a higher resolution version. -- Aarya0141 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ristiämblik2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2012 at 20:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Janek Lass - uploaded by Janek Lass - nominated by Ivo Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: too many legs out of focus, composition not too good or attractive.Fotoriety (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Ivar (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Streisand Estate.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2012 at 00:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project. Image is aerial photo taken as part of the California Coastal Records Project; after an unsuccessful lawsuit to suppress the image by Barbra Streisand, it later spawned the Streisand effect. - uploaded by Cirt - nominated by Cirt -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral Sorry but the angle and the composition are bad, while the exposure of the objects is hindered because of their small size. However, the picture seems to bear some historical value, something that I didn't realize at first, and I, therefore, will switch my vote to neutral.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The technical quality might be mediocre, but it remains the image that caused the Streisand effect. Awesome to have it released under a free license. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Streisand effect in action. But it doesn't work on me. No wow, a mediocre image. Fine for an article, but not for FP. Kleuske (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This may have considerable educational value regarding the "Streisand effect" but not enough, in my opinion, to overcome the fact that it's almost identical to countless other images up and down that coast. Indeed, that was part of the point of the whole fuss. Jonathunder (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting story, but sorry, not one of our best photos. --Avenue (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Featured picture should strike for itself, even without any complicated story. Here we do not see anything extraordinary or beautiful; this image doesn't mean anything special for those, who didn't read an article in Wikipedia. However, it is good for the article illustration purposes. --Ximeg (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toit salle Abencerrages Alhambra Espagne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2012 at 16:07:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTiled roofs of the Nasrid palaces in the Alhambra. In foreground, the roof of the hall of the Abencerrages, in background, the roof of the two Sisters hall, both built by King Yusuf I during the second third of 14th-century. Granada, Spain.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lighting, interesting composition. --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know you can't cut the tree in the middle before taking this photo. But I wish if you keep it on left (if possible). -- JKadavoor Jee 04:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for comment and care, but sorry no, it is part of my composition as it is.--Jebulon (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, composition seems to be comprehensive, high contrast --The Photographer (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Rpn006-3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2012 at 20:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rpn006 - uploaded by Rpn006 - nominated by oliverrode -- -- Oliver (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Oliver (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The perspective doesn't really help this structure in any way.Fotoriety (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting Albertus teolog (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Las muertes 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 02:52:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred, personal familiar picture --The Photographer (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer, sorry --Stas1995 (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:The surf on La jolla beach California.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 17:33:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by moroder - uploaded by moroder - nominated by moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: rock island and left swimming area too out of focus, unspectacular composition i.e. time of day and wave motion could have been captured spectacularly if timed well.Fotoriety (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park zamkowy w Pszczynie 03promykjck.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 17:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jacek Cisło - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and unusual. - A.Savin 20:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The blue hue doesn't look natural - but rather selective. This hasn't been excessively photo-shopped has it?Fotoriety (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see, I'm not the creator. Tomer T (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way of being able to find out?Fotoriety (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I can only assume that the blue lighting is a casual natural effect (why not). But I could be wrong. --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gidip (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is not the best but the nice atmosphere and composition compensates it by far Poco a poco (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I saw it in QIC, I was saying to myself, I better see this on FPC... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition and atmosphere. --JDP90 (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco. JKadavoor Jee 05:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful light --The Photographer (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good composition and mood, makes my magic bells ring. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support bardzo nieencyklopedyczne, ale za to jakie klimatyczne --Pudelek (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bardzo udana fotka. --sfu (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Haros (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 23:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kds11 (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 30 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Castillo Trausnitz, Landshut, Alemania, 2012-05-27, DD 18.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2012 at 20:42:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Trausnitz castle, Landshut, Germany. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Good quality and carefully composed. It is a bit too tight for me though. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obvious strong orange/magenta cast (no sky has such a colour, at least not in Germany), underexposed and shady (exposure and light not ideal). My first thought was: what a preposterous (don't know if it's the appropriate expression) and boring composition, but, per Alves, the composition is really good... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Festival of Lights 2012 - Berliner Dom - 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2012 at 17:20:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Berlin Cathedral during Berlin Festival of Lights 2012

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald (de) 17:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald (de) 17:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fine ... but tilted to the left aprox 1 degree --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, the perspective was not 100% central (the fountain is exactly central in front of the cathedral), because there where many people and there was no space. Besides the central perspective would be seen from a footpath and my position was about 1m higher, so that I could better photograph above the annoying people. So I think the image is OK, because a correction would be a falsification. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 18:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the angle from the side means the building won't be square-on and shouldn't be "corrected" to be so, but I think Villy Fink Isaksen was referring to an overall rotation of the image 1 degree anticlockwise. For example the communication tower in the distance is angled and becomes truly vertical if I rotate clockwise by 1 degree. -- Colin (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly Colin --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I will correct this. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Info The corrected version is now online. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 19:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: no doubt the lighted building is beautiful & feature-worthy, but the photo in its entirety negates it being featured status. The tower in the background ruins the composition, as does the people and fountain in the foreground and the rather unsharp right tower. But i can understand that the unsharp right tower and people was due to a lower shutter speed to capture the light. Again, nice but not quite worthy.Fotoriety (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the tower and the fountain are there and it is impossible to take a photo without them. The problem with the shutter is, that the projection an the cathedral facade changed very fast (maybe every 15 seconds). So it is also impossible to expose for example 30 seconds or more. Another problem was, that most people stood there motionless, what means, that I had to expose a few minutes. -- Wolf im Wald (de) 15:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow. Could you please correct the tilt noticed by Colin and Villy Fink Isaksen ? You could also clone out the man in front of the fountain, and some other disturbing details ( lighting screens of pocket cameras, etc...). But it is a FP to me anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perspective distortions, posterization, copyright problem, overall too dark (I prefer a brighter illumination, IMHO not the best of the series (but I'm not sure which is the best)). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 18:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hdpe pipe installation.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2012 at 19:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Could you try a bit more saturation of the sky and some overall sharpening?Fotoriety (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Very good subject, we see a lot of images of objects, but very few of activities. The overall quality is however not quite up to standard for FP, sky is very washed out. --NJR_ZA (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, very nice shot but with some quality flaws, sky and part of the truck are overexposed (could you try to darken those areas?), furthermore the horizont is not straight, the picture needs tilt / perspective correction (very obvious at the right side) Poco a poco (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, well, well.... This is a picture taken under existing light under real conditions of an activity. Regarding sky: if you observe, the apparent over exposure on the right is due to the existing haze and its proximity to the sun, so no amount of burning in will give us a saturated sky. The sky in general is hazy and that is the way it was in a natural manner. But again, this is not a picture of the sky, nor a landscape. The horizon is not tilted: it may look tilted, but that is the way it is. What you mistake as tilt is actually a slope (look at the cones), look at the man on the right, tilting the image would tilt the man, furthermore, look for a real visual reference, there are light poles and electricity lines hidden in the image with a nice vertical. There is a great dynamic range in this image, from dark to light, with detail in shadow areas and highlight areas, with minimum blocking on either side of the scale. If you take the time to look at the histogram you will see that yes, there will be overexposed areas on the truck, but what do you expect of a white subject lit by sunlight? Gray? The amount of over exposure is so minimal... It may not be the most exciting image in the world, but it is an illustrative image of construction. One thing are real quality issues and another imagined quality issues. Photographs must be evaluated according to real conditions, not about what is possible to do manipulating the image. I could make the pipe pink. My point is, read the photograph for its message, its content, the real conditions and the limitations of technology, not some imagined defects. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly I think the composition is first class. I love the diagonal of the pipe and the opposing angle of the crane on the truck. The men are focusing on their work and the nearest man signalling gives some action. It is a dynamic image. But the contrast is far too high (and I'm looking at the image in a high-quality factory-calibrated monitor with Lightroom, so I don't think this is just my settings or poor equipment). I tried some simple adjustments on the JPG. I took the contrast down -60, the whites down -99 and added +15 clarity (which restores local contrast). Those numbers will be quite different for raw processing and different on Lightroom 3 vs 4. And I would expect a better job to be done on the raw than the JPG. Those simple changes opened up detail on the image that were lost. The truck bonnet now has a form (still blown whites in places but I'm totally ok with that for reasons Tomascastelazo gives). The cranes and hills in the distance are clearer. The sky is still bright but has a little colour and more pleasing (though a few sensor dust spots show up now, which can be easily fixed). Making a photograph doesn't stop when the shutter clicks. I don't think those adjustments change the reality of the photograph at all, and in fact, enable the viewer to appreciate the scene. I would support this if better processed. Colin (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin, that is in my book constructive intervention. I´ll be happy to send you the original raw file for you to make the adjustments, and in the process I can really learn something. Email me with your address and I will send the raw file to you. Many thanks! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I uploaded a new version with corrections done by Colin. Thanks Colin for your help! I admit it, much, much better. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful. JKadavoor Jee 05:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I commented above, I think this is a great image, it has high educational value, and I'm pleased with the new processing (:-)). I did have a go at "fixing" the vertical perspective distortion (due to the camera being pointed down towards the pipe) which causes some distant objects to be angled. However, although these can be straightened, the transform results in significant vertical compression of the truck and vertical expansion of the pipe. Since those are the subject of the photograph, it is better that they are undistorted and the distant objects are less important. All projections are a compromise. -- Colin (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I would thank Tomascastelazo a lot for his undefatigable action in order to take and offer different pictures here in FP. Often he fails, and meets success very rarely these times, but he is a very "useful" contributor, even if we may disagree with some of his choices. I personaly apreciate very much his work here. Amen.--Jebulon (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support technical excellent, good composition and very educational --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better now Poco a poco (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Kikos (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Karhorn Gipfel Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2012 at 21:16:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info summit panorama in a northerly direction to the Karhorn 2.416m. The panorama shows including the border between Austria and Germany, and part of the ski area Warth. c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: Quite inappropriate in this scenario for the man to be looking into the camera, clouds don't really help in this composition and the sky looks too distorted from stitching.Fotoriety (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My tastes would call for a little more contrast. Also, careful with the sharpening, there are minor halos around the cross. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry Böhringer, but I'm not a fan of this kind of extreme panoramas. They look somehow forced and unnatural to me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Light Painting 1 - Booyeembara Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2012 at 15:21:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by V-wolf -- V-wolf (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice! -- Wolf im Wald (de) 17:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see there's somebody in there (waving a flashlight?) please explain in the explanation how it's made. Basvb (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hellbus (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks very dull to me while viewing other light paintings (1, 2, 3). JKadavoor Jee 07:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting --The Photographer (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Like Jkadavoor, I find it a bit dull. The whole thing looks ccw tilted too. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Red chromatic aberration around the bowl to be corrected.--Jebulon (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Maintower Frankfurt.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2012 at 17:17:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald (de) 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald (de) 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Needs a bit more room at the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the spire of the antenna is not really sharp --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PL - Łańcut - park zamkowy - 2012-05-02--11-00-45-05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 19:19:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kroton - uploaded by Kroton - nominated by Kroton -- Kroton (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kroton (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition, hight contrast --The Photographer (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Фортеця Єні-Кале 111.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:30:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PIRZKHGL - uploaded by PIRZKHGL - nominated by Lystopad -- Lystopad (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lystopad (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Chromatic aberrations in the telegraph pole and wires and the top left of the building, sky is too noisy.Fotoriety (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alberta ielā 12 20120728-05.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 22:32:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Haros - uploaded by Haros - nominated by Haros -- Haros (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Haros (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question dust spot in upper right corner ? --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is there in the next few pictures taken too, so yes you are right it is a dust spot. Haros (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a version where I have removed the dust spot. Haros (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming the dust spot gets fixed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very high quality, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Beautiful. --Selbymay (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the top left of the image (1/4 of the entire image) is in shadows/under exposed? JKadavoor Jee 16:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are windows on one side, over the top of the picture. All light are from those windows, no flash or lamps in use. (Possibly some light might come through the doors opposite the windows.) There are lamps, but not turned on. The light is strongest where the stairs go down, and the underside gets down to the level of the window. That is to the right. The left side similarly is further away from the window, and in a sort of shadow if you like. The relative lightness and darkness is thus a part of the scene, and although the picture might have been prettier with a uniform lighting, my intention has been to record to the best of my ability what was there at the time. Haros (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 04:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 23:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Darvasa gas crater panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2012 at 06:00:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tormod Sandtorv on Flickr - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Hellbus -- Hellbus (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, definite "wow" factor. -- Hellbus (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Huge "wow," but sadly the overexposure is just too much. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. This is an evening shot looking directly at incandescent rocks and gas flames. I wouldn't expect any photograph to cope with that dynamic range. I'm sure it hurt the eyes. Looking on the internet for other images, I don't see anyone else doing better, and you can't take an HDR shot of moving flames. Colin (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Stas1995 (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Colin --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Colin. JKadavoor Jee 14:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Very impressive but there are visible cloning problems in several areas on the right which must be corrected first. Sting (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image, despite of the cloning problems rightly mentioned by Sting -- MJJR (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cloning issues at the bottom of the image are the most obvious and could probably be remedied by a slight crop. A bit of cloning (irony?) could fix the middle area. I couldn't find the topmost one noted on this page when looking at the full size image. Hellbus (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cloning problems at the right side must be fixed! Specially the corner. --Kadellar (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cloning problems --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Visible cloning.--Jebulon (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version[edit]

Info Cropped bottom and right sides slightly, small amount of healing brush used on the right side. Open to further suggestions. Hellbus (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support only alternative version. --Kadellar (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support only alternative version. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support only alternative version.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support only alternative version.--Jebulon (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 15:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 16:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frze --Frze (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Darvasa gas crater panorama crop.jpg

File:Araneus Diadematus (Pumpkin Spider) seen during Autumn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 07:37:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by aarya0141 - uploaded by aarya0141 - nominated by aarya0141 -- Aarya0141 (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaded a similar picture before, I think the focus is better in this one, however, it still may not qualify the standards of sharpness aarya0141 -- Aarya0141 (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aarya0141 (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Unfocused, severely overexposed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment uploaded new version aarya0141

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:An-2 plane spraying wheat crops.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2012 at 10:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Army photo - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by Frze -- Frze (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Flying low to the ground, a soviet built biplane sprays pesticide on wheat crops in the northern Iraqi province of Dahuk. The spraying was part of the Ministry of Agriculture's Operation Barnstormer.
Support -- Frze (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow!! I was about to support, but then I opened the file page and saw that the file is way too small resolution-wise. It can't be FP (which should be at least 2MPX in resolution). Tomer T (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Much too small for FP. Yann (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aerial View - Landschaft Markgräflerland1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 13:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw. Picture shows the typical vineyards at the region Markgräflerland, Southern Germany -- Wladyslaw (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haros (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Jebulon (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JKadavoor Jee 06:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support like a painting.--Kürbis (✔) 23:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kds11 (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, and unusual. - A.Savin 22:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 31 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Arussaare õigeusu kirik.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 19:15:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Ivar (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Ivar (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree about the mood. Would look interesting under cloudier, darker conditions. Although, perhaps that's not the mood one wants to create around a church!Fotoriety (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great feel. I feel, I'm watching the church in moonlight. JKadavoor Jee 05:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice. --Selbymay (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Idobi (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--77.191.188.204 23:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to log-in. --Kürbis (✔) 23:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 22:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – SteveStrummer (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Monumento a los Descubrimientos, Lisboa, Portugal, 2012-05-12, DD 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2012 at 10:56:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Monument to the Discoveries in Belém (Lisbon), Portugal. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: very unremarkable composition.Fotoriety (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you refer to the version I upload 7 minutes before your stament or afterwards? Poco a poco (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afterwards?! I'm slightly confused! Can i critique the future while in the present?!Fotoriety (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the file at 11:41 and your statement came 7 minutes later, at 11:48, that's the reason why I was wondering if you refered to the new or to the old version Poco a poco (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...sorry about that.Fotoriety (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will be nice if the contributors take a bit more time (at least a week after the upload) before making a nomination here. It will give enough time for a self review, and chances that they will get enough feedback from the QIC or VIC page if participated so they can make any improvements if necessary. It will improve the chances of a promotion here too. There is no such rules; only my humble opinion. JKadavoor Jee 06:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could have presented it first in QIC, and I usually do, but my experience so far was not really fruitful, Poco a poco (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kadellar (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the best angle or composition. Lighting could be much better too. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Martin Kraft (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PIA16239 High-Resolution Self-Portrait by Curiosity Rover Arm Camera.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 15:51:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/Malin Space Science Systems - uploaded and nominated by Julian H. (talk/files) 15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: There are minimal stitching errors, but given the scenario that this was created from 55 images, only using the camera on the rover itself, and with the limited possiblities of turning this camera, I think the result is both very good and with absolute certainty very rare. There has never been a photo comparable in quality of any rover on mars before. -- Julian H. (talk/files) 15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge wow, very good quality. --Kadellar (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JKadavoor Jee 06:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Narcissistic !--Citron (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Panorama da Rodengo 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 17:14:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Cons: The foreground mountains are far too darkly contrasted, don't agree with the top dark cloud lining (unnecessarily constrains composition), composition doesn't feel right (i think a rule of thirds would be more appropriate).Fotoriety (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sainte-Leocadie - Eglise (1).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2012 at 09:34:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Selbymay - uploaded by Selbymay - nominated by El Caro -- El Caro (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sainte-Léocadie church, a romanesque church in Pyrénées-Orientales - France. In the foreground, the graveyard. In the background, the snowy en:Pyrenees. Lovely composition and winter light. -- El Caro (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: composition isn't too good and feels a bit too tight.Fotoriety (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for nominating :) --Selbymay (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Correct picture but no magic. A FP needs something extraordinary that we can't see here. Do I see some tendency to automatically stamp as FP all good quality images?. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At least this picture has the magic bells :) Tomer T (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition IMO. --Avenue (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sandro Botticelli - La nascita di Venere - Google Art Project - edited.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2012 at 07:23:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sandro Botticelli, Google Art Project - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Dcoetzee -- 565 megapixel (30,000 × 18,840) digitization of Botticelli's famous painting The Birth of Venus from the Google Art Project. "It depicts the goddess Venus, having emerged from the sea as a fully grown woman, arriving at the sea-shore." This has levels adjusted from the original Google Art Project work to use the complete value range and make the image more visible, and I've had someone who specializes in Italian art take a look at it to make sure it's not distorting the work (note: my first attempt was brighter than this one, but found to be too inaccurate). We have 13 different files of this complete work at Category:The Birth of Venus (Botticelli), but the other versions have a variety of issues: some have a blue tint, some are low-resolution and/or blurry, some are vertically compressed, some are cropped too tightly, and so on. This image is currently used on 501 pages across 101 projects, and the title is translated into 37 languages and linked to articles on the painting. Additionally, the full original 7.5 gigapixel (109,426 × 68,720) image is made available as a set of 12 tiles at Category:Tile set of The Birth of Venus, and has already been used to create a high-resolution detail at File:Botticelli, Sandro - Nascita di Venere, dettagli Flora.jpg.

Warning: this is a very large image and requires about 2.2 GB of memory to load into a typical application. If you aren't able to open it, try this 8.6 megapixel thumbnail. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Per above. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good, very nice, very big, very detailed, very ... google. Does "Commons" need such pictures ? The answer is obviously yes. But must we "feature" a photograph taken by a bot ? Not so sure... Or, let's be consistant and promote all the Google Art Project in one time, as a whole... This kind of work does not need our little stars, I find this a bit ridiculous. To me, the magic bells (beloved by Alvesgaspar) are ringing because of the divine and genious Sandro, one among my favourite painters, but not because of this photograph. Furthermore, photography is not allowed in the Uffizzi Gallery, and as a recent visitor, I find this unfair for "Commons" users. My humble opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally we can feature a few of them; just my humble opinion. Besides photographers and illustrators, many other people are working for Commons. I would like to appreciate people like Dcoetzee and Crisco 1492 for spending much time to find, edit and transfer various public domain files to Commons. JKadavoor Jee 05:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely do want to reward our contributors of original works, but I see the primary purpose of Featured Pictures as finding our best and most important works to display on the Main Page, and it's good to have a mix of historical and modern works. It's also helpful, when there are many digitizations of a work available as in this case, to identify one that we think is the best among those we have, as advice to projects choosing among them (it's great to get people who have laid eyes on the work like yourself to offer feedback on the authenticity of the digitization). I only nominate a small number of images from Google Art Project and similar sources, usually those that are visually striking, famous, and high-quality, high-resolution reproductions that are widely used on WMF projects. I'm also still experimenting with the gigapixel tile set uploads and want to see how those are received by the community. I do absolutely agree however, that the Uffizi's photography policy is most unfortunate, and represents the prioritization of licensing income over wide enjoyment of their works. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree (again) that "Commons" needs such pictures, and I thank you very much for uploading. But if you want the community to identify the best among the digitizations we have, please try the COM:VIC label, it is exactly on purpose !!--Jebulon (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I regard this work high quality and fits perfectly into the screening criteria for a featured picture. Many photos taken by NASA's robots are outstanding, the human is an additional element in the development of photography in the extent of the technology advances. --The Photographer (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm consistant: I do not agree with featuring NASA or ESA pictures, and (almost) never support them for the same reasons...--Jebulon (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nowadays photographers are much like robots behind those huge techie equipments, surrendering all their creative skills. :) JKadavoor Jee 16:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- the colour scheme of the file has been intensified in such a manner as to give a quality to the image that is not in keeping with the work itself--Thorvaldsson (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please clarify? I'm trying to ensure this image is as authentic and representative as possible. In particular, is the original file File:Sandro Botticelli - La nascita di Venere - Google Art Project.jpg more representative of the painting, or are both inaccurate in the same way? Dcoetzee (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your question. In terms of colour, the painting in question is not a bright one, even after its conservation in 1986-7; so, the GAP image is more representative of the painting.--Thorvaldsson (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santa Maria in Portico in Campitelli.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2012 at 23:21:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Honza Beran - uploaded by Honza Beran - nominated by Honza Beran -- Honza Beran (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Honza Beran (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too noise --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose impressive, but indeed too noisy. Tomer T (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your review. I have uploaded the new version where the noise was filtered out. --Honza Beran (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info New version uploaded - noise reduction. --Honza Beran (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Initially it was noisy, and now I clearly see a result of denoising (which led to blurring) and strong artefacts caused by unsharp mask. May be I'm wrong with method of image processing, but I think they cannot improve this image. Never shoot at ISO 1600 with EOS 60D if you want to have a quality picture. Here you could use ISO800 and 1/15 sec exposure time, image stabilizer would help you. Second, image is slightly tilted. --Ximeg (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the review. I withdraw the nomination. --Honza Beran (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-11-06 09-57-49-fort-du-mt-bart.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 19:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 09:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support bigest wow --The Photographer (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super. --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support where is Indiana Jones ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 15:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially that strange railtrack makes my bell ringing (or so)... - A.Savin 23:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon. Tomer T (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deserving. --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cigaritis cilissa 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 14:59:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The blue plant is also very interesting. JKadavoor Jee 05:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cobblestones, Père-Lachaise, November 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 04:42:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Groume (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo and good quality but no wow-factor. Better nominate for QI. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; and Flickr images are not allowed in QI. BTW, these are really sett; not Cobblestones. Cobblestones are large pebbles. JKadavoor Jee 08:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However Groume is User:Poulpy --PierreSelim (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; but it not specified in his user page or his Flickr profile page (although the user name is same in both places). JKadavoor Jee 15:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not impressive --Stas1995 (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Day of the dead at mexican cemetery 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2012 at 23:19:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting subject; but I prefer a photo taken when they are decorating the graves for the ceremony. I can't see much documentary here (as I expected). Here it seems much like a still moment. JKadavoor Jee 05:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dome of Rock, Temple Mount, Jerusalem.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 22:18:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by user:idobi. --Idobi (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support -- Idobi (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Interesting, but the file size seems too small.Fotoriety (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, The file size is to small. 2MP needed. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a bigger version. Idobi (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, FPX is no longer valid. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nice but not good enough for FP: to unsharp + to soft, visible CA, oversaturated. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 11:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fibroblast (BPAE).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2012 at 20:21:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Heiti Paves - uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by Ivo Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice high-res biology image. Recommend adding an English description however. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three active nominations from Kruusamägi. -- JKadavoor Jee 05:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Support now. JKadavoor Jee 08:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support English description added. --Ivar (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. Can you add what image type it is (e.g. scanning electron microscope, or computer generated?)--Stu Phillips (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, really, spanish description could be nice --The Photographer (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grands Moulins de Pantin.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 04:42:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Benh - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice. The WB is just a bit blue for my taste, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's a bit of a shame that the top of the buildings in the reflection are cropped out, but that is a very minor to me. --heb [T C E] 13:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Heb. Maybe King of Hearts is right about WB, but right now it's ok for me. --Kadellar (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 15:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great. --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Blue hour + lights + sharpness = Hard to go wrong.Fotoriety (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 04:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jardim Botânico Funchal - Madeira - 01.jpg, not featured, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2012 at 20:55:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: unattractive, badly composed foreground that overwhelms the subject matter, plenty of chromatic aberrations.Fotoriety (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like this image. Nice colors, sharp focus. Foreground, middle part, background and sky (everything!) are full of details, as it should be in the landscape photography. --Ximeg (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed --The Photographer (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Uninteresting composition, unfortunate foreground. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as per Ximeg. --heb [T C E] 13:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow 05-2012 StBasilCathedral.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 20:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by A.Savin. The image shows this Moscow's landmark from a less usual angle: from the Moskva River bridge rather than from the Red Square. The view isn't very different though, that's the very special feature of this building. - A.Savin 20:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 20:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: crop feels too tight, unimpressive foreground.Fotoriety (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The street lights are disturbing. Not detailed as the existing FP. But I like this view as more interesting. JKadavoor Jee 11:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the perspective. -- Felix König ✉ 16:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don´t mind the crop, agree with Fotoriety on foreground. The cars must go... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if they really must: we'd have perhaps too tight crop below, and the wall is also part of the ensemble. - A.Savin 08:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cropping off the cars would totally ruin the composition (I tested it) - in my opinion it is good at its current state. -- Felix König ✉ 18:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cars are disturbing for me. But I like. --Rjcastillo (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well... I guess, this photo deserve to be FP anyway. --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the cars. Without them, I would have thought it was smaller than it actually is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter23 (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only because of the busy foreground with the cars, sorry. I disagree with King of Hearts: the scale is given by persons too.--Jebulon (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cars can be easily cropped out (if required); but the lamp poles will remain. JKadavoor Jee 16:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Sorry Savin, it is a good picture but not special enough for promotion. I don't like the cars either but am not sure if a crop would work. I think we need a really special photograph of the subject, the existing FP (which is mine) no longer makes my bells ring... Did you try a panorama? I would like to go back to Moscow one day... Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the car brings perspective and a bit of context to it so no problem there. If anything the lamps are more of a distraction, but not to much for me. --heb [T C E] 13:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Fotoriety, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As for me, I don't see anything special in this photo. This building is photographed every day hundreds times, so the photo should have something really extraordinal to go in FP.
As for the technical side, I noticed that the building is turned CCW a bit. Measurement in GiMP gave 0.8 degrees. And I think that the image need some contrast adjustment, since colors look pretty pale for me. I personally prefer something like this (see thumbnail, which I placed above to be near the original image). Still, the clouds are too blue. --Ximeg (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative version has noise on the sky, so I wouldn't replace, otherwise OK to me. - A.Savin 13:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have RAW file, you can start from it and make the required adjustments in order to keep the quality. --Ximeg (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Oppose really not bad, impressive building, nice image, but I agree about the foreground and the image seems relatively soft and a little bit contrastless to me. IMHO, the present FP is just insignificant better than yours (the FP has also a bottom crop problem, yours has a better lighting). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are cars in the picture --Kasir (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kasir--Claus (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosendals palace May 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 08:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Rosendal Palace is a Swedish royal pavilion located at the Djurgården, an island in central Stockholm. It was built between 1823 and 1827 for King Karl XIV Johan. The palace stands today largely as it did in Karl XIV Johan's lifetime. Created, uploaded and nominated -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view & composition, good sharpness & lighting, FP to me. - A.Savin 10:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JDP90 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great quality and composition Tomer T (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Selbymay (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish there wasn't a bush on the right, but we can't take it out! --Kadellar (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Good quality and detail (easy to make with today's cameras), no magic bells ringing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Comment Interesting and nice, nothing extraordinary, the busy family and the pole with the red "thing" in the middle are disturbing. Technically fine anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Стара фортеця.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2012 at 18:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by RBohdan - uploaded by RBohdan - nominated by Lystopad -- Lystopad (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lystopad (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support - I like it, even if the ghosts are a bit disturbing Tomer T (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As on QIC already. I find the blue hour atmosphere impressive, the image has good technical qualities. What we see on the bridge aren't ghosts, it's a motion blur (doesn't bother me, and not surprising with 13/1 s exposure). - A.Savin 20:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Don't really agree with the motion blur of the moving people. They become far too distracting from the castle - especially since the foot-path is there to lead the eye to the castle, but my eyes become too fixated on them instead. -- Fotoriety
- Excuse me, but I really think that proverb "better to do you well, than to say well" works everywhere. Were is your contirbution to Commons? (There is no need to answer me) --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Seek and you will find", Mt 7-7.--Jebulon (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are on this page to critique images, not to critique individuals. Please stay relevant.Fotoriety (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I agree with Fotoriety, and will add that the image needs cropping in the foreground, up to the lamp on bottom right... that will take out a lot of the motion blurr and distracting elements, like the man on all fours at bottom left. The image is nice, but... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice mood --sfu (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak) Per Tomascatelazo.--Jebulon (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice mood, the crop is good IMO --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the mood and actually finds that the motion blur of the people adds to it. If anything the light next to the man on all fours (lower left) should be dampened, because they are a bit of a distraction, but not that much. --heb [T C E] 13:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 13:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Fuente de agua. Jardin El Monumental.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2012 at 15:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Rjcastillo (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Cons: very ordinary composition, needs more colour saturation.Fotoriety (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment like 500px.com? --The Photographer (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alai! Alai! (Wandergruppe gemütlich 1989).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 11:35:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wandergruppe gemütlich - uploaded by Frze - nominated by Frze -- Frze (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --NOT MUCH WOW Alborzagros (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The purpose of the image escapes me. I fail to see much beyond a nice holiday snapshot. Kleuske (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a nice snapshot, not more. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In 1989, we lived behind the Iron Curtain. We were citizens of East Germany and our travel options were limited to Eastern Europe. Travel to the USSR were only possible for officials. We achieved with many hurdles anyway our top of the world - the Pamir Mountains in Central Asia. The joy in our faces can only be understood in context. --Frze (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Congratulations. However, that's not apparant from the image, the title or the description provided. You can hardly expect the casual viewer to somehow "get" that. Kleuske (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Should be regarded as a person's face picture spam, I should not be recommended.Is this a spam picture?--New ombudsman (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Ivar (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonow An-26 inside Dmitry Belov 1898.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 11:48:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmitry Belov - uploaded by Frze - nominated by Frze -- Frze (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special, overexposed parts. Tomer T (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boat ride at Sunrise, on the Ganges, Varanasi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 09:39:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by orvalrochefort - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Penyulap -- Penyulap ☏ 09:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very poor image quality (see noise in the sky), tilted horizon. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a noise reduction tool like lightroom or gausian selective blur --The Photographer (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rotated .82 degrees, no problem. However, the sky presents an artistic dilemma, certainly I could 'do it', but I have thought long and hard and even tested a few different blur filters, but it always comes back to my initial feelings before I began, which is, this is the morning sky over the Ganges, I don't feel a cartoon-clear sky is proper. I'm not saying there aren't clear skies over india, there are some very rare weather conditions that could feasibly create a remarkably clear sky. But I don't think it is in any way appropriate for this image, examination of the grain shows as much, to my eyes anyhow. The bird is just a bird and belongs. My desire to be accommodating does not win out over my heart today. I'm sorry, it's a dealbreaker. Penyulap ☏ 22:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Support alt. Great composition and light. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm of the school of thought that everything should have some slight imperfection, with the tilt gone, the perfect thirds, the warm morning sky over the ganges, all that is really left is the ferrymans position in the reflected morning rays. Seems to me he's a little in a hurry, a critique perhaps of the pace of commuters ? of life ? Cheeky, I love it now. Penyulap ☏ 13:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image requires proper category and location info. JKadavoor Jee 16:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please read Image guidelines instead of making meaningless arguments. JKadavoor Jee 04:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JKadavoor. This image is not categorised. Penyulap ☏ 11:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quality and composition are fine to me, but no category and poor description make a no go. Yann (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well I didn't appreciate the Jkadavoor's tone, so I'm not going to suggest he direct any similar remarks at the editor who requested for the work to be done in the first place. You'll all need to manage without me, I have more constructive things to do than play games. Penyulap ☏ 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

File:Dasht-e Kavir.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 12:35:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Palladinus - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Absolutely beautiful.Fotoriety (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:France - Jujols (66) - Chapelle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 13:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Olivier Jaulent - uploaded by Ojaulent - nominated by El Caro -- El Caro (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support en:Jujols is a small village in the en:Pyrenees. This is the romanesque Jujols church, a French en:Monument historique. In the background, massif of en:Canigou. Lovely picture, inspiring calm and meditation (this is improved by the bench on the right: one may imagine oneself sitting on this bench and being contemplating the Pyrenees). -- El Caro (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Cons: poor composition with trees in front, not sharp enough.Fotoriety (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marakkanam Salt Pans.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 09:04:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm the author. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ~~if the horizon weren't tilted, you'd have my vote.~~ Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm... weird. My brain keeps telling me it is, but my monitor says it isn't. Kleuske (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think its because of the perspective, the lines converge at a point towards the right. Guess, that's creating the dilemma. Its not tilted. :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is indeed a good picture. It documents a process, it has many graphic elements well arranged, it tells a human story. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deservedly. Kleuske (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Added to Category:Salt evaporation ponds and relevant pages. JKadavoor Jee 16:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 18:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 15:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 16:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Karelj (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haros (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mileševa monastery (by Pudelek) 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 14:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing roof on the right, bad light with very harsh, non-detailed (black) shadows and blown whites. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Busy Varanasi Morning.jpg, featured[edit]

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

Info created by travelwayoflife - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit more contrast could be better. -- JDP90 (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame of the resolution, but the atmosphere does fully convince. - A.Savin 23:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent capture. Thanks to Tomer for uploading here. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hazy atmosphere gives it a certain quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I added an annotation to the image. I am not sure whether it's an issue. Can someone please review it ? --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; it's not the main focus of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support while I'm at it. --Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olivier Assayas Viennale 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 18:25:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tsui (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tsui (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shaded and unsharp eyes can never be FP for me: "lesson nr. 1. for portrait photographie". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small Support because Alchemist-hp is somewhat right, but on the other hand portrait photos in the "spirit of the dogme rules" (no artificial lightning and most likely on location) seldom are perfect, and as such it works for me. --heb [T C E] 13:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama of Kaisergebirge near Steinbergalm.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 20:49:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Ximeg - uploaded by User:Ximeg - nominated by User:Ximeg -- Ximeg (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximeg (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Impressive landscape, but there's CA and a dust spot (or maybe flare), also a stitching error in the tree (I added notes). I also find the upper right crop a bit too tight on the mountain, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still have the source files, so I can easily correct the tree and may be even the flare. According to crop - The mountain was really close and high, so... may be if I play a bit with projection, it would be possible to give more space above. --Ximeg (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for the new version and then I'll review it again. --Kadellar (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info New version with lots of improvement was uploaded. --Ximeg (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now, thanks for your reworking. I change to

Neutral. --Kadellar (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many artifacts on the basis --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting framing and composition. Being large and with acceptable quality is not enough. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patio de los Arrayanes Alhambra Granada Spain.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 22:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The nice and peaceful symmetry and water reflection of the famous patio de los Arrayanes (the myrtle courtyard), 13th-century, of one of the palaces of the Nasrid kings inside the Alhambra of Granada, Spain-- Jebulon (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "piece" in the foreground (at bottom center) is disturbing to me; may be cropped out. JKadavoor Jee 04:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom part is disturbing, would like to see the whole building at the top of the pic. -- -donald- (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you both for review. The bottom piece is this, it is here and it is not straight. It gives the size of the whole pool. If you look carefully you will see the the whole building... in the water reflection (my choice, more interesting in my opinion).--Jebulon (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting info. But it will not help me as a scale here because I have no idea about its size. (Items with known sizes like a man or a car can give scales.) Further if that projection of the fountain is strong enough to carry you, you may try to take a shot from there without much distractions. :) JKadavoor Jee 15:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand your meaning. Maybe my words are wrong. "Length of the pool" and "scale" are better than "size"? Anyway, I don't find anything really distractive from the subject of this picture.--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I like your composition; no problem with the upper crop. But the piece of the fountain in foreground disturb the view of reflection and attracts my eyes to it. I will accept it if more of that fountain is visible as in the link you provided. (Re:scale: an object can act as a scale for length or breadth only if it has a well know standard size; here that piece hasn't, I afraid.) JKadavoor Jee 01:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Jee, windows and doors have...--Jebulon (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Isaac's Cathedral Sept. 2012 Interior.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2012 at 20:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The panoramic photo of the interior of Saint Isaac's Cathedral, St. Petersburg. Created by Ximeg - uploaded by Ximeg - nominated by Ximeg -- Ximeg (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximeg (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Way too much noise.Fotoriety (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's dark inside the building and it's not allowed to use tripod, so I shoot at ISO800. This noise appeared as a result of lightening of dark areas (I reduced the gamma), which I did in order to make painings near the ceiling visible. Noise was already suppresed as far as possible with wavelet denoising in Lab space. I think it is not possible to reduce it further, sorry. --Ximeg (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Per above, also some tilt in the middle and at the right. A pity, as it's a very impressive view otherwise. - A.Savin 08:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can easily correct this tilt by rebuilding the panorama --Ximeg (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would be fine, however, we'll still have the significant noise, which is of course nearly always a problem when photograhing interiors without a tripod, but based on my own experience I would say that an average DSLR should actually produce less noise with ISO800. - A.Savin 11:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you still got the raw files or was it jpeg out of the camera? I'm wondering if different raw processing software might help. Colin (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This was produced out of 4 RAW files, UFraw, Hugin and GiMP were used for image processing. Initial jpeg images have very dark ceiling, so the painings are not visible. The lightening of these areas resulted in strong noise... --Ximeg (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd be happy to have a go with Lightroom+Hugin+Photoshop. Contact me by email with links to something like Dropbox for the raw files. Colin (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice composition of an impressive place, ~~but really too noisy, + magenta chromatic aberration around almost every electric lamp.~~--Jebulon (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Colin has rebuilt the image from the scratch. New version is much sharper, it is (almost) free of noise, purple flares around the lamps and without tilt. I appreciate his efforts and would like to ask everybody to review their votes. --Ximeg (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a great view and some fine artwork on display. The conditions of the shot needed high iso which has consequences that are visible at 100% pixel-peeping, but then this is a 40MP image that hasn't been downsized. Colin (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to congratulate very much Colin for his work, really wonderful. I've removed my opposition, and remain Neutral now.--Jebulon (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support now - this is a really great improvement (bravo Colin!) - the lines are now nearly perfectly straight, only few noise left. OK, perhaps a bit overexposed on the candles, but all in all acceptable for me. Still an excellent view imo, - A.Savin 21:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is beautiful. Hellbus (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bartolomeo Eustachi, bust on the Pincio (Rome).jpg

File:ESO Trailer 2011.ogv, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 09:38:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by European Southern Observatory - uploaded by Originalwana - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 09:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 09:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Llorenzi (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment La vidéo semble montrer l'observatoire comme un film d'action de propagande. La musique n'a pas grand chose à voir avec le sujet, il serait intéressant de placer une explication audio de choses qui sont à l'affiche. Cette présentation n'a pas beaucoup de sens.--The Photographer (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool... --Ximeg (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - How about the Google maps part? Is that available under a free license? Basvb (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a deletion request for this file. --heb [T C E] 09:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination after discussion about unfortunate problem with Google's licensing as compared to the CC license. --Pine^✉ 17:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006 edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 09:40:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice view. Alborzagros (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The seventh --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Arufarufarufa (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Voting time was over and not enough edits to vote. --Ivar (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Esfahan Craftsman Art.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 09:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by M@Mad - uploaded by Ahura21 - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter23 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry for rowing against the flood guys, but I see nothing extraordinay here justifying the star. Nice size, very good quality but no magic (for me). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background seems to be added artificially; overlapping with the edges in many places. JKadavoor Jee 06:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The "overlap" is just reflection of the yellow material, which appears to be a glossy plastic. In fact, if there wasn't yellow reflected on the glaze, I'd be convinced it was added artificially. Colin (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; but I didn't understand how a "Strobist: Single 430EXII bounced off the wall from left hand side." makes such reflections on both sides, and this bottom shadow. May be you're right. Further, I don't like this "snap shot style" angle of view (from somewhat top). But I think it is worth to be showcased here. JKadavoor Jee 16:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the contrasting colours and that makes a welcome change from "x on white" product shots. Colin (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think exactly the contrary to Alvesgaspar (sorry Joaquim, not the first (nor the last) time ;)) To me, this objects looks magic, and the blue color is really wonderful. A little flaw maybe: something wrong (banding ?) in the yellow color in foreground. But an extra-ordinary picture to me.--Jebulon (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Ximeg (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit too shadowy, but overall nice.--Kürbis (✔) 23:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the contrast works quite well and nice with a warm background as opposed to the almost always present white background... --heb [T C E] 13:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Arufarufarufa (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Voting period was over and not enough edits to vote. --Ivar (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 17:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Mini Cooper GP (concept) on MIAS 2012.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2012 at 12:20:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kirill Borisenko - uploaded by Kirill Borisenko - nominated by Kirill Borisenko -- Kirill Borisenko (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kirill Borisenko (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is just a snapshot of a car at a motor show. No wow or technical brilliance. Colin (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Showroom lights on car body ruin the subject.Fotoriety (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 17:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nasirolmolk mosque warm light.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 09:29:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nikopol - uploaded by Nikopol - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown-out windows at bottom are distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter23 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, perspective distorsion, chromatic aberration, overexposed --The Photographer (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree with 2 previous oppositions.Fotoriety (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 17:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strawberries in market.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 20:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --~~Too much blue (because taken in the shadow); about 7-8 points in the blue and cyan~~. Sting (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Color balanced image uploaded. Sting (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- per above, and I don't want the rumpled berries (see notes) to be in FP. I would suggest you to carefully retake the image: find appropriate light conditions, use a tripod and thoroughly select the best big clean strawberries for the picture. Try to spray some water drops on them... It's easy, just found the new strawberry and make the photo again. --Ximeg (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The rumpled berries were the first thing I noticed. The berries also look a bit small to me as Ximeg mentioned. I'd like to see a new closer shot, or one using bigger berries, emphasizing plumpness and possibly uncluding some water droplets as suggested above. INeverCry 22:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then the picture would be called "perfect strawberries in studio" never to be seen in real life... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I buy strawberries at the supermarket, I avoid rumpled ones and small ones, and I've never found it hard to do so. The strawberries don't have to be perfect, but undamaged fruit isn't too much to ask. Would we want a pic of bruised bananas or apples with wormholes for an FP? I just want a shot of strawberries that's a bit more appealing to the eyes - and appetite. ;) INeverCry 23:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing in life comes as conceived in a Platonic ideal... You are free to oppose on whatever grounds, but some things like "they look small" invites a challenge, for there is no object that gives scale here. The small berries could be bigger than what you have seen in real life... This is a picture of berries in a market, not packaged #[[2]]... as seen in real life. If reality is not good enough for you, then there really is not much to say... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may find the wabi-sabi philosophy enlightening... [[3]]... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be a cultural thing here too. In the UK, our strawberries come in little protective punnets and are expected to be large, completely red and perfect in shape and condition. Your second picture explains everything: this is a huge pile of loose strawberries at a market. But by cropping down to just the strawberries, the viewer loses the context (despite the filename), and expects to be seeing a still life. And the qualities of a still life are perfect subject, carefully arranged, artfully lit, controled DoF, etc. The second picture has much higher educational value for me because I can see how strawberries are sold in a market in Mexico. Whereas the above image just shows me some strawberries, which could be anywhere, in less than pristine condition. Since these aren't an unusual fruit, an image of "just strawberries" would have to be fantastic to make anyone go wow. I'd love to see more of the market stall and owner. Perhaps a shot of them shovelling the strawberries into a paper bag? Colin (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but see notes --Stas1995 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well dear critics, with all due respect to your opinion, I agree with you that on the superficial level it is important to portray "picture perfect strawberries." But I am not interested in presenting a picture of strawberries to end up in a brochure, but to portray strawberries as they really are in most parts of the world, not on some supermarkets for privileged people. Picture perfect strawberries are really a distortion of reality which is fine for certain ends (and believe me, the flavor ain´t the same!!!). I´d rather see perfectly imperfect strawberries... Photography nowadays can be used to portray lies (learn about the discussion about photoshop, models, results, etc.) As a language, photography can transmit an honest message or a cooked message... I prefer the honest one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be quite happy with imperfect strawberries in a context where that make sense. But ultimately, the pictures on Commons are meant to be used, not just make someone happy with their Flickr portfolio and match their values. Who would choose to use this picture of imperfect strawberries? Give me some context (market, owner, buyer, kitchen worktop, meal) and their imperfection can be an asset. Colin (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you are asking is like trying to prove a negative. But think of how many times you have bought a product and what comes out never looks like it does in the picture. In restaurants, for example, the food served never looks like the picture in the menu. And imperfect photographs can be used anyway in many contexts anyway, the potential users are the same that you mention. The fact that these strawberries do not conform to the ideal in someone´s view do no make the image unusable. Some may prefer this approach due to its honesty. After all, I hold the view of perfect imperfection as an expression of my values, and that view is as legitimate as the expectation of perfection of others (that never really is). --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reminds me of this project: 100 pictures of food vs packaging. And we all know that restaurants with pictures in their menus are best avoided :-) Colin (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lol!!! My point!!! But I do know a restaurant in Mexico where the plate looks exactly like the picture in the menu! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --I agree with the author that this isn't a studio shot and the filename doesn't leave any doubt about it. Because of that we don't have here perfect and beautiful strawberries but a photograph picturing a reality we can find all around the world, even sometimes in the most sterilized supermarkets. Just to not miss the point of this picture. Sting (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creating controversy was not my intention, but I do find it interesting that a discussion and oppose votes arise from the lack of superficial/artificial quality and failure to meet expectations of ideals of an object, that is, how it should look like, leaving aside one of the manners that the object emerges in reality. It is an ironic posture to disqualify an image of a real subject based on commercially induced visual expectations. Usefulness of an image depends on many variables, some contradictory. A rumpled strawberry, for example, far from being only a defect, could illustrate the aging process of a fruit. But anyway, each head is a universe... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is certainly worth challenging these ideas, and on a project free from commercial realities of a stock image site or the vanities of a photographer's online profile. But this isn't QI or VI. A picture of a town centre on an overcast day, or cut flowers just past their best, maybe reality but nobody goes wow. QI has plenty reality pictures. Colin (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn´t matter how one goes, some like stock-like images, others like natural looking images, by pleasing one, one displeases the other. A featurable picture could be either type of photography, for there are no universal values on what constitutes an "appropriate" image, either here or elsewhere. Populations may have preferences, but even majority opionions do not constitute a universal truth. Since this is a place where images are donated, I donate what I have, the way I have it, the way I see it. Like Rumsfeld once said very wisely (and very misunderstood), you go to war with the army you have. I donate the pictures I have. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I would then ask why did you choose ths one when the other is so much more interesting? Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Blaze, well, to tell the truth sometimes I feel that sociological-oriented pictures are not hip around here. I do prefer the other type of image, where culture is an important element. Next time! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info --Color balanced version uploaded. Sting (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Sting, it looks much better... I have a problem with color... I once took a test of color appreciation and while not color blind, i definitely could not be a make up artist. I compared both of them and your correction looks much more natural. Many thanks. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo San Carlos de la Barra, Isla de San Carlos, Estado Zulia, Venezuela.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 17:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The Photographer (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Bauhaus movement had a simple saying: Less is more. In this case I think that there is an abuse of technology for no better end than what is possible in traditional photographic rendering and the image suffers from unnecessary distortion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Master, I've been studying your comments these days, please enlighten me --The Photographer (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turn on a lightbulb in a dark room and you will see the light... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- As per above. Also, the image is unsharp.Fotoriety (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose although I like the composition, I have to say 'no' because of the distortion. Tomer T (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I actually don't see a problem with the distortion in photos like this. --heb [T C E] 13:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2012 at 22:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Image shows the 1778 erected Figurny Bridge of the ensemble of Tsaritsyno Palace in Moscow. All by A.Savin 22:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 22:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 13:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stained glass in the Basilica of Our Lady of Chiquinquira 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 17:06:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The Photographer (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The line across the middle ruins it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is assessed photography or poor design of stained glass?, There are things that can not be corrected, point to a problem in order to improve, the solution is to photograph windows without these problems? --The Photographer (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, stained glass works are in themselves many times works of art, and the design of the work of art is what makes it so. In this case the structure is not the best there is that we find in other stained glass works. So the craftsmanship of the subject is in itself questionable. Photographically, there are shadows proyecting from the background, which could be eliminated in the image is taken at another time of day. I personally find this subject ordinary compared to other stain glass work that I´ve seen. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Agree as per above.Fotoriety (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The middle line is not bothering me which is usual in similar works. But some back-lit makes the window grills visible, hurting my eyes; I afraid. JKadavoor Jee 06:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The middle line is not exactly something you can change. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as per the king. --heb [T C E] 13:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Llorenzi (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks oversaturated to my eyes... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thats the natural colors --The Photographer (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors do seem a bit too strong, and the black line really draws my attention to it. INeverCry 23:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ursynalia 2012, Luxtorpeda, publiczność 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 16:57:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by CLI, nominated by sfu (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- sfu (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice DoF and composition of an action shot. --Kadellar (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support What strikes me (the bunny) is that he is a sensible young man, wearing a mouth-guard. Never rely on the masses... Kleuske (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frze (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Low quality.--New ombudsman (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Ivar (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Thank you all for your votes - it's my first Featured picture on Commons and it's a real honour for me. :) sfu - thank you for nominating. :) -- CLI (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of Our Lady in front of Týn - Prague - 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2012 at 12:06:21 (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) 12:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frze (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blocked by buildings, crop may be necessary.--Kürbis (✔) 19:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A crop would be misleading and wrong - as I stated above, the image shows that church as it is seen from the Old Town Square. Besides, those buildings in front are directly attached to the church. It is not possible to photograph the church from this side without having these buildings in front. --High Contrast (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems it needs perspective correction: the left tower looks shorter than the right one. Yann (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarantula Nebula and its surroundings.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2012 at 06:32:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO/R. Fosbury, uploaded and nominated by Stas1995 -- Stas1995 (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stas1995 (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Like a work of art. Perhaps annotations labeling the different formations could be added?Fotoriety (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Stas1995 (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ventspils beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2012 at 14:03:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kikos - uploaded by Kikos - nominated by Kikos -- Kikos (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Kikos (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too noisy.Fotoriety (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality.--New ombudsman (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2 giugno 2009 075.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2012 at 18:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by D. Joshua Zampini - uploaded by D. Joshua Zampini - nominated by USERNAME -- 151.49.241.194 18:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 151.49.241.194 18:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote. Yann (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very blurry --Stas1995 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Dey.sandip

File:Cave Temple 3, Badami.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2012 at 16:14:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Dey.sandip - uploaded by User:Dey.sandip - nominated by User:Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 13:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --New ombudsman (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --HK Arun (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Dey.sandip

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

File:Ghent April 2012-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2012 at 19:33:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Graslei harbor is one of the most scenic places in Ghent's old city centre, Belgium. I believe that this picture conveys nicely the mood of the site, including the usually terrible weather! All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont think the composition is very good, the picture is made up largely of sky and water. The technical quality is as an average QI, the light is not very beautiful. It is a useful panorama, but nothing special in my eyes (no magic bells ringing and not very high quality). Just to be very clear, I have all respect for your opinions below and my comment has nothing to do with your votes--ArildV (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I agree that the light could be better, but there was no choice. I like the composition, with the diagonal formed by the roofs coming down from the top right corner and drawing our attention to the centre. I also like the large somber area of the sky, giving the somehow somber mood to the picture. A question of taste, of course! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cloudy days can occasionally be used to create really nice dramatic effects, but this is not one of them. Sunny with blue sky would have been better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good picture; but I can't see much difference from your previous FP taken only 27 minutes before. I personally against featuring so many similar pictures; one FP from a bunch of QIs is enough. JKadavoor Jee 05:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the buildings are completely different. I personally don't like the crop at the right side because I'd like to see the top of that building, but I don't oppose. --Kadellar (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you walk 30 more minutes you can see entirely different buildings. JKadavoor Jee 14:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remonte un peu l'appareil: on aura un peu moins d'eau en bas, et une chance de voir le haut de la maison typique à droite !--Jebulon (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oui, if faut pas seulement rémonter un peu l'appareil mais aussi le déplacer plus de 2000 km, de Lisbonne à Ghent! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On me demande un peu la même chose entre Paris et Grenade !... please a few steps left, or right... lol --Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Penyulap ☏ 17:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Unfortunately, this photo is lacking in excellence because of the cloud.--Arufarufarufa (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Ivar (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 09:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puerta de Terrer, Calatayud, España, 2012-09-01, DD 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 04:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Fountain Caños and Gate of Terrer, Calatayud, Spain. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but a lot of the textures are blurred, like brush strokes in a painting. It's likely to indicate overaggressive NR, though at ISO 100, I don't see how that's the case. Regardless, it's a problem with the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is due to the long exposure where the brush was moving and became blurry, but anyhow, I take it back Poco a poco (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor light. Yann (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Dey.sandip

File:Rosa de alabastro (Echeveria elegans), jardín del molino, Sierra de San Felipe, Setúbal, Portugal, 2012-05-11, DD 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 04:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mexican Gem (Echeveria elegans), mill garden, Sierra of Saint Philip, Setubal, Portugal. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- superb. Alborzagros (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --HK Arun (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 09:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:PL-DS, Wrocław, ul. św. Józefa 2-4; Zespół klasztorny szarych sióstr elżbietanek- budynek nowicjatu; 535-Wm.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 18:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Kriskros - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hallig Hooge - Kirchwarft 2009-08.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 10:18:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Johamar - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and lighting, though IQ could be better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 13:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 05:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak); very nice view for me, however, lacks detail, and there's some noise on the water. - A.Savin 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak) The image is too tight for this house on top and bottom. I'd prefer the portrait orientation for this subject. Moreover, symmetrical compositions are boring. --Ximeg (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tilted plain is a bit distracting composition wise. Some lack of details as well. --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obvious tilt (check reflections). B.p. 22:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well I don't find that tilt so obvious. Sure it can be corrected for a slightly tilted lens and maybe the horizon is of by one degreee. The fact remains that it is a lovely picture with a very nice reflection. (I have a soft spot for reflections) I think this is what people like to see when we are talking about featured pictures. - Uberprutser (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aerial View - Rosskopf1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 12:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw. Nice view over the summit of "Rosskopf", a mountain near Freiburg, in the background you see further mountains of the Black Forest. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- First of all, nothing extraordinary is depicted here. Second, wrong WB and insufficient contrast. --Ximeg (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nothing extraordinary? a matter of taste! wrong WB? why? --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ximeg. The image is quite plain and unimpressive. INeverCry 23:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just windmills on a mountaintop. That's all. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what? --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A featured picture of windmills on a mountaintop would make me remind myself that that's all it is. That's another way of saying "no wow". Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Georgenburg-Koenigstein(js)1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 10:04:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jerzy Strzelecki - uploaded by Jerzy Strzelecki] - nominated by Jerzy Strzelecki -- Jerzystrzelecki (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jerzystrzelecki (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stitching error on the roof at the right side. Can you fix it? -- -donald- (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the blown out roof. The upper crop is a bit tight too imo. Nice detail though, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar. Sadly, because the rest is great. --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top and bottom crops too tight. Yann (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio de Cristal - 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 12:41:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Autumn view of the Crystal Palace in the Buen Retiro Park, Madrid, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Kadellar (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks a bit dull to me. Also, composition: the placement of the fountain relative to the building looks a little awkward. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is fine, but the light conditions are not so good, dull sky, some noise. --Vamps (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I like it (it doesn't always have to be sunny weather...), maybe the noise can be fixed. - A.Savin 22:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to solve the noise problem in a new version, I can't do it right now (maybe later or tomorrow). Thanks for the comment. --Kadellar (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - New version just uploaded, I hope it is better now. --Kadellar (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks better. Maybe not the best crispness, but image has full 18 MP resolution, so I think it suffices for a Support. - A.Savin 23:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Very blurry.--New ombudsman (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Ivar (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Penyulap ☏ 17:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saguinus oedipus (Linnaeus, 1758).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 20:53:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the whites are just barely overexposed (I checked in Photoshop). Any chance you could recover the highlights? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if you have taken the photo in raw format, the slightly overexposed parts shouldn't be particular tricky to recover. That said I don't really find them disturbing, so support in either case, but a slight recovery certainly wouldn't hurt :) --heb [T C E] 13:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks, I recovered the highlights. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 06:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tamme kastanje (Castanea sativa).JPG, not featured[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Llorenzi (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing close to the old FP. JKadavoor Jee 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality. Tomer T (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Penyulap ☏ 11:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The upper half of the image is unsharp at full resolution, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jkadavoor and Cayambe. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Water museum in SPB.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2012 at 17:15:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that adjusting perspective to make the subject sides vertical distorts the image giving the appearance of a wider top-of-the-buiding. With real vision the perspective would be different than this. While perspective control is helpful at times, on a two dimensional plane is good to have visual clues (converging verticals, etc.) to give as a "real" feeling of the subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This building seems to has an outward projection for the top level (note the pillars); so I'm not sure about the perspectives. JKadavoor Jee 06:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not distorted any building or streetlamp while postprocessing the image. It all depends on edit methodics of perspective correction. So all verticals remained vertical, as it is in the real world (look at the rest images of the water tower in the category). --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: Did you correct the image via software? Sofware distorts while maintaining perpendiculars, the only "natural way" of correcting perspective is with perspective correction lenses or view cameras. The brain expects to see vanishing perspectivs, as in towers or roads... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've corrected the image via software. But I do this in manual mode. Controlling the proportions. In nature I see exactly the same picture, not а cone instead of a cylindric tower. The brain processes the living image, correcting perspective distortions. Here we have to help him. --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in nature one would see a cone and the brain would correct to a cone, but it still wopuld be a cone. Given that you used a wide angle, the correction is significant. I would "cone" the tower slightly for a more natural rendering. Software perspective correction is not true perspective correction because it is not optical. In my opinion, it is slightly overdone here. I will not oppose, but I will not support either. I would do that correction and crop the left side... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katrouchka90 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The composition could be better, but very nice lighting, colors, and atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring and bad composition. The building on the left and foreground elements are disturbing, the tower (which doesn't look straight to me anyhow) is unspectacularly centered; not the best perspective. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per King of Hearts. - A.Savin 22:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. Tomer T (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. Yann (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haapsalu raudteejaama ooteplatvorm.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 13:20:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Ivar (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Ivar (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazingly. My most favorite subjects. --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ the idea is very nice, but I'm not happy about the overall result of the composition. The point of view and crop aren't good enough. Disturbing shadow in the bottom right corner, the whole right part of the image is vacuous. Moving the angle to the left (and maybe the point of view a bit backwards) would look better I think, also because the steam engine in the background looks interesting (but is cut off here). The image could be less shady, too. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- much better. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree to a certain point with Carschten. I would crop out the right almost to the structure (20%) and the foreground 15-20%. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Cropped version uploaded. Steam engine was cropped because big recycle bin was covering his back side, but I did shoot it from different angle and added a note with it. --Ivar (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a nice picture but it is missing a distinct subject. Also the colors look a bit off. Might be the whitebalance, try making it a bit warmer and perhaps desaturate the sky and the grass a bit. My 2c - Uberprutser (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support... but I would still crop some of the foreground... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 05:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArildV (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The steam engine on the left hand side is cut off and its creating a bit of distraction for me. Otherwise, its a good photograph. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Frze (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would help if you could give a reason why you oppose. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hearst Castle Neptune Pool September 2012 005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 09:06:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, and??? The people in the picture, in my opinion, are out of place. Furthermore, I ask what encyclopedic knowledge does this image contribute? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows the taste of and luxury enjoyed by Randolph Hearst? Kleuske (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it does show the luxury of Hearst, but the architecture is really not original nor does it establish/represent a trend or a point of reference. A flower without scent? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As per above. Don't agree with the shadows - especially on the left corner. Should have been taken during different time of the day.Fotoriety (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lines on this one cause nausea, just where is it trying to draw attention ? The markings in the pool go one way, the columns pull in another direction, cropping of the palms provide a lop sided effect, why are there people in the image ? why not take a few steps and create a proper image, or ask the people to move AND take a proper image ? As far as I can see, this is a tourist image, 'see, I was there'. I'd like to see at least a token EV in a FP. Penyulap ☏ 17:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly because of the composition, I think there should be more water in the picture and less sky (now they are 50% approx., there's too much sky in the picture), and I also feel there should be more space at the left side, it's a bit unbalanced, given the space we have on the other side. I wish those people weren't there, but only two of them are a bit disturbing for me (the security woman and the man in white t-shirt in the middle), that's not too bad. --Kadellar (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fotoriety --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le Buisson-de-Cadouin - Abbaye de Cadouin - Sculpture du cloître - PA00082415 - 049.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 13:40:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Thesupermat - uploaded by Thesupermat - nominated by Thesupermat -- Thesupermat (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thesupermat (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Don't agree with the crop.Fotoriety (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version[edit]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maintenance d'un Mirage 2000 en Afghanistan en 2012.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 09:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Français : Inspection et maintenance d'un Mirage 2000 de l'armée de l'air française sur la base aérienne de Kandahar en Afghanistan le 15 juin 2012. created by Sgt. Clay Lancaster, USAF - uploaded by L'amateur d'aéroplanes - nominated by Frze -- Frze (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Ivar (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --Btw, the whole left quarter of the image is blurred: seems to be a serious optical issue on this lens. Sting (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This photo will probably voyeur.--New ombudsman (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mi-17 in Kunar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 09:46:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info An Mi-17 helicopter formation prepares to land and refuel after a resupply run July 8, 2012, at Forward Operating Base Bostick in Kunar province, Afghanistan. The joint mission of the Afghan air force and U.S. Air Force Mi-17 helicopter crews was to resupply Afghan forces in remote locations. created by U. S. Air Force - uploaded by Officer - nominated by Frze -- Frze (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Ivar (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:President Barack Obama Tours Storm Damage in New Jersey 5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 09:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info President Barack Obama looks at the storm damage as he and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie make an aerial tour aboard Marine One near Seaside Heights, N.J, Oct. 31, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) - uploaded by Sanandros - nominated by Frze -- Frze (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Frze (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see neither storm damage nor president --Ximeg (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Ivar (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I should rather nominate as National Geographic Magazine Photo of the month. --Frze (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very blurry.--New ombudsman (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mechesee.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 08:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A little lake near Bernau bei Berlin, Germany

Info created by Kds11 - uploaded by Kds11 - nominated by Kds11 -- Kds11 (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kds11 (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see posterization in the sky due to overexposure. Sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per king and it looks tilted. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --compelling, enchanting, Penyulap ☏ 17:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dottergelber Spateling Spathularia flavida.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 20:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 15:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothng special, good picture of some mashroom. --Karelj (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj. Tomer T (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The framing looks a bit unbalanced. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The needle is distracting Gidip (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj -- Dey.sandip (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Penyulap ☏ 18:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heron Bommie SVII.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 20:51:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Underwater Earth / Catlin Seaview Survey - uploaded by Hersfold - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as in en:wiki. JKadavoor Jee 05:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 15:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achird (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the overexposed parts on both sides and the distorted fish. Tomer T (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this picture very hard to judge. There is a lot going on and I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. I's very purple and looks like it has been made with a fish eye lens and these seem to be two suns.... There is a bit ca on some of the fished but that doesn't bother me.
Support --HK Arun (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –sumone10154^(talk) 02:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Statue of Liberty - 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2012 at 21:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Statue of Liberty, New York, United States. Created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best angle of view; the flames from the torch is hardly visible. But I like your whole view. JKadavoor Jee 05:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ximeg (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The up-skirt angle doesn't impress me :) And there is just to much sky. - Uberprutser (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I voted for this as a quality image, but to be featured, I think the face should not be in the shade. Morning sun would be amazing. --Julian H. (talk/files) 18:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goliath Poldermolen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 01:57:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uberprutser - uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Uberprutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Uberprutser (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC) (I agree, either a faster or a much slower shutter speed would have been better)[reply]
Weak Support. I really like the juxtaposition of old and modern technology: both are there to harness energy from wind, but they are also very different. However, the top blade of the windmill is a bit blurred (should have used a shutter speed faster than 1/125 s) and the crop is a little too tight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - for the same reasons as given by the king. --heb [T C E] 13:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ for now: several chromatic aberrations should be fixed. - A.Savin 21:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for correction, now the image is good enough to Support. - A.Savin 22:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KOH. JKadavoor Jee 07:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The contrast between the old and new is the WOW factor for me --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, and superb compo. However, needs a bit more space above, and maybe a bit less grass below.--Jebulon (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could be right about the sky, but unfortunately there is no room to play with. Keeping the rule of thirds in mind I don't think I should cut any grass :) But prehaps [this] is the better image out of the series. - Uberprutser (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a better candidate. -- JKadavoor J e e 05:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frze (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –sumone10154^(talk) 02:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:17.5-30-2003-Portraet-af-Fath-Ali-Shah-Qajar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 14:36:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Miniature of Fath Ali Shah Qajar in David Collection

Info uploaded by Peter23 - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support much of wow. very pretty painting.Alborzagros (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --New ombudsman (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support If the upload is legal, I'm not sure.--Jebulon (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artistically, it's not the best of its type, but this type has become extremely rare, thanks to the modern Islamic stricture against depictions of humans. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VISTA's infrared view of the Orion Nebula.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2012 at 21:28:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO/J. Emerson/VISTA, uploaded and nominated by Stas1995 -- Stas1995 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stas1995 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wonderful...with just a wee little help from technology.Fotoriety (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...Although I guess at some areas the gamuts might show some warnings in photoshop e.g.. I mean the saturation level is quite high. ~~--84.248.223.47 19:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)~~ Sorry, forgot to login first. --Ximonic (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I downloaded the TIF version (341 Mb, same size) some time ago, would it be useful? --Kadellar (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! --Stas1995 (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Image:Detalle del zurco de un disco de gramófono (recorte de la zona enfocada).png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 01:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alejandrodel97 - uploaded by Alejandrodel97 - nominated by USERNAME -- 190.209.14.127 01:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 190.209.14.127 01:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Only votes from logged in users allowed, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is far below the recommended minimum resolution of 2 Mpixels and it is out of focus at the image edges. The topic as such is interesting and valuable. You might want to have a look at the valued images assessment project instead for these types of contributions. --Slaunger (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frauenfigur, Amulett mu po, Kameruner Grasland, Bamunkung; im Staedtischen Museum Braunschweig.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2012 at 13:38:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Amulet created earlier than the year 1901 by unknown in Western High Plateau, Cameroon - photograph by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support valuable --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 06:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely the museum provided more specific information about the date of this object and the culture which produced it. The current lack of context limits the usefulness of this image on Wikimedia projects. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough wow for FP. Tomer T (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Junger Höckerschwan, Cygnus olor 09.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2012 at 22:06:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mute Swan c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Cons: vital subject head almost completely obscured, too little in focus, unimpressive and unrevealing composition.Fotoriety (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Unusual view. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fotoriety. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive capture. You have a very good eye for the essential. I'd like to see more of this on Commons. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unusual view and well captured. It is not always mandatory to show the whole subject in FP when you have this kind of view. And I think this image has not been post processed at all, it is directly from the camera. -- JDP90 (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW-image. Much better than static pano's. B.p. 21:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wow thank you and from you --Böhringer (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original and sharp where it has to be Poco a poco (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the unusual perspective! Michael Barera (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NYPD Boat 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2012 at 23:31:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Gzzz -- Gzzz (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as author -- Gzzz (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral When photographing moving objects it's usually looks better when you reserve some extra space in front of the object. - Uberprutser (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But here I like to see more trail room (like this), showing the path it just created behind. -- JKadavoor J e e 16:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Great image, but not as much "wow" as I would have liked to see. Michael Barera (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oscar Wilde - The Duchess of Padua.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 05:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by anonymous (pre-1923 American, so definitely out of copyright), restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is an illustration to Oscar Wilde's Duchess of Padua, one of the least illustrated of Oscar Wilde's plays. It's a photogravure, by the way, which is why it has a slightly dark cast over the image proper, this is normal. In some you get a dark edge around the image, showing the outline of the photogravure plate; this one doesn't, presumably because they did a better job matching edge of image to edge of plate. (it's also why I didn't crop too close: it'd be misleading not to include some of the paper, as photogravures tend to be darker than the paper) Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please add proper categories. --High Contrast (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added Category:Oscar Wilde and Category:Photogravure. I'll be honest and say I've been gone from Commons too long to remember the category tree, so please add more if you can think of any appropriate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good scan. --High Contrast (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 06:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per High Contrast: great scan! Michael Barera (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very careful job. I cannot congratulate for the restoration: nothing is visible (because it is good, I guess !)--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (btw, maybe a scan of the picture before restoration, visible in the file page, could be interesting, for comparison)--Jebulon (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Patio de la Acequia Generalife 1 Grenade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2012 at 18:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Detail of the Patio de la Acequia (the Courtyard of the Water Channel), in the Generalife, the summer residence of the Nasrid Kings of Granada, Spain. It was built under Sultan Muhamad III of Granada in 1302-1309, and renovated by Sultan Abu I Wahid Isma'il of Granada in 1313-1329. UNESCO World Heritage. Please notice the omnipresent motto: "and nobody is victorious, but God"-- Jebulon (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Loose the top part, those halve windows are not really flattering. - Uberprutser (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An advice, maybe, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC
  - Ok, my 2c. The image is too high. I suggest using a 4:3 or 3:2 format. Your obviously after some symmetry so at least you should get the same amount of hedge on both sides and the arc in the middle. But for this you will probably have to retake the image. And if its symmetry you want you could even photoshop the window in the back that is off center. On the other hand the building does look a bit crooked so perhaps a perfect symmetry is not possible :) - Uberprutser (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for comments and review. I may crop above, but I cant imagine you ask me to "photoshop" this picture as a reconstitued puzzle, in order to create a fake symmetry, where there is nowhere symmetry :))!--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Imho it doesn't show the majestic of the place, which is unfortunate. Sting (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dans ce cas, il faut un peu développer, et aller au bout de la logique en votant "contre"....--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Je voulais dire que le cadrage me semble étriqué et ne laisse pas respirer l'image, ne rendant pas hommage à la beauté de cette cour. Et non, je ne vote pas, sauf dans quelques cas exceptionnels qui me paraissent nécessaires. Sting (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merci d'avoir pris la peine de préciser.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Uberprutser, crop out the top windows, they creat a feeling of something incomplete. With all due respect, Monsieur Jebulon... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ¡Ay don Señor Tomascastelazo de las Fresas y Mexico! Are you sure you are fine ? You seems a bit tired, those days, isn't it ? . Anyway, you both are right, I'll crop above, the picture will be better balanced.--Jebulon (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Monsieur Jebulon, I took the liberty to crop the very top, if you do not like the results, just revert changes. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Vive la Liberty, don Tomascastelazo. Merci.--Jebulon (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ummhh, I think that something went wrong, look at the size and MP! By the way, I keep wondering if the window at the end is not centered (my guess and that is not easy to fix :( ) or rather you dear Jebulon Poco a poco (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you Poco a poco, you are right about the size. I've uploaded a new version. But I really don't understand why you want fake symmetry where there is no symmetry. The window IS NOT centered (and almost nothing is centered) in real...--Jebulon (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You got it wrong. At the beginning I was wondering if you were not in the right position to show the symmetry or the symmetry is just not there (which was my guess). I pointed then out that fixing that wouldn't be "easy" (suggesting that there is no solution for it!) :) Poco a poco (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Please remove this nomination--Jebulon (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Power 8 mandelbulb fractal overview.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2012 at 20:33:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by KeymasterCZ - uploaded by KeymasterCZ - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Crop way too tight on top and bottom sides.Fotoriety (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very nice, but the framing shouldn't be so tight. It's not a photograph, so maybe KeymasterCZ can create some more background. --Kadellar (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture is great (12,000 × 10,816 pixels, file size: 51.35 MB) --Kasir (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JKadavoor J e e 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iguanidae head from Venezuela.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2012 at 13:35:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, good composition and a nice background blur - Uberprutser (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support DoF and some shadows is improvable but some details like the eye are really nice. Would be also good to add some more categories like the zoo name, Poco a poco (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Poco, I added the zoo category. --The Photographer (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Poco. -- JKadavoor J e e 04:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 10:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isle of Graia3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2012 at 13:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David Roberts - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Llorenzi (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --屁出るワイス (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks lovely, but are you sure about the saturation of the colours (in particular, the blues)? They're much, much brighter than the original, and also go quite a bit darker. This may well be right, but it'd be good to hear the thought processes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the picture editing my dear friend.Alborzagros (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well,

Weak support, then =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aaron Palushaj - Hamilton Bulldogs - 2012-11-09.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2012 at 13:38:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info One of the rare shots of american hockey league hockey player. This shot presents Aaron Palushaj in game of the American Hockey League. Created by me - uploaded by me - nominated by me -- Letartean (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nominator -- Letartean (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the noise disturbing, as well as the strong blur at the left. Well captured though, so I wouldn't oppose. - A.Savin 11:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great action shot! Michael Barera (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I have to withdraw my nomination. Talks with the organisation led to a change in resolution and I won't be able to give images of this event under a sufficient resolution. Thanks for the votes. Letartean (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stanford University from Hoover Tower May 2011 001.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 20:01:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simple symmetric composition. But nothing eye-catching for me. --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good, high quality photo with nice light, but not sufficiently eye-catching, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bos grunniens at Yundrok Yumtso Lake.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 05:46:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Yak near Yamdrok lake, Tibet. It is a long-haired bovinae found throughout the Himalayan region of south Central Asia, the Tibetan Plateau and as far north as Mongolia and Russia. The Tibetan economy is dominated by subsistence agriculture. Due to limited arable land, the primary occupation of the Tibetan Plateau is raising livestock, such as sheep, cattle, goats, camels, yaks, dzo, and horses. The Tibetan yak is an integral part of Tibetan life. Created by - Dennis Jarvis - uploaded by - Dennis Jarvis - nominated by me -- JKadavoor J e e 05:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JKadavoor J e e 05:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop at the bottom is a tad tight, but the view at the top makes up for that. Kleuske (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Agree. Tight crop; but the colourful saddle & beautiful background make up for it.Fotoriety (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- JDP90 (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture and contrast Poco a poco (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is realy beautiful --Ximeg (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a lot of bling for a cow :) - Uberprutser (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good (maybe better with slightly less saturation?)--ArildV (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! The background really adds to this photo, too. Michael Barera (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MyCanon (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 12:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olympiastadion, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-28, DD 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 00:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Aerial view of the Olympiastadion (host of the Olympic Games in 1972), Munich, Germany. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Greens in top left and bottom left look oversaturated and unsharp. Also, a bit of overexposure in some parts (e.g. white oval in top left corner). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the histogramm there was no overexposure but I retouched it. I also reduced saturation a bit in that area. Poco a poco (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the two side by side, it seems like the left side in the new version got much brighter compared to the rest of the image somehow. It might be due to your saturation fix (if you only applied it in one area); I would only do color adjustments to the entire image, lest strange effects appear like this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, new try, no local adjustments Poco a poco (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If my eyes don't deceive me, it appears saturation has actually increased in the newest version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Nice view, but also Overprocessed: lack of detail, especially seen on trees. --Ivar (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- it's so mo. Penyulap ☏ 03:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Nice view, but the colors leave a bit to be desired. Michael Barera (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patio de la Monteria Palace Pedro I Alcazar Seville Spain.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2012 at 18:23:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the Reales Alcázares, the patio de la Monteira ends with the majestic entrance of the palace of Pedro I of Castile, mudéjar style, built between 1356 & 1366. Around the blue stylized nasrid motto, the text on the pediment is : el muy alto et muy noble et muy poderoso et muy conqueridor don Pedro por la gracia de Dios rey de Castilla et de León, mandó fazer estos alcázares et estos palacios et estas portadas que fue fecho en la era de mill et quatrocientos y dos años (the very high, very noble, very powerful and very conqueror don Pedro, by the grace of God king of Castile and Leon, gave the order to build those Alcazares, palaces and covers, and this was accomplished in the year 1402). Seville, Spain.-- Jebulon (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not bad, but I find the lighting a bit flat. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful details on the sunny parts. It is very unfortunate that much parts under shadows. JKadavoor Jee 06:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- . For King of Hearts, the light is flat. For Jee, there is too much shadow... "On ne peut pas plaire à tout le monde..."--Jebulon (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there is no conflict between the two. Lighting which is too close to noon will result in flat lighting as well as shadows which cover up the front. If it's later in the afternoon, the lighting will be more dynamic, and while shadows get stronger, they are side shadows rather than front shadows. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - 16h42 (maybe 17h42) is too close to noon ? The light gives side shadow here, and a bit too much, if I trust Carschten's opinion just below...--Jebulon (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was going to mention this in my original comment but somehow I forgot. :) It was taken in August, and when sunset is around 22:00, I would say the entire 4 hours on either side of solar noon (13:00) have noon light. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know it is very difficult to avoid shadows unless it is the east or west direction. Morning and evening lights can't help much in other sides. Further, weak lights fail to grab fine details. That is why I suppoted even if the shadows disturb the details. :) JKadavoor J e e 05:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light because large and too much parts of the image are shady. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, but I don't see the "wow" factor here. Michael Barera (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Junger Höckerschwan, Cygnus olor 04.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 10:40:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cygnus olor (da schimpft er aber...) c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A pity it is underexposed and lacks contrast. Easy to fix, though! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you try it? show it to us --Böhringer (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Penyulap ☏ 03:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Alvasgaspar has a point. All though it's feathers look like my doormat, I mainly oppose because of the dull backround, it looks like an overcast sky. - Uberprutser (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well captured, background is OK to me. - A.Savin 10:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well captured, indeed. Michael Barera (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Russian Academy of Sciences SPB.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 06:38:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice photograph, quality wise and composition wise as well. I added a note to the image on one particular issue. Feel free to delete it after reviewing the note. Thanks. --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review! But this cloud is absolutely natural, it can't be deleted anyway. ;) --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- JDP90 (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alborzagros (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The monstrous cloud is OK, the white car bothers me a bit, but FP for me. - A.Savin 21:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SMAO why stand in the sun all day long with an easel and paints when the right moment and a digital cam can do the job. Lol. (Though, I do think there is everything to be said for oils and watercolours still.) -- Penyulap ☏ 03:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what is SMAO? :) --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

erm, umm, it means very big support :D yeah, well, this is one of those magic images with illusion that makes you double-take, is it a photo ? is it a waterpaint ? is it a set with painted props at different depths ? what, what ? what is it ? lovely Penyulap ☏ 09:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm so love rhetorical questions (and fictitious supports too)! Ask me more, more! ;) Always yours, Alex Florstein (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well if you must know, shove lmao into google. Penyulap ☏ 19:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand the reason of it. --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I love the picture ! ok ? :D now are we talking the same language :D I love it ! :) Penyulap ☏ 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There in no depth in this image. And I don't think the dramatic tone mapping is very appropriate. - Uberprutser (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question As a courtesy to the author, could you please shortly explain why ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. The foreground and background are distracting. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what about the middleground? It's okay or distracting too? --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It looks fat and heavy, covering the entire frame. Everything is too flat (per Uberprutser) and seems painted on an advertisement board. I can't find (feel) a distance between the lamp pole and the wall. :) -- JKadavoor J e e 05:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, really? This is just a feature of this image, multiplied by specifics of perception of some individuals. The image shows only facade of the building (direct projection - 90 degrees), parapet of the embankment and water. And it seems difficult for someone to see here an essence - the depth. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --HK Arun (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Very nice picture!--屁出るワイス (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! I especially like the contrast. Michael Barera (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MyCanon (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sutlema mõisa väravatorn 02-08-2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 07:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Ivar (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Ivar (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surrounding trees actually enhance it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 21:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture but you may want to consider fixing the blown out details in the front a bit. - Uberprutser (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light (disturbing (strong) shadows, very bright whites and highlights) and the composition doesn't seem really outstanding to me (boring centered). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like the composition and the sky, good quality otherwise imo.--ArildV (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors! Michael Barera (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tadoussac - Hotel (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 13:35:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Selbymay (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spring view of Tadoussac Hotel (built in 1866 and rebuilt in 1942) in Tadoussac, Quebec, with a good light under stormy clouds. -- Selbymay (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad camera position. Road partially obscures hotel. Kleuske (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree as per above.Fotoriety (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 21:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - J'aurais coupé jusqu'à la ligne jaune (incluse), mais je ne suis pas d'accord avec les opposants. Plus tu t'écartes à gauche, plus tu perds de l'aspect spectaculaire de ta profondeur de champ. Very nice light and clouds. Very good color contrast, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kleuske --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I love the colors, but I'm not crazy about the road. Michael Barera (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Support J Kadavoor J e e 05:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amanita muscaria vliegenzwam 02.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 17:28:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support???!!! Very grainy and unsharp! Maybe downsample and check the results. --Gidip (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gidip --Florian Fuchs (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gidip. JKadavoor Jee 11:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per Gidip.--New ombudsman (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need 50 edits to vote --Stas1995 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Gidip. --Kadellar (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Penyulap ☏ 03:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gidip -- JDP90 (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. B.p. 08:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Smudged details and color fringing. But nice mushrooms. - Uberprutser (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Famberhorst - uploaded by nieuwe versie downsample
- Oppose This is a completely different picture, not a derivative work !!! (and the quality is not really better...)--Jebulon (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now, the previous version is back... Any way, my oppose vote remains...--Jebulon (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me, it doesn't have a "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guadalupe Peak from Bowl Trail.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 15:21:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fredlyfish4 - uploaded by Fredlyfish4 - nominated by Fredlyfish4 -- Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See a wider version on Panoramio to see what is going on with the clouds/sun/dusty desert air on the left side.
Support -- Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition --The Photographer (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Left sky and background needs more saturation - looks almost blown-out.Fotoriety (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like 500px.com? --The Photographer (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pine^✉ 20:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice landscape! Michael Barera (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please add notes on the image.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Autumn Oak - Broadhall Way - Stevenage.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2012 at 23:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent colors and resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful composition and quality. --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but a huge so what?-factor. Kleuske (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this were Wikipedia vice Commons that question might have merit. Regardless, not all landscapes need be of a pretty lake or mountain range. 131.137.245.206 11:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is British urban landscape. It's not the Champs-Élysées or Mount Fuji or a bird of paradise. Yet it can have beauty and educational value without there being a notable subject or being the lead image in a Wikipedia article. Here are the vivid colours of a sunny autumn day with the sun low in the sky. Here is the magnificance of an oak tree, with enough detail to see every crinkly leaf and each ridge in the bark. Here is a contrasting composition balancing the huge tree and hedge against the tiny dog walker in a bold red jacket. If your response to that is "so what?" then I ask if you are really living? Colin (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for the non-standard reply.No wow is perhaps a bit more appropriate. Composition is nice but the subject is rather pedestrian. With a subject like that nice doens't really cut it. And yes i'm really living, but geoghraphically a bit spoiled when it comes to summer, winter, spring and autumn oaks. Kleuske (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how people can have such varied opinions, as I see this as the only work of art up for consideration on this page. It is quintessentially English and quite striking in its composition. It also has a simple beauty about it. As for being pedestrian, well, that quip I suspect is unintentionally ironic. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --heb [T C E] 13:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 20:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture! --Ximeg (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Colin for this high resolution Christmas card. I'm not from the "pictures with EV only school; happy to occasionally support pictures with big wows and limited EV. JKadavoor Jee 07:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral Good large image but no wow for me. Also missing essential information (panorama construction?). B.p.
- I've added the panorama construction info. -- Colin (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the info update. B.p. 18:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly because of the shadows in the lower part of the image. But WOW what a files size! took ages to load. - Uberprutser (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My original intention was to take a picture of just the tree in great detail -- hence a large stitched image -- but a better composition presented itself. I could have downsized it but felt it was sharp as-is and so would only lose detail. I think the shadows at the bottom act like a natural vignette, keeping the eye away from the relatively boring road and focused on the subjects: the tree and the dog walker. -- Colin (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not convinced the shadows add to the composition but I wouldn't consider them a distraction. The gestalt is exceptional. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The shadows give me a good feel. Here in India, people (and animals too) prefer to rest under the tree-shadows when the sun is too hot. -- JKadavoor J e e 05:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jee, here in England we have had three blue sky days since May. Shadows are not on our list of desires when the temperatures have not hit 25 all year. :) Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent composition and colors --HK Arun (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 10:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful fall colors! Michael Barera (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cleveland West Pierhead Lighthouse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 07:04:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mtbangert - uploaded by Mtbangert - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A WLM USA 2012 submission that some of us liked, and I can't really get it out of my head. -- Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love crepuscular rays. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice atmosphere, but the tower seems tilted a bit, maybe it can be corrected. - A.Savin 17:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is lacking contrast, I'm sure there is a better rendition possible. - Uberprutser (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice photo but the boat are disturbing imo.--ArildV (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I agree the tower looks tilted slightly to the right, but I went more with aligning the horizon. The pic is balanced between having the horizon horizontal and tower vertical. Maybe the tower is tilted in real life? Mtbangert (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would have liked it better if the light house was positioned according to rule of Third. But Guess it was shifted towards the middle to accomodate the rays. It seems a bit unbalanced --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is it just me who notices the noise? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I do like the crepuscular rays, but there isn't as much "wow" to this picture as I was hoping for. Michael Barera (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:International hot air balloon festival in leon guanajuato mexico 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 23:24:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I bet you made a few more good pics at that event :) - Uberprutser (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great composition and colours.--ArildV (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image, but it would be good to correct CA at the image corners, if possible --Ximeg (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The composition of this photo is flawless and beautiful. I really like it. But when viewed at full size it is too noisy and not sharp enough. If only the shutter speed and ISO were higher and lower respectively.Fotoriety (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really a nice picture, composition, color and feel wise and it documents an event. Minor technical flaws like CA can be fixed easily. Wish the image was a little less noisy at full resolution, may be an ISO lower then 400, could have been useful. Nonetheless, my support vote stands. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Sandip. -- JKadavoor J e e 06:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced noise level on the sky, please compare and revert any time, if the result is not good. --Ivar (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Improving on the work is collaboration. Sometimes the authors become blind to some issues (it happens to me). I appreciate the contribution! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support That sequence of subjects results in a nice composition although the sharpness is not the best Poco a poco (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support No Sponge Bob nor Darth Vader this time ? Do you remember ? Well. Very nice, indeed. Congratulations ! --Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, but there is Mickey mouse! Want to see it? Just for you Monsieur Jebulon![[4]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and COM:DM comes to the rescue! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! I love the colors and how the balloons are positioned relative to each other. Michael Barera (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Composition --The Photographer (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition. --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Koorunud vikerforell (Oncorhynchus mykiss).tif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 11:16:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jagomae - uploaded by Jagomae - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject, but unsharp. Please add a description in English. --Cayambe (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" for me. Michael Barera (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ogrodzieniec zamek 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 13:12:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Smigasiewicz - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 13:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Very nice mood but the picture lacks details (optical quality and probably also too harsh post-processing) and the sky is pretty noisy. Sting (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy --Pine^✉ 18:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Penyulap ☏ 03:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Slightly noisy and unsharp, but great mood and atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Idobi (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad.. --Llorenzi (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per Pine. Too noisy.--Arufarufarufa (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Ivar (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Great mood and atmosphere, but slightly noisy and unsharp.--Jebulon (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality problems (why iSO 400?? it's a pity...) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, bad technical quality. Please retry. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice, but simply to noisy. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shame this made it through QI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great atmosphere, but huge noise, sorry. --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Per King of Hearts: noisy, but I love the mood and atmosphere. Michael Barera (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Årsta bäckravin 2012 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 00:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The north part of Årstaskogens bäckravin , a small gully in Årsta, Stockholm. created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough 'wow'. Tomer T (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tomer T: I don't see any "wow", either. Michael Barera (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Evergreen B747-200F EDFH img2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 08:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wo st 01 - uploaded by Wo st 01 - nominated by 77.87.224.100 -- 77.87.224.100 08:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 77.87.224.100 08:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote. Yann (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, even if the top is cut of and not 100% symetric. But a nice and seldom shot. -- -donald- (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing dark sky in the right corner (vignetting?) --Florian Fuchs (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Low quality.--Arufarufarufa (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote. --Ivar (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fails featured criteria on a number of counts, but most importantly it is not one of the finest on Commons. either as an example of a Boeing 747-200F nor as an example of Evergreen International Airlines --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would die to see the 4 engines and the wings of this 747. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Fence vignette. --Julian H. (talk/files) 18:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and hard to take photo. I like it, however recommend you to correct the vignetting and place it into QIC. --Ximeg (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Great idea, but I don't like the lack of symmetry or the cut-off wings. Michael Barera (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Corrected vignette, symmetry and some color noise. Please revert if it made things worse, but I hope it helps. --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bhutanatha Temple, Badami.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 19:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the angle of view in this low quality picture which gives a better idea about the architecture. J Kadavoor J e e 04:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Jkadavoor. Moreover, the crop is point-and-shoot like. If the temple is the main subject the temple should IMO fill a larger fraction of the image space. If, on the other hand, the temple in its surroundings is the subject, the framing and composition of the surroundings with the temple should be more carefully considered. --Slaunger (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the reviews. I agree with some of the comments above. This is not a FP material. --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ESO Centaurus A LABOCA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 19:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO/WFI (Optical); MPIfR/ESO/APEX/A.Weiss et al. (Submillimetre); NASA/CXC/CfA/R.Kraft et al. (X-ray) - uploaded by Pine - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 19:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 19:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I must admit - i am a sucker for these astronomy images. Perhaps the image can be cropped a bit - especially cropping-out the bigger stars near the sides, and a bit of the top.Fotoriety (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an alternative, slightly cropped version listed on the Commons page of the file. Possibly a better alternative? --Julian H. (talk/files) 18:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i think so...although i'm not too fussed. The crop just puts more appropriate focus on the galaxy - which i think we should be seeking.Fotoriety (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt. version below, so everyone can choose. --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Penyulap ☏ 03:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support All the NASA image could be FP --The Photographer (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unless the image title is misleading this is an ESO image. Kleuske (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the description, this is a combination of three images, two from ESO and one from NASA. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Crop, as proposed by Fotoriety (and already uploaded long ago as an alternative):

Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are notable color and lighting differences between this and the larger version, perhaps due to heavier JPG compression in this cropped version. I could upload a crop with less JPG compression if there's significant interest in a crop. --Pine^✉ 19:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's always a good thing if you can do that. Thanks.Fotoriety (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This crop is rendered from the original tiff-file, with no colour-influencing editing, so this should be the correct colours. JPEG compression is minimal, and I now got rid of some slight noise reduction that was in there before. --Julian H. (talk/files) 07:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some further editing now to get the crop closer to the uncropped version while maintaining the higher quality of this version. Is that better now? --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support also for this version after the changes mentioned above. Pine^✉ 21:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support –sumone10154^(talk) 02:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both versions are great, although I slightly prefer this one. Michael Barera (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Share Your Knowledge 1 Why glamwiki.ogv, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2012 at 18:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by DensityDesign Research LabDesign Department INDACO Politecnico di Milano for WikiAfrica - uploaded by Iopensa - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 18:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. Love the second too. -- JKadavoor J e e 05:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I love it, but is it appropriate as a featured picture? If the answer is yes, then count this as support. Michael Barera (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Berg Hohenstaufen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 16:38:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A wooden bench on the Hohenstaufen mountain in Southern Germany invites for a rest after the ascent. Created by Harke - uploaded by Harke - nominated by Harke -- Harke (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Harke (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmmm... It is a good photo, and I like the bench, but from a compositional point of view it does not really get to me and catch my eye. I think I would have moved more to the left such that the trees would have been better lined up, and maybe have lowered the camera position to close to the ground to get a more interesting perspective. The framing just seems a little random to me, sorry. (I bet this place looks very nice in late spring and summer with green foilage on the trees. I did get associations to a Lied by Mendelsohn with these lines by Heinrich Heine: Auf ihrem Grab, da steht eine Linde, drin pfeiffen die Vögel und Abendwinde. Und drunter sitzt auf dem grünen Platz, der Müllersknecht mit seinem Schatz.) --Slaunger (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger, you forgot to put your signature here. :) J Kadavoor J e e 11:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fixed! --Slaunger (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not enough "wow" factor, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bubo scandiacus (Linnaeus, 1758) Male.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 16:31:13 (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) 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Loss of detail due to posterization. --Ivar (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me: Too less details in the coat in consequence of overexposure in white parts. Solveable with image (re-)processing? --Tuxyso (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ara-Zoo-Muenster.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 06:56:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scarlet Macaw, photographed in Münster Zoo

Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice photo, but unfortunate light - too much body in shadow. Not as detailed and crisp as I would expect for an FP. --Slaunger (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. You are right with your comment to the light regarding the whole body of the ara. But for me it was especially the light I liked with this animal portrayal. My intention here was not a biological perfect reproduction but a photo accentuating the beautiful head of the Ara (note the light spots on the top and on the beak). --Tuxyso (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. But those nice light spots fill a very small fraction of the entire image space, and the rest of the head is poorly lit. Moreover, due to the large aperture, you have a very shallow depth of field. Only the eye-region of the head is in focus. The crop of the bird does not seem to be well thought through either. A good photo, not FP IMO. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Uploaded a new version. You convinced me with the dark areas of the body. Better? I like the DOF here, it is a common style in portraiture, as already said: My idea was not a sterile biological image, but a portrayal. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks, the light is better now, and I get the point regarding focusing on the head. I just think the DOF is too shallow to get the entire head in focus. The most protruding part of the head apears to be OOF. --Slaunger (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but severe CAs along the body outline, especially at the white feathers in the neck and along the right wing of the Ara, (jpg?)-artefacts in the forehead. --Llez (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination: Although that is one of my favorite photos and I still think it has a special spirit and is a very good portayal of an ara, I see the technical arguments against FP. BTW: The artefacts were ironically caused by CA correction :) Nonetheless I've corrected the issues raised by Llez. Thanks for your comments and your help for improvement. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-05-04 Fuerteventura Atlantoxerus Getulus 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2012 at 12:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wo st 01 - uploaded by Wo st 01 - nominated by 77.87.224.100 -- 77.87.224.100 12:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looking at this picture makes me wish I could see its tail. -Uberprutser (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My focus was on capturing the feeding squirrel. That's why the rear is out of focus, thus making the tail irrelevant. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 20:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know what you are saying but I think there is probably a better crop in there. Perhaps a square or a portrait or just a bit tighter. Don't make the body float by cropping the rear legs completely. But crop it in such a way that one doesn't immediately notice the cropped tail any you'll probably have my vote. b.t.w. The focus is great you can see all the ticks around his/her eye. - Uberprutser (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ per Uberprutser.--屁出るワイス (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love how the focus is used in this image. Michael Barera (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support -- Penyulap ☏ 09:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-11-13 12-47-06-nocloseup-wcu-wcu16f.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 13:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm assuming from the title, the description and the three frames that this isn't a study of poppy seeds but rather of photographic techniques and equipment. A standard lens in macro mode; with close-up-lens attached; with 16 frames of focus stacking for increased DoF. It is interesting and useful but I don't think it is feature level. The harsh white light does bring out the texture of the seeds but perhaps there is too much contrast and not enough fill. The arrangement on paper is a bit too simple and amateurish. The seeds do make an interesting subject at macro level, but making an original composition out of this popular subject will be a challenge. -- Colin (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparable with File:Focus stacking Tachinid fly.jpg; but we don't need another FP (imo). J Kadavoor J e e 04:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I just don't see the "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of stacking artefacts in the right one (for examples see note, but not only there). If focus stacked, why the unsharpness in the front and the back? --Llez (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012-11-15 11-30-00-physalis-25f.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 13:03:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see you've been having fun with a macro attachment and focus stacking. However this mouldy physalis doesn't make for an appealing subject and the composition isn't doing anything for me. Colin (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Cool idea, but I don't see the "wow" I'm looking for in featured pictures. Michael Barera (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Athene cunicularia 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 17:31:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wagner Machado Carlos Lemes - uploaded by Berichard & File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it but I think that the result would look better darkening the white spot on the right or otherwise cropping it out Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also think that the white spot should be darkened. And I would suggest to use vignetting to do it, which would also highlight the main subject. --Ximeg (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Vote for the alternative version --Ximeg (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I knew how, I would have done that. Tomer T (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Voted in support of alt. -- JDP90 (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comparable to the existing FP; but I prefer the other eager view which may also available to Commons on request. -- JKadavoor J e e 08:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about this?!!! JKadavoor Jee 04:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This can also be FP. Tomer T (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Change description: bright spots on the right side removed, vignetting effect added Poco a poco (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. Yann (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info reduced background noise level, plus a bit contrast and saturation. --Ivar (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this alternative is much better. Michael Barera (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 16:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MyCanon (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Athene cunicularia 1 edited.JPG

File:Balance scale IMGP9755.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2012 at 10:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nikodem Nijaki - uploaded by Nikodem Nijaki - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture has bit of a purple color cast. Uberprutser (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We must be looking at different images. I don't see any colour cast not even any purple fringing. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Well I think it's clearly visible in the lower part of the weights. - Uberprutser (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor J e e 05:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would rather like to weights on the side, not on the front of the scale. Yann (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –sumone10154^(talk) 02:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture of a beautiful object. Michael Barera (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ––Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Catopsilia pyranthe male, Burdwan, West Bengal, India 14 09 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2012 at 18:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Mottled Emigrant, Catopsilia pyranthe (male), is a medium sized butterfly of the Family Pieridae found in South Asia, Southeast Asia and parts of Australia. Taken at Burdwan, West Bengal, India. Created / uploaded / nominated by JDP90 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral When photographing insects you want to get the eyes sharp. I'm not sure if this is sharp enough. Also there is bit of a ca problem you might want to fix. - Uberprutser (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeUnsharp. The blur of the background is good, but not just all around the butterfly, where it is noisy. This looks artificial.--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too prefer the whole subject in focus for the sake of EV. But it is almost impossible with a macro lens; we need to use a generic tele lens for that purpose, which results overall less details. Focus on the eye is a common preference for all photos; but I prefer a butterfly with sharp wings than eyes if both are not possible. See other butterfly FPs here. I think Joydeep may achieve a bit more sharp eye, if he can align his camera with it's wings. -- JKadavoor J e e 05:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the camera should be aligned with it's wings but I had to be very quick because the butterfly was on the flower for just 4-5 seconds. And I agree with Jeevan that "...I prefer a butterfly with sharp wings than eyes if both are not possible." -- JDP90 (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors! Michael Barera (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eastman Kodak HQ 1900.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2012 at 08:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Detroit Publishing Co. - uploaded by UpstateNYer - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Historic photo of Kodak headquarters, very sharp and detailed image even by modern standards.
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support JKadavoor Jee 09:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to know where my camera sensore came from ;) Uberprutser (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs more restoration, also crop is not necessary, the missing sky could be reproduced. ■ MMXX ^talk 13:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a historical photo taken about 1910 it's a really great quality! - A.Savin 10:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is definitely a photo that is FP-worthy, but I have to agree with MMXX. I wasn't aiming for FP when I uploaded this—its purpose was to fill a role in an en.wikipedia article—so any restoration efforts were minimal (cropping being the most notable, as it was convenient to just crop rather than clone the sky in). But FP status, of course, is the call of the population here. Thanks for the consideration, either way. upstate NYer 00:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Glühlampe explodiert.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2012 at 06:28:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Yann (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super! --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great high-speed photography. --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kasir (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alborzagros (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support really good, POTY material. Tomer T (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support T_T woow ! --The Photographer (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice indeed. Uberprutser (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King, Yann, Alex, and Tomer. - A.Savin 17:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding! Thanks a lot for also providing such a good description of how you took the shot -- I found that very interesting and helpful. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- In composing the image, i don't think so much space was needed on the left-side. It doesn't help the composition in any way.Fotoriety (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he had put it in the middle everyone would have bitched about a boring centred composition. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said to centre it. All i'm saying is crop a bit of the left. There's just too much space...a few fine glass particles will not ruin the composition if removed, and i can understand King of Hearts point, but i don't see much relevance when the bullet or its trace can't be seen.Fotoriety (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does help: there is more space to feel that a bullet was shot in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I think the fine glass particles left in the picture, should not be cut off. You can see them in full resolution. I could not guess how much material is entrained to the left side. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --HK Arun (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support –sumone10154^(talk) 02:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --屁出るワイス (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support my congratulations Poco a poco (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect so many support votings, many thanks to all. --Ritchyblack (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wunderschön! What a picture! --Ximeg (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. Jonathunder (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding! One of the best I've seen! Michael Barera (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the version with the bulb socket, it's more realistic. Here, it looks like magic, a levitation bulb that shines without electricity. --Citron (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; this "edit" ruined the value of the efforts. J Kadavoor J e e 05:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 32 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Parked boats at Anjarle Creek.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2012 at 06:11:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Horizon is placed almost in the middle (contrary to rule of thirds) and is slightly tilted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Middle? are you serious ? It may not be exactly aligning with 1/3 rd from top but Its certainly closer to that. Tilt, I'm not so sure, but I will re-check? --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Minor flaws rectified as per comments by User:King of Hearts. Updated with a new version.
  - Better. Moving to Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight on left and bottom (front of boats). I wish more space at right too. JKadavoor Jee 08:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is what could be managed with 18mm single frame. I got the entire cluster though. :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunate. :( JKadavoor Jee 09:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great colors. Tomer T (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique picture and great colors all though the water is not completely level. - Uberprutser (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice, informative... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me, the horizon is tilted. And there are noticeable red and green chromatic aberration in the trees along the sky. All correctible.--Jebulon (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did fix the horizon. Are you referring to the latest version of the file? I'm not sure about the CA. I'll check and will post a new version, if required. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done CA fixed. Horizon re-checked. Please check the latest version. Note that the sea at the distance is probably a good indicator of horizon. The bushes should not really be considered -- Dey.sandip (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stil not sure about the tilt, but it is not obvious, and not very important. Imo, this picture deserves the FP label.--Jebulon (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors! Michael Barera (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Statue of Lille on place de la Concorde 001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 12:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moonik - uploaded by Moonik - nominated by Moonik -- Moonik (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moonik (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish if the cars were not there. J Kadavoor J e e 15:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice golden-hour lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KOH. - A.Savin 10:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:De Mariakerk van Wierum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 11:11:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Baykedevries - uploaded by Baykedevries - nominated by Baykedevries -- Baykedevries (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Baykedevries (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tilted ...? --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may well be the tower leaning a bit. That doens't happen only in Pisa. Too bad about the banister in the FG, it spoils an otherwise fine image with a nice mood. Kleuske (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The colors are great, but the wooden railings in the foreground are a bit distracting. Michael Barera (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pavo Real Venezolano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2012 at 12:17:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by The Photographer (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ The background is a bit noisy because it was original underexposed. But not so much that it bothers me. And there seems to be a bit motion blur in the feathers on top of its head. - 212.123.168.11 13:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Anonymous votes are not allowed. Please, log in.--Jebulon (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support DoF not the best (crest OOF) but really nice exemplar and colors, Poco a poco (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the colors! Michael Barera (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MyCanon (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Turban seller at Festival au Desert near Timbuktu, Mali 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2012 at 13:49:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alfred Weidinger - uploaded by & nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the colors, but I'd like more space on the left and bottom. Yann (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some dust spots in the upper right corner, otherwise it is a FP to me Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I think you should crop out the sand dunes - Uberprutser (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info A crop per requests above. Edit by Tomer T (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very nice edit. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Tomer T (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great colors, and I really do prefer this alternative version to the original nomination. Michael Barera (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the colours! J Kadavoor J e e 16:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:Turban seller at Festival au Desert near Timbuktu, Mali 2012 cropped.jpg

File:Balearica regulorum 2 Luc Viatour.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 18:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Lviatour - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great detail.Fotoriety (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eye closed (?); the closeup (existing FP) is more charming. J Kadavoor J e e 05:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I aggree with Jkadavoor: The existing FP (tagged as other version) is already FP and much better. Main object relatively small (lower end of resolution limit), a bit oversharpened for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I also agree with Jkadavoor. Michael Barera (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hindenburgdamm mit dem Sylt Shuttle.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 23:18:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice perspective... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice perspective. The numbers on the front of the train are a little smeared due to motion blur and/or OOF issues, but acceptable to me. --Slaunger (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Slaunger. J Kadavoor J e e 15:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MyCanon (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice perspective, color balance -- Dey.sandip (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great perspective, great colors! Michael Barera (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mezoregiony Kondrackiego.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 23:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aotearoa - uploaded by Aotearoa - nominated by Piotrus -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be SVG? --The Photographer (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe a QI or VI, but there isn't enough "wow" here for an FP, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree: There IS enough wow here, but the way the edges are done is somewhat odd - it gives the impression that some bits just forgot to be coloured, as the colour stops, but the text and border lines continue across the colours. Particularly awkward in the upper right. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PlantaTandil1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 14:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created/uploaded/nominated by Ezarateesteban 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe a Quality Image, but there isn't enough "wow" here to be an FP. Michael Barera (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regiony Kondrackiego-hipsometria.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 23:02:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aotearoa - uploaded by Aotearoa - nominated by Piotrus -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be SVG? --The Photographer (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de Alejandro Nevsky, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-11, DD 46.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 18:39:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Tallinn, Estonia. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think its good enough to be a featured photograph, the building deserves better - Uberprutser (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very thankful if your comment is a bit more focused to particular problems. Poco a poco (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the Cathedral under maintenance (visible scaffolding)? I prefer this angle of view, showing two sides. - JKadavoor J e e 07:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion, but I think that that black car spoils the other image Poco a poco (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I partially agree with Jkadavoor. Another angle of view would be better. And geometry could be better. But technical quality of the photo is very good and clear in any case. --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Per Alex Florstein. Michael Barera (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Physico-Geographical Regionalization of Poland.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 19:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Qqerim - uploaded by Qqerim - nominated by Piotrus -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be SVG --The Photographer (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ando also in English :) --Llorenzi (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poznaniak (dyskusja) 13:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Almost useless for the Wps other than the Polish one because a translation will be very difficult. A SVG version should be available. Sting (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks good technically, but it just doesn't have the "wow" factor that featured pictures should. Michael Barera (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow factor (per Michael) --Stas1995 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spb 06-2012 English Embankment 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 13:03:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Image shows an evening view of English Embankment (listed ensemble) in Saint Petersburg, Russia, with the dome of Saint Isaac's Cathedral in the middle. All by A.Savin 13:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 13:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very wow. Are you sure you could not remove (carefully) the cranes ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I wouldn't retouche. The background is too heterogenous to get it clean, besides, the cranes seem rather unremarkable to me (did not really perceive them before you said it). - A.Savin 16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, that's really nice! Michael Barera (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too centered in my opinion, either more sky or more water --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered composition which is not having a positive impact on me. Can crop a little bit of water from the bottom to make it a more balanced feel. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess, we still have the Rule of thirds, but "a little bit" I can regulate. - A.Savin 21:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:City Hall Market Square PE-001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 20:55:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leo_za1 - uploaded by Leo_za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong white balance, missing geotag, perspective distortion and rather low resolution. With 5D Mark II you should have 21Mpx! Do you have a CR2 file to fix these issues? --Ximeg (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The shift towards a pink hue is actually what one sees close to sunrise/sunset along this coastline. Sometimes it is a very strong shift and produces vivid pink to orange, especially in the clouds. I think "correcting" the white balance will do the photo an injustice. I will speak to the photographer and see how she feels about it. --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to oppose on some made up grounds, but suddenly I can't think of anything. Penyulap ☏ 02:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that eyecatching. Building and foreground too dark for my taste. Resolution marginal for these types of static, large outdoor objects. Good DOF and overall image quality though. --Slaunger (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger: I don't see the "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 13:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dertingen - Rathaus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 14:58:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carport -- Carport (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Carport (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose From a pure technical viewpoint the photo has undoubtlessly a very high quality. But I see nothing special justifying "Feautured picture". I only see an old half-timbered house. No interesting light, no special composition, no pregnant motive. -- Tuxyso (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The situation at the building doesn't give a lot of space for changing the perspective, like you can see here (the nominated picture was taken from the right side of the street, and I had to stand very close to a wall to capture the whole building). I think you can't change a lot about the composition on that building. But is a "spectacular" composition really needed for FP? --Carport (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably my comment was unclear: I do not critisize your shooting technique, I am sure that you master your DSLR very well. For example a sunset behind the house letting the sunlight shining through the passage on the right would have made the photo to something special - that is my point. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is very nice photo with excellent detail level and exquisite light of an interesting building in good shape. Congratz for that achievement. However, and this addresses the same point as mentioned by Tuxyso, it does not stand out as anything particular from a compositional point of view - for me. It lacks some "wow" - for me. Now, you ask as nominator if a picture really needs a "spectacular" composition? Well, I think no, but overall an image has to have something spectacular about it to be promoted. And what spectacular means depends very much on the observer. I would be surprised if there were not other reviewers who think so and will vote favorably for the nomination. ~~I think by the way that there is a small stitching error (see annotation), not something serious.~~ Fixed If I am correct it is a stitch I can recommend using the {{Panorama}} template, which gives some good options for indicating the number of frames in the stitch and the stitching software used. It adds value to the image page. --Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish more space on right even if it may be a part of another building. The ground floor and the courtyard are not sharp as the first floor, I afraid. J Kadavoor J e e 05:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hugin had some problems in stitching. All of these should be removed meanwhile. More space on the right? Impossible whithout a new photo. But I made two additional versions: one with a bit more contrast and one cropped a bit. Maybe it's easyer to see if it's possible to improve the existing photo.--Hic et nunc (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Tuxyso. Michael Barera (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, sorry --Stas1995 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good documentary picture but boring composition --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 13:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geneetik Riin Tamm.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 11:21:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lauri Kulpsoo - uploaded by Lauri Kulpsoo - nominated by Ivo Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Pretty nice but motion blur allied with a really shallow DoF. Also some over-saturated areas (table, orange strip) but which can be acceptable. Sting (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this photo despite the motion blur, but please provide an english description. --Ximeg (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "glow" effect created by the lighting is fantastic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical issues (partly unsharp or blurry, over-saturated areas,...). --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the subject's posture and the glowing effect: a great capture! Michael Barera (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good mood and posture. --Selbymay (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree about the posture and the glowing effect, but the hand and the table look overexposed. Yann (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 13:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Katlad HR5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 17:12:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andrus Uuetalu - uploaded by Andrus Uuetalu - nominated by WikedKentaur -- WikedKentaur (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, a nice photo, but the quality isn't OK for an FP image: jpg artefacts, and very noisy. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the subject intriguing and very interesting, but as noted by alchemist-hp, the image is very noisy. --Slaunger (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I love the overall effect, but Alchemist-hp is right about the noise. Michael Barera (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A very nice and interesting photo. The high resolution makes it easier for me to accept the noise--ArildV (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose. As ArildV mentioned, I would not mind a bit of noise at such a resolution. But it is not just noise, but some type of artifact which is a little visible even at 2000px. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, partly underexposed --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Natuurterrein De Famberhorst.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 16:09:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Op 11 november 2012 bloeide deze Geranium nodosum nog onder een beuk in natuurterrein De Famberhorst.- uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment need remove chromatic aberration --Rjcastillo (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 13:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PL - Rzemień - zamek - 2012-06-17--18-25-35-03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 16:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kroton - uploaded by Kroton - nominated by Kroton -- Kroton (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kroton (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed part of the building. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It looks good overall, but I'm not crazy about the overexposure. Michael Barera (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom of the building is obscured. J Kadavoor J e e 05:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 13:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Promontoire rocheux Calahonda.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2012 at 15:51:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rocky promontory in Calahonda harbour, in the Alboran Sea, Andalusia, Spain.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple but nice composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing "so" special. JKadavoor Jee 16:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, you are right, it is not a butterfly...--Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ()--Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - -- I find it too hilarious. Lmao :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jeb, I'll support if you explain more about the specialties of that place; espicially the rock. I'm interested in Geology too. J Kadavoor J e e 05:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear Jee, I'm now too old for fishing for support votes. My concern in this picture is only visual, I don't know nothing (or only the minimum) about geology. To be more precise, I don't know what kind of explanations I could provide here, and I don't know if there is something "special" here regarding the geology. I just like the composition, the detailed relief of the rock, the right angle of the climb falling verticaly in the sea, the colors, the contrasts, the boats, the reflection of the climb in the water, the light, and -personal touch- I'm happy to remember the sunny weather we enjoyed these days in this marvelous south of Spain (because it is rainy and sad autumn now in western Europe, especially in Paris today...). But you are welcome, and remember: I was just kidding with the butterfly reference ! Let's smile !--Jebulon (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "I'm now too old for fishing for support votes." I know. BTW, we are blessed with better climates here. J Kadavoor J e e 16:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a nice composition, IMHO. --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do like the composition but I see some artifacts in the sky, if you can improve thatk, it is a FP to me Poco a poco (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review, Poco. You know what ? Looking carefuly at any picture, there are always some artifacts somewhere. It depends of the computer, of the settings, of the monitor etc... I'll see if I can improve, but I'm not sure of the result.--Jebulon (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful composition. Yann (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 13:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:French Consulate, Pondicherry.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 11:05:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice experiment but the building isn't an interesting enough subject IMO to warrant the colour/b&w treatment. My eye keeps getting drawn to the ugly grey patch in the middle of the wall (I know it is colour grey rather than desaturated grey but still ugly). Plus, the colour/b&w selection isn't very careful -- parts of the blue sky show through and parts of the building are still grey. I can understand retaining the sloping verticals of a skyscraper but less so a two-storey building. Colin (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will re-edit the photo to address the selective coloring issues. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. The editing is not very precise as it should be in a FP. The blue sky is visible near the flags and right side of the building. The are some yellow colour which are also gray in the building. Perspective should also be corected. -- JDP90 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don's see how the perspective is a problem. The sloping lines of the building, the coconut tree, the lamp post all converge towards a point in the sky and I guess that adds to the image. Not everyone shoots with a PC lens, nor every photo needs perspective correction. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is only my humble opinion, yours could be different. I guess no one or very few here shoots with a PC lens but in my opinion this kind of photos do not need a perspective correction, it is intended for this. I think this perspective does not adds to your image. Again, this is only my humble opinion, yours could be different. -- JDP90 (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love the contrast! Michael Barera (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Vamps (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 07:37:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Almonroth - uploaded by Almonroth - nominated by Almonroth -- Almonroth (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Almonroth (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Looks a little bit grainy in full size but not when scaled down and used as background picture on a Full HD Monitor. -- JB aus Siegen (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --A pity this nice picture was shot at f/4 with this lens as it's a pretty bad lens (imo) at these settings and shows its flaws: really soft and CA; try to use a software equivalent to DxO to counterbalance the quality of the lens. Sky a bit noisy and which needs cleaning (big dust spot). Slightly overexposed for the city. Sting (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose visible CA, to much overexposed parts. The idea is very nice, but not the technical implementation. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Michael Barera (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow there is. ;o) Yann (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree with Sting when it comes to the insufficiencies of the Canon 24–105 mm wide open, the composition and mood of this picture is excellent. I'd recommend using a good tripod next time – you can borrow mine ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it feels like too much sky. Tomer T (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great mood, but could use some more sharpness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rakvere jaama veetorn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 14:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Ivar (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Ivar (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything is working is this photo for me: I love the building, the rail line, and the colors are great! Michael Barera (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A.Savin 10:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice composition. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I find this photo hard to review. Well, there are rail tracks and a strange looking building, which is kind of nice. Colors overall are also Okay. But then what? -- Dey.sandip (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good quality, nice photo, but nothing special for FP --Pudelek (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pudelek and Sandip. J Kadavoor J e e 16:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- YES. This is how to take a good photo. This is how to do it. Penyulap ☏ 09:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not working for me, I'm afraid. The track takes my eyes away from the water tower, which is the subject. Colin (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Pudelek. Yann (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Tomer T (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike some others, I do see a bit of "wow" in this. However, I have to oppose based on composition, as per Colin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2099725 FreightElevator 135wb.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 22:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Epitome Pictures - uploaded by Papa Lima Whiskey - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Real professional portrait. - A.Savin 11:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't find any educational content here. :) J Kadavoor J e e 16:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in at least 13 articles in different languages, I think that shows that it is adequately valuable. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is due to the EN:FP label;I guess. But it was removed from the lead article where it was considered to be featured. The current usage make me laugh. Time for a delist request (there). J Kadavoor J e e 05:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking that there is something of a cliché in this portrait. Now I know why. ;o) Yann (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Combination of Noise/Compression. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A pretty woman :) I guess I'll refrain from reviewing --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty or not its a good portrait. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I've deleted better than this from my camera. It's nothing at all special, it's passable as a portrait. Ordinary. Penyulap ☏ 09:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It is unfortunate you forgot to delete this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whambo.jpg

You didn't sign your comment Saffron Blaze. Penyulap ☏ 03:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will flog myself later. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J Kadavoor J e e 10:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great expression! Michael Barera (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality photograph of actress. Colin (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Crossrail BR 185 Hohtenn.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 22:59:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Lötschberg railway line with Luogelkin viaduct near Hohtenn, Wallis, Switzerland.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Ivar (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 09:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Llorenzi (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality, nice autumn view. Obvious FP to me! - A.Savin 11:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image. The train looks very tilted, so at first I thought about lens distortion, but it seems to be just the tilt of the railway track on the bend. --Ximeg (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, the curve is quite tight (for a standard gauge railway) and the track is superelevated for 80 km/h. However, I also had to do a bit of perspective correction, which may also lead to slightly strange geometry in the corners. --Kabelleger (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support superb composition. Lighting is a bit harsh though, I don't really like the harsh shadows. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice photo composition wise. I'm opposing mainly because of the harsh light. It gives a washed out feel, sorry. --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmm... I was thinking about increasing the saturation when I uploaded this picture, because the colors of the landscape are a bit dull. I decided against it, because the containers and semi-trailers are well-saturated, and I think it's more realistic this way (it's not summer). --Kabelleger (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A different time of the day, may have been better, I guess --Dey.sandip (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? To me summer is the saturation-robbing season. I love the saturation of yellow foliage in the autumn. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition. --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Narva Hermanni linnus 2006.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 22:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zentsik - uploaded by Zentsik - nominated by WikedKentaur -- WikedKentaur (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Llorenzi (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning atmosphere. With it, some minor technical flaws are forgiveable. - A.Savin 11:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced noise level on the sky and fixed minor CA. --Ivar (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the vignetting. Could be sharper, too, very nice atmosphere though. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Need not always be harsh on technicalities :). Its just a very good photo with mood. --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the vignetting is just too strong, though the light is good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, pro if vignetting is corrected (should be possible). --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vignetting ruins the picture. Yann (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the vignetting is really too strong on this picture (is due to low light, lens or artificial effect ?) --PierreSelim (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Pretty good, but not enough "wow" factor for me. Michael Barera (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roehrige Keule Macrotyphula fistulosa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 22:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not the most exciting subject ever, but a nice capture. Michael Barera (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gidip (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saab Safir 91B.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2012 at 23:17:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ritchyblack (Stefan Krause) - uploaded by Ritchyblack - nominated by Ximeg -- Ximeg (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximeg (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would prefer more room on front and back, but very impressive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 06:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though the resolution could be higher . --Ivar (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Selbymay (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Oppose - I love the composition with the background bokeh, but there are overexposed areas at the top of the plane. Also, not very high resolution (albeit this is not crucial). - A.Savin 11:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk)
Support Lovely control over motion. --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Great image, but the local contrast ("clarity") has been increased so much that it looks unnatural. Also per A.Savin. With less heavy editing: Definitely pro - great panning. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MyCanon (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 19:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job! Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Black Hole Outflows From Centaurus A.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 09:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Julian Herzog based on the original by ESO/WFI (Optical); MPIfR/ESO/APEX/A.Weiss et al. (Submillimetre); NASA/CXC/CfA/R.Kraft et al. (X-ray) - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 09:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this photo was an alt in a previous nomination. Both the original and the alt had 6 supports and 0 oppose. 7 support is needed to become featured. -- Pine^✉ 09:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and useful picture in my opinion! What makes this special compared to other nice galaxy pictures is the obvious visual evidence of a massive black hole. Not a computer generated simulation but a real photograph of extraordinarily prominent x-ray jets. I think this picture might be the best of its kind. In my opinion the crop is good enough too. --Ximonic (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Supported it then, support it now.Fotoriety (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 03:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~--PhilippTit. (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have enough edits to vote. 50 edits are needed. -- JDP90 (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 18:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Coimbra November 2012-7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 16:47:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The building of the "Biblioteca Joanina" (University of Coimbra, Portugal), at the end of the day. This baroque library was built in the 18th century during the reign of the Portuguese King João V. No HDR, just a beautiful "between-showers" light! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the note. --Ivar (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stitching error and problems: unsharp or blurry single frame(s) (per annotations); crop feels a bit tight at top and on the right (IMHO) and the black line has to be removed. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Thanks for noticing the (horrible) mistakes. A corrected version was uploaded. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not happy with the crop on right; but I like this angle of view. J Kadavoor J e e 04:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice perspective. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition wise, it's a bit weird, but the lighting sure enticed me to support ;). Wish to see more "moody" pics like this. - Benh (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition does not convince (building is cut away at the right), some blurred areas probably because of stitching (see for example the sculptures above the portal), overblown reflections on the three left windows. - A.Savin 10:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:First colored senator and reps.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 16:03:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Currier and Ives - restored by Adam Cuerden - uploaded by Lionelt - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very valuable and interesting. Good restoration, nice image page. --Slaunger (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very important historic image. Good job at restoring it, Adam. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work on a good-looking historic image! Michael Barera (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 04:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fishing boat Nørre Vorupør 2012-11-18 cropped.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 20:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ship, the sky, the green carpet on the dunes...nice composition Poco a poco (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the colors and the contrast! Michael Barera (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely lights. J Kadavoor J e e 05:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDP90 (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very pretty, but I miss a usage in (= usefulness for?) any Wikimedia project. Find one, and I'll change to support. - A.Savin 19:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Found use for the photo in en:Beaching (nautical). Category:Beaching is rather lacking. --NJR_ZA (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your question regarding usefulness (which is not the same as current usage). I love answering easy questions
1. A ship is shown in its entirety typical of wooden shallow-hulled fishing vessels built in the 1930s in Denmark, and built for dragging on the beach, there are not that many left.
2. At the location, there is no harbour, and there are shallow waters with high braking waves, so the ships are dragged onto the beach instead of anchored . This is one of three locations in Denmark, where this is still done. A bit North of there, there is a village, Klitmøller, also called "cold Hawaii" as many surfers, kite-surfers, and wind surfers enjoy the large waves and strong winds there.
3. In the background is shown the rather unique landsscape of one of the few National Parks in Denmark - Nationalpark Thy. I might mention that on the same day a dead wolf was found just a few kilometers from there in the park - first time since 1813, where wolf were extinct from Denmark!
4. The light from a low hanging sun at 3.30 pm and the dark clouds is a good illustration of November in Denmark.
5. The light in itself by the sea in the area is claimed to be "special". Not far away from this place was the main base of the Skagen Painters. One of their main topics was depicting the harsh life of fishers in the late 19th houndred, see, e.g., here or here. As I physicist, I am sceptic regarding the "special" light claim though, as I cannot find a natural explanation for what should make the light so much more special here as compared to many other places.
--Slaunger (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Savin: Every man-created object, as in this case, contributes to knowledge. In this case, at the minimun level we see a fishing vessel typical of a geographical area. Further observation may yield information to ship lovers, materials used, configuration, geography, etc. In this case on top of the information that may be derived from this picture, we also have the aesthetical part of photography. It is indeed, outside of the usefulness as an information image, a pleasant image to look at. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely picture. No requirement to be used in Wikimedia project -- we have Wikipedia FP for those sort of narrow usage-related awards. Colin (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info Maybe "you" have Wikipedia FP, "I" have not. This does not exist in every Wikipedias (and I hope it will never exist in french wp !). Please remember that "Commons" is unique, as it is international, wikipedias are not...--Jebulon (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a Scot, living in England, writing for an encyclopaedia hosted in the US, I'd say en:wp was fairly international too! But I know what you mean. Commons is more than just a resource for Wikimedia projects. Why all the timid writing all of a sudden? Be Bold! -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm from Malayalam Wikipedia; living in the opposite side of the globe while comparing with US. Still edit English Wikipedia. Love to learn French. :) J Kadavoor J e e 16:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the COM:FP is a window to editors in various Wikimedia and third-party projects. They will pick them for their uses. BTW, I added this beautiful picture to Vorupør. J Kadavoor J e e 04:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jkadavoor for adding it to that article. I think it fits nicely in there. I am usually reluctant to add my own pictures to existing articles as I often feel too biased. --Slaunger (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to feel bad. If they are not appropriate, other editors will remove them. That is how Wikipedia work. J Kadavoor J e e 10:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Jkadavoor for finding a good usage instead of telling long stories. - A.Savin 19:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And to NJR_ZA for telling about beaching! I did not even know that nautical term. So each do what we do best. I am a bad encyklopedist and stick to writing "long stories" and taking photos . Luckily other friendly users in the community also master editing Wikimedia project articles much better than I do. The diversity in user skills, knowledge and background is what makes this community so great. --Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, beaching is new to me too. BTW, I like all type of people; naughty, serious, story-tellers and silent. :) J Kadavoor J e e 05:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 08:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laggar Falcon in Flight.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 04:40:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Sumeetmoghe - nominated by Ras67 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You can feel the air under its wings. -- Ras67 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of wow. Yann (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture! Michael Barera (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Soerfm (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to weak oppose: A very good composition (especially the bent tree branch in contrast to the falcon), but unsharp (possibly due NR?) even at 50% view. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the upper part of the tree branch has full sensor sharpness. The lower part and the whole bird could be something (very little!) out of focus. (Depth of field). Whether noise reduction was needed and so affected the sharpness, just know the photographer. --Ras67 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm; I'm much spoiled by viewing the photos of Kevan. J Kadavoor J e e 06:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without doubt Kevan's pictures are breathtaking, but "our" image is also awesome and has a free license. :-) Ras67 (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; we need high quality pictures with free license (I wish). J Kadavoor J e e 16:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Le Mans - St Julien SGW (large version).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 14:48:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Large version of a remarkable stained glass depicting Julian of Le Mans and 16 episodes of his life (XIIth century, restored in 1897) - West facade of Le Mans Cathedral - all by me -- Selbymay (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Selbymay (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think information to shooting and processing technique should be added, because resolutiotion is much higher than sensor resolution of D5100. After adding, support from me. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Done Thanks for your hint, I didn't know where I should add this information. I just did on the page of the file. "This panorama is composed of : 12 images assembled with Photoshop."
- I think you can use Template:Panorama --Tuxyso (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support That information would be useful, but it is FP nevertheless. Yann (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the border on left-top is missing/fade in original work? JKadavoor Jee 16:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Yes, the left-top border is not visible from the nave of the cathedral. I guess it could be useful to do a second restoration of this stained glass. --Selbymay (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thanks. J Kadavoor J e e 04:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: very good work, I am impressed of the details and sharpness. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: impressive work! --Cj.samson (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a pity there is so much cobweb. It is ruining some of the impression. But the photographer is not to blame. --Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Michael Barera (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, of both the craftsman and the photograph! Poco a poco (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Avenue (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lorentzsluizen, spui- en schutsluizen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 14:27:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uberprutser - uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Uberprutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uberprutser (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit dark; could you lighten it a bit? Also, I would follow a rule of thirds crop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The picture was taken after sunset so this is why the picture is so dark. The sun was in my back and there was a nice red glow on the other side of the sky. The picture was taken from a walkway and I stabilized the camera on the railing (1/40 without i.s.) . I could push the brightness but then the picture will get very grainy and not representative for the time it was taken. I guess a 3:2 crop removing some of the road could work. But I would not crop into the sides, than it will loose in symmetry.

Sorry if I wasn't clear; of course I wasn't aiming for rule of thirds in the vertical direction! I meant the horizontal direction; the horizon is too close to the middle. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this? I usually work with the 4:3 since I have a four thirds camera. But 3:2 might works better in this case :)

Better. But I would still prefer the brightness level of the original upload, with the current crop. Yes it has noise, but it's not too severe for me, whereas in the present version the NR has destroyed the texture of the grass. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right the grass did loose to much detail. The strange thing is, the original upload was a quick Picasa retouch strait out of the camera jpg. The others are made with lightroom. But I can't seem to get the same detail in the grass using the RAW file. Strange. (I've increase the brightness in the lower part a bit and fixed a slight ca issue)

Info --New version uploaded: I've slightly enlightened the picture and enhanced the saturation, as well as done a noise reduction. Feel free to revert if you don't like the edit. Sting (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with someone else editing my uploads, especially when the results are good :) What picture did you use? And what software was used to reduce the noise. (Too bad we can't add RAW files to our uploads) - Uberprutser (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used the last one. All mods were made in Photoshop; the color enhancement was in fact done with Vibration (and not Saturation) which gives better results; the Noise reduction is a standard built-in Photoshop filter, here at standard settings. Sting (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new version looks quite good, so I'll throw in a Support despite problems with the grass. Oh, and if you are interested in uploading your RAW files, please check out [5], started by User:Dcoetzee. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really like it. Michael Barera (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really nice picture of a notable bit of Duch civil engineering. ;) -- MartinD (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 11:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nørre Vorupør Coast 2012-11-18.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 21:19:57 (UTC)

Original[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Slaunger (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry, but no other way for me: I must support. Great !--Jebulon (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting. I would normally complain about rule of thirds here, but for this particular image it doesn't bother me as much. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support less sky better for me, but good composition --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just like any coastline; grass, sand, waves and clouds. Looks very gloomy too. :) J Kadavoor J e e 04:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I agree it is a very simple composition - either you like it or you don't. About the light. November is perceived by most Danes as the most depressing month of the year as everything is normally just dark, and grey with a lot of days of cold rain. We say regarding autumn that there is September, October, November, November, November. November just never ends. Although it may appear gloomy, it is way above average November light :-) A few hours later the light looked like this, which is perhaps more typical Novemberish at my location... :-) One of the real masters of this light at the coast of Denmark was the Danish painter P S Krøyer, who worked nearby the location of the photo in Skagen, the Northernmost point of Denmark. --Slaunger (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very informative reply. Yes; I too heard about winter blues, but never experienced here in India. I like the picture in the link you provided. J Kadavoor J e e 09:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A pretty picture of a coastline. But other than that, don't find anything eye-catching as such. --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC) == Comment I prefer the original. --JLPC (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low sharpness and wow factor, washed-out colours and impression, shady sand. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your review. I would like to comment on two of the isuses you mention, as I do not agree with them (but of course respect that you have another opinion). The washed-out colours are a trademark of autumn. Actually, I have even given it a step up in saturation to make it look just a little more colourful. If I took the same photo during the summer, the vegetation would be much greener and colourful, but that is not the season I am trying to capture. It is autumn with chilly and rough winds and a salty taste in the mouth by the ocean. If I look at, e.g, or FP gallery of panoramas I notice that the number of autumn panos is very limited. By far most of the outdoor pano FPs are summer time or snow with blue sky FPs. These seasons are more forgiving wrt to being eye-catching and provide "wow", but I also like the virtues of the less colourful and rough autumn season, and I think they have a place in the FP galleries as well. Concerning the shady sand, the band of shade curving thorugh the photo is an important compositional element for me. It provides contrast, and notice that the shadow of the dunes just ends on the beach where the sea begins. I think it is a nice effect. And the shady sand is not so shady that important details are lost. For instance, a WW2 German bunker is clearly seen there. --Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I finally support after Slaunger's comments above. Yann (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, I hope the photo in itself is convincing for you, and not my arguments. --Slaunger (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is, but I like to see if the result match the intent. Yann (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In favor of the alternative - Benh (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is what I have always hated about alternatives: One step forth on one version and two steps back on another, which overall gives...one step back in average...which is worse then standing still...from a reviewer who actually has the intention to step forth....in average. The learning lesson is to very carefully prepare the right and best version at nomination time (and stick to that). --Slaunger (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree (maybe without smiley)--Jebulon (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like both, but I prefer the original. Michael Barera (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Triggered by the comments above about the amount of sky, I have made a traditional 1/3 sky crop as an alternative. --Slaunger (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Head and shoulders above the already brilliant image Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one focuses on the (much) more interesting part in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better crop. -- Colin (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is what Photography is about: showing to others our interpretation of reality. Very nice, looks like a painting (sorry Slaunger, for the distraction) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No apologies needed for any distraction. Comment appreciated. --Slaunger (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request I think it will be helful if the early supporters will express their opinion about the Alternative too; otherwise it will be very difficult to choose one. Neutral on alt. JKadavoor Jee 05:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I have notified early voters on their talk pages. --Slaunger (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Same argument as in the original -- 13:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Anonymous comments are allowed, but not unsigned votes...--Jebulon (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support better in this case, more interesting in my opinion --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 17:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Answering Jee.--Jebulon (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry forgot to put the signature earlier:) Reason of oppose is same as in the original version --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Nørre Vorupør Coast one third sky 2012-11-18.jpg

File:Paleis Het Loo 20120912-1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 07:12:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Haros - uploaded by Haros - nominated by Haros -- Haros (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Haros (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but midday lighting (the photo was taken at 12:39) tends to look washed-out and flat. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Penyulap ☏ 09:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A nice capture, but just not enough "wow" to be a FP in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 11:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thibaut Pinot - TDF 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 08:07:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ludo29 - uploaded by Ludo29 - nominated by PierreSelim -- PierreSelim (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing close-up shot of an individual time trial stage of the Tour de France 2012. The reflection in the glasses of Thibaut adds Wow to this photo -- PierreSelim (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree, esp. on the reflection. - A.Savin 11:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support me too. Tomer T (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Bad crop, busy background. 31.7.60.79 16:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you. --Ivar (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I need to see the handle at least; not in the reflections. J Kadavoor J e e 05:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Background is a bit distracting, keeps on drawing my attention. --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Pity about the framing, but nice reflection though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per King of Hearts. Michael Barera (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Selbymay (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Oexarafoss.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2012 at 05:28:18

Info Unfortunately, the clouds and many parts of the waterfall are overexposed. (Original nomination)
Delist -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator. --Cayambe (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Claus (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Dey.sandip (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- -donald- (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Ivar (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Kadellar (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ --Arufarufarufa (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote, sorry. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Uberprutser (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Béria Lima ^msg 18:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black-chested Eagle-buzzard Tierpark Berlin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 13:50:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Avda - uploaded by Avda - nominated by Avda -- Avda (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but just compare with other FP's of birds. Sorry, imo this one cannot keep up: the background is unnatural and distracting, the image resolution rather spare. - A.Savin 19:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin: unfortunately, the background really does detract from this photo. Michael Barera (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not bad. The prey and its scattered feathers make it very "live". Angle of view is fine. Background is not a big issue for me. But focus is more on the wings, noisy (can be fixed).. J Kadavoor J e e 05:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common Hooktail India1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 10:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cj.samson - uploaded by Cj.samson - nominated by Cj.samson -- Cj.samson (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred tail, very little portion of the image is covered by the subject. Uninteresting composition (I'd prefer a photo like this). --JDP90 (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The males have a 'hook' like extension on the end segments; females lacks it. So this is a male. They perch on plain ground or on twigs under very bright lights. (My dragonfly works are not detailed enough for an FP here; but with more DOF to describe the subjects in Wikipedia. They are taken at 866 mm from a distance.) J Kadavoor J e e 16:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; your photo is not detailed enough but I was talking about DoF and composition which is very good in the photo. -- JDP90 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information Jkadavoor, i shot when this dragonfly perched on the small rock by the stream. --Cj.samson (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose A nice capture, but just not enough "wow" to be an FP in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isle Of Skye A863 The Cuillins.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2012 at 13:42:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ritchyblack - uploaded by Ritchyblack - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems very overprocessed, doesn't it? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carschten. But it looks like a very beautiful place; just tone down the tonemapping a little (no pun intended). :) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, and therefore unnatural to me. Only my taste. Sorry--Jebulon (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Inspiring work. Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice setting, but over-processed --Dey.sandip (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. --Stryn (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the colors! Michael Barera (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 18:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nome 1900.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2012 at 10:20:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lomen Bros. - uploaded by Calliopejen - nominated by Soerfm -- Soerfm (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Soerfm (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive historical photo. Michael Barera (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 18:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sternbergia clusiana 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2012 at 13:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as earlier. J Kadavoor J e e 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the contrast! Michael Barera (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty flower but composition and technical not making me go wow. Colin (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the composition? I think this is the best angle of view; showing the inner details of the petals, still maintaining a somewhat lower position of the camera. Technical qualities may wrong, since it is an old work with a compact camera. J Kadavoor J e e 05:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for those reasons it should do well at QI and English WP FP. But Commons FP requires some degree of wow above QI and its merits in illustrating an encyclopaedia article. Colin (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 18:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:The Cool Clouds of Carina.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2012 at 17:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO/APEX/T. Preibisch et al., uploaded and nominated by Stas1995 -- Stas1995 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stas1995 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 03:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven support requirement for techie subjects is too much. :) J Kadavoor J e e 05:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning!! russavia (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 18:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Tschanüff gegen Piz Spadla.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 11:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by & uploaded by Haneburger - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great atmosphere. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I especially like the clouds! Michael Barera (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 04:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find Tomer... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Tomer T (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice mood --Dey.sandip (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 08:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ateles hybridus from Venezuela.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 19:33:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad screen layout, bad angle --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the angle either, and there isn't enough "wow" factor to be an FP, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Vamps (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bom Jesus Basilica, Goa.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2012 at 18:43:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info There are two versions one with the original light settings, the other one is as alternative, where some exposure corrections has been done to address some over-exposed portions.
Comment Why don't you nominate both of them and see what people prefer? I can split the image into two filenames if you would like. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks King. Please do. Appreciate the help. But I guess, I already have one another active nomination. You can post it as an alternate version in this nomination itself -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is what I meant. Since I assume the two supports below are for the newer version, I'll put them under such. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the original has more "wow" factor due to the lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info The second version have been split out.
Support --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the picture is fine... it is a backlit situation well managed...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the reviews.

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embalse de Canales 2 Andalusia Spain.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2012 at 16:15:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! Michael Barera (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can find some geological interests here. J Kadavoor J e e 05:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for very surprising nomination !--Jebulon (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed, a nice picture. For me, FP --Dey.sandip (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip, need your signature here. :) J Kadavoor J e e 16:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 22:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JDP90 (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 08:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frümsnerstraße gegen Alpstein Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2012 at 21:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ayers Rock from the Swiss Rhine Valley c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very pretty, but I don't like how the tree on the right is chopped off. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wundervoll. -- -donald- (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question what's the (main) motive of the picture...? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of an autumnal panorama of typical Rhine Valley region. But there are some Stichingerrors in the image and I take it out of the review. Thanks for your note (JLPC) --Böhringer (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Böhringer (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I still think this is a good FP. Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Бурятский мальчик.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 21:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Аркадий Зарубин - uploaded by Аркадий Зарубин - nominated by Аркадий Зарубин -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose For sure: a good photo, but for me not sufficient for FP for three reasons: 1. Unfortune focal length: 250mm (400mm KB equivalent). The whole face becomes flat and very less three-dimensional 2. (but minor) missing sharpness 3. (also minor and fixable) dust spot at the left top side of the hat --Tuxyso (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above -- Dey.sandip (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso --Stas1995 (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Col de la Seigne (2516 m) 02.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 17:37:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info 13 september 2012, La Casermetta op de Col de La Seigne in een fascinerende omgeving. - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice, but a bit low on "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do like the perspective very much, but the picture quality is unfortunately not enough. The image is too grainy and partially blurry Poco a poco (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Vamps (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : trek mijn nominatie terug Famberhorst

File:Beach Promenade, Pondicherry, India.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2012 at 12:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad crop (too tight at top, too large at bottom), moreover there is a lot of ghosts. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop (lantern), disturbing ghosts. Contrary to the widespread opinion in QI, I state that ghosts can stress the message of a photo. But in this case especially the ghosts on the street look like undefinied dust, single moving people are not visible at all. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Where do you see a lantern? -- Dey.sandip (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See image notes. Sorry, in German "lantern" ("Laterne") is colloquial for street light. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok. About the ghosts, I still believe that it conveys the presence of moving people. There were about 50-100 people at least that must have crossed the sensor during the 16 second exposure. Post-processing and deghosting may be used to remove the portion you have annotated I don't have such softwares though. --07:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Neutral I like the colors, mood, and technical quality. The motion in still objective of the photo works for me on the left hand side, but on the right it becomes too much. Moreover the crop of the street lamp is unfortunate as pointed out already. --Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lamp post that you are saying as cropped was too tall (it was much taller than the other ones, you can say an aberration, but in reality that was how it was :)) and close to get into the frame. If it was included, there would be a lot of blue sky on the top which would be all negative space in a way. Right now, I think its still in balance. We do want to make everything perfect, but in reality there is sometimes no room to move, too many people to deal with. All that may not be evident from the photo though. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop is unfortunate, but the colors and overall effect are great. Michael Barera (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition: one third of the image is an uninteresting foreground. Yann (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:Street art at Mayapur.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 14:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is an example of street art. I am not sure whether we have an FP on street art, or whether this kind of photograph is even admissible as FP. Please feel free to support or oppose with your views. --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a good picture of a human activity... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting; but too tight at bottom and right. J Kadavoor J e e 17:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Legs in the background a bit distracting. Very tight crop on bottom right corner. -- JDP90 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those faceless observers make the picture more real. Its a street art, so there should be some observers :) But I appreciate all different views --Dey.sandip (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Low image quality due to over-processing. Bad application of noise reduction which made that lots of textures were lost and turned them artificial. See for examples the ground, the light blue dress of the top-right girl, the top-left bags, etc. The composition isn't that much appealing too for a FPC: the face and hands of the girl in pink are hidden, same for the hands of the light blue one. It might have been more interesting in this scene to focus on one sole character. Sting (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The character is the art-work, not the girls :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if it was the case the image should picture the artwork at least almost finished and not at its early stage with the painters hiding half of what was already made ;) But that's only my PoV and comment, not the reason why I opposed but yes the image quality. Sting (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I understand your concern about the NR issue. However, this photo was taken using a point-and-shoot camera which didn't have a RAW mode. The original (out-of-camera) JPG file was uploaded as the first version (21st November version). This had some color noise and CA issue, which we tried to remove in the later versions. If you have time, and want to improve on the original file by better post-processing, please feel free to upload a new version. --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You pointed it out: here it's FPC and the promotions are not only based on the subject/composition but also on image quality at full size. At least they should. Unfortunately in many cases point and shoot cameras aren't well suited for this page because of their technical limitations. Sting (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm a agreeable man, you see . Do we have a FP guideline for the full size image quality requirement? --Dey.sandip (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "Thou shalt not pixel-peep". :-) Colin (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Thou shalt never, unless its a FP guideline? --Dey.sandip (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Low quality. Not enough space in bottom and I would prefer if the faces of viewers would be visible. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No wow, agreed. Low quality for FP, agreed. Not enough space in bottom, will take that as well. Please explain how the faces of the observers will add to the compositional value of the image. --Dey.sandip (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality of image is apparent even on image preview page. The framing isn't bad but I fail to see what is FP about the scene. -- Colin (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the lowest image preview size ? Then it must be too bad ! --Dey.sandip (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Due to low image quality -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moment of silence.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 02:22:49 (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) 02:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Tilted and focus seems to have been made on the background. Sting (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made an update. Please have a look to the image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I appreciate the motive of the photograph. I am refraining from supporting, because of a. Very tight crop on the right b. A little harsh light on the mountains. --Dey.sandip (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The hill has a thick white outline and the whole image shows very strong artifacts of a high-pass filter of some kind. However, I don't see a necessity to use such a filter here. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taj Mahal Mosque.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2012 at 19:25:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Dey.sandip - uploaded by User:Dey.sandip - nominated by User:Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Good composition, but disagree with shadows that partially encompass the building.Fotoriety (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, if I had known this, I would have asked the Taj Mahal to step aside so as not to cast it's shadow on our subject. If you were observant enough, you would have noticed the shadow has a little outline of the Taj structure. Jokes apart, why exactly do you think the shadow is a problem here? I believe most of the main subject, is under the oblique sunlight. Even the portions, that are in shadow are clearly visible and has good details, because the light is soft and the resulting shadow is not harsh or too contrasty. I actually thought that the play of light adds to the mood of the photo. New information, in case you decide to change your mind :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't take personal offense. Shadows of themselves are not a bad thing. However, the way shadows are shown in a photo can be a bad thing. For example if this photo had the shadow of a large out-of-frame tree covering half the building, would you consider that very professional? I hope not. Likewise, you have allowed an out-of-frame building to cast a partial shadow on your subject. Besides, this photo would be much better without any shadows, since it would bring out a stronger contrast between the whites and pink of the subject.Fotoriety (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, when I photographed the building, it was a conscious decision to use the shadow as an element in the photograph. But, I appreciate your views about the shadows and I am glad that you think the composition is good. --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination