Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2010

File:Chapiteau إفريز.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 16:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ghabara - uploaded by Ghabara - nominated by Ghabara -- Ghabara (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ghabara (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are the nomination guidelines available in Arabic? I guess that Ghabara may not have understood them fully - MPF (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't an Arabic version of this FPC's rules yet (apparently the Arabic FPC is pretty different), but Ghabara can communicate in English. We just have a case n00b-itis here. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Habib Bourguiba Avenue, Monastir.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 16:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ghabara - uploaded by Ghabara - nominated by Ghabara -- Ghabara (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ghabara (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much JPEG artifacts. --Aktron (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 03:26:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown - uploaded by Greg A L - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Can't comment on the quality for its time, but I generally find black and white pics boring, especially if I'm not very familiar with what's in them. This was originally uploaded by User:W Nowicki (original). --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support High historical and encyclopedic value. Very good technically (c.1882). High size. Rare image. Featurable.--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically good portrait of high encyclopedic value. --Cayambe (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Pos strep.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 02:16:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A case of streptococcal pharyngitis with the typical white exudate on the tonsils, created by Jmh649 - uploaded by Jmh649 - nominated by Jmh649 -- Jmh649 (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Green skin and teeth = white balance needs to be fixed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{Oppose}} White balance needs to be fixed~~--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC) -- Maybe a VI, but not special enough to be featured -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fixed - MPF (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eww. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flash lighting too harsh. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No flash was used. --Jmh649 (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baiga woman and child, India.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 11:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Simon Williams, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a pity! There is noise...--Citron (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing very special - MPF (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - interesting, full of expression, but the the elbow in the frame is distracting. Jonathunder (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a woman and a child... nothing special --Jebulon (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have no idea how difficult is to take such a picture! Yann (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. Please explain !--Jebulon (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg - a woman and two children, nothing special. Wolf (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, good level of realism and quality. I hope to see this type of work in the future. --The Photographer (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, because of the elbow. Pilgab (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose visible noise Cathy Richards (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good picture and excellent quality. The characters are very expressive — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 16:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eucidaris tribuloides (Slate-pencil Urchin).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 11:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nhobgood - uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better than that sea anemone that was nom'd on WP. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good as usual. Lycaon (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Janadesh 2007 on Chambal bridge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 11:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ekta Parishad, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very interesting composition but poor lighting due to the contre-jour conditions, affecting the detail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is a unique event on a specific place, and the lighting cannot be chosen. Yann (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting, unique image. The quality is not so bad either.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mbz1. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good unique image — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 03:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Alvesgaspar --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Mbzi --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Alvesgaspar --Karelj (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sumatra meulaboh mosque.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 14:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Oxam Hartog - uploaded by Oxam Hartog - nominated by NaidNdeso -- NaidNdeso (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture was taken right after the tsunami when the US chopper deliver relief supplies. NaidNdeso (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poor quality, but the composition is interesting.--Citron (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good EV.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality substandard. Lycaon (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Lycaon --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice scene but Lycaon is rite --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Reflection of Perfection --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Lycaon --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boeing 767-300.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 00:05:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Wolf (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like a tighter crop on the right and a looser one on the left, but good nonetheless. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, all things considered, and per the below comment, I still think there should be a tad more room behind, but I like the sky in front. It rather gives it a feeling that it's going somewhere. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Sorry, HFSW, but I gotta disagree, usually don't see a point in too much lead room, but I think it's well-done here. To me cropping the right would cause there to be more boring white. This is already one of my favorite plane in flight pics. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality okay, but just little detail and composition does not convince me. I know better shots of you. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add more categories. --99of9 (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough? :) Wolf (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, thanks. --99of9 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Large overexposed areas and ca on the left side. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boletus erythropus55.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 20:31:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Captainpixel - uploaded by Captainpixel - nominated by Captainpixel -- Captainpixel (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Captainpixel (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think DOF is too shallow and the drop too tight (I'd like to see the base). Otherwise, I like it. Do you have another version that's not so tight at the bottom and with greater DOF? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the DOF but have to agree about the base. Captainpixel
- I like the way the background is out of focus, however, look closely at the rim of the mushroom. It's blurry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The DOF doesn't seem disqualifyingly bad to me. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly due to the tight crop. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Zhuk (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girl jumping on trampoline with belts.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 20:31:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Girl jumping very high (about 5-7 metres) on trampoline with belts (simple but impressive amusement ride at All-Russia Exhibition Centre). Created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights (look at hair). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a very sunny day :) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even on a sunny day things (and people) should not be white. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omg high fin you can't just tell people they can't be white. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose focus on drab foreground object, while the much more interesting Blue Spruce behind is badly blurred - MPF (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but I'm a quite smart troll too. Where can I get my admin cap here =) ? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, nothing to do with adminship, just to do with personal interests ;-) MPF (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed parts Cathy Richards (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Dr Claudio ^{radio signal} 12:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC) cambio voto Dr Claudio ^{radio signal} 19:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The quality is excellent Dr Claudio ^{radio signal} 19:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dulles Aerotrain terminal B.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 14:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Acroterion - uploaded by Acroterion - nominated by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the composition: it appears cluttered, with no focal point, no breathing space for anything. The only leading compositional element is the backlit translucent glass enclosure at the bottom, but we lose it halfway in, since the overpass cuts the picture exactly in half. The trusses and structural elements of the ceiling are stacked together and thus not really legible, part of a mechanical stair protrude in the lower left corner... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 17:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted: a ladder for another meter or so of height would have helped push the bridge down in the image and focus better on the vanishing point, but security doesn't look favorably on ladders at the checkpoints. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting pic but per Maurilbert it's not the best choice of angle. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support undefined focus, visible grain, but really eye-catching Cathy Richards (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much noise --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eisbär.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 14:11:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by powerhauer - uploaded by powerhauer - nominated by powerhauer -- Powerhauer (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Powerhauer (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but rather noisy, and the corners are to dark. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Poor quality--Mbz1 (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support(if I can do that when contesting FPX) Mostly just needs white balancing and tweaking, otherwise I don't think it's disqualifyingly terrible. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mila, were you not in favour of getting rid of FPX? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was, but it was really hard for me to look at that poor bear (I saw dozens of them in a wild), at his yellow fur, and a sick look. Polar bears are beautiful animals, and this one... it looks like he is in pain. Anyway you are right. I let my personal feelings about this poor caged bear to prevail. Sorry about this.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be sorry about! I agree that ethics is a factor to [polar!] bear in mind when considering FPC - MPF (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nothing wrong with having ethics, and it could be argued anyway that if someone was going to take a zoo photo it could show the animal more interesting than just sitting there. This one looks more lazy than like he's suffering to me, though. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - un-natural background - MPF (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Love the composition, but the color seems unnatural. Pretty, but the not the best educational photo. Steven Walling 00:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality, composition seems unnatural Cathy Richards (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krebs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 06:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by powerhauer - uploaded by powerhauer - nominated by powerhauer -- Powerhauer (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Powerhauer (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not identified, should be FPX'ed for that. It is probably a Carcinus maenas. Please fix. Lycaon (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, it is Carcinus maenas in my opinion too. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I disagree, we're supposed to focus on the image, not specific details like taxonomy like this was WP:FPC - Rule#7. In the case of this image I'm Neutral because it's a fair image, but the pixels are kind of visible. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want to change the rules we've been using for the last four years, you'd have to start a discussion. This image fails rule#2.2 of COM:FPC. Sorry. Lycaon (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - looks over-sharpened to me, also yellow cast - MPF (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2004 Indonesia Tsunami edit.gif[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 16:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NOAA - uploaded by Finavon - nominated by NaidNdeso -- DIAN (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DIAN (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, well-made --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please change color of these categories: Category:Large GIFs of 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Category:Large GIFs of Maps of Indonesia, Category:Large GIFs of Animated maps of Southern and South Eastern Asia or use another. Thx Przykuta → [edit] 22:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is already Featured. Lycaon (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: because this same picture, with a different name, is already featured in Commons -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Clarrie hall dam mount warning.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 06:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pouts31 - uploaded by Pouts31 - nominated by Pouts31 -- Pouts31 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pouts31 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is a little bit tilted.. the composition is good and tilt it is minor problem because it can easily be fixed.. Ggia (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it! --Zhuk (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could you please fix the tilt? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tilt fixed Ggia (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thank you for fixing the tilt. -- Pouts31 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ggia (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, thank you. Much better now. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100% FP. JukoFF (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 07:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^T · C 15:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Duisburg Innenhafen bei Nacht, CN II.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 12:33:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Carschten. The Innenhafen (Inner Harbor) of Duisburg at night, you can see the Werhahnmühle and the Museum Küppersmühle with the Legoland Discovery Centre Duisburg. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality, esp. for a night shot, fine composition. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Part of the building on the right is cut off, and some of it looks smudged (look at the lights on the crane). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - glare from lights and excessive motion blur in water (OK, yes, that's a way of saying I don't like night pics, but it gives the reasons for my not liking them ;-) MPF (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective of the building on the right should be corrected I think. --Aktron (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I like it. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I don't like how the building in the foreground is dark on the top. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
only just Support --Memorino (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support My notices were fixed and I think I can support this pic. --Aktron (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20100919 Marmaritsa beach Maronia Rhodope Thrace Greece panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 12:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment cw tilt --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tilt fixed. Ggia (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- HaTe (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 19:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - odd red spot in the cliff about half-way along the pic, is it a pic fault, or some litter on the cliff? - MPF (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this odd red spot is a litter. I know because I swim close to the rocks there. It is easy to be removed this but it is hardy visible in this panorama. Ggia (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Good mood and composition. Deserves a little improvement in the lighting (a bit too dark for the hour of the day?) and stitching: horizon should be straight (not curved) and there is at least a stitching error there. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the rocks are almost dark in their lower part and some of them have grey color.. you mean to make the color of the sea more bright? Ggia (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree, the sea and sky would benefit from brightening a bit - MPF (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the whole image seems to need more light. And the horizon needs to be straightened -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvesgaspar The new version of Mbz1 + more bright in the sea has been updated.. @MPF the red litter has been removed. Ggia (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1 (I thank him/her) uploaded a new version (edit) of the image.. if you like probably we can just update the above image. Ggia (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful picturesque. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 14:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cameleon Tunisie.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 16:29:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Chamaeleo chamaeleon found and photographed in the in the vicinity of Oueslatia in Tunisia (North Africa). Note the camouflage of the animal in its natural environment. File created, uploaded and nominated by Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 16:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 16:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent quality, we haven't had a featured reptile for a while. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:JU 001 100831.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 06:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

InfoCorrugated iron covering, Junkers JU52. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ritchyblack -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting perspective. How did you take this? I'm assuming that you were not flying with the plane or hanging onto the wing. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the photo is taking on earth!? :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It makes very much sense if it was taken from earth - if you look at a full picture of the place, it's angled upwards, which explains why the sky is visible like it is. Great perspective nonetheless. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I standing on the earth and take this picture by running Engines. Hanging onto the wing is not my speciality ;-) --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a very nice flight illusion :-) --89.246.27.40 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course (yay, airplanes!), but I'd suggest renaming it, so that the filename contains the full name Ju-52. Wolf (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info the file is renamed to Ju52_100831.jpg --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100% FP. JukoFF (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great! Yarl ✉ 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tamba52 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chalice Pizino MBA Lyon L689.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 15:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bartolommeo Di Tommé, alias Pizino C. 1390 - uploaded by Marie-Lan Nguyen - nominated by IdLoveOne -- IdLoveOne (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's quite beautiful, and almost brings me to envy. :P Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ghabara (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a requirement, but a short explanation for an oppose vote is generally appreciated...--Jebulon (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - it's a bit simple for my taste.I do not like the angle of the picture is taken.There are plenty of brightness and refraction of light.sorry for the delay ;-)--Ghabara (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the object is not presented in an appealing way, too obvious it is a museum piece sitting on a shelf. --ianaré (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ianaré. --99of9 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ianaré. Lycaon (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - quality image, but not quite at featured level in my opinion, because of the composition and angle of view. Jonathunder (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what's wrong with the angle? I don't think I know a better way to show good detail of something like this then a close-up straight-on. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lot I like about this, but what I don't like is the background (slightly distracting) and how the top of the chalice looks misshapen--which I thought was due to the angle of view. Perhaps I was wrong? Jonathunder (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's just like that, 600 years is plenty of time something could've been damaged, but it could possibly also be the angle I suppose. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Changed background. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know, I should be looking at the quality and everything, but since I'm a newcomer I'll just vote by taste. :) I personally think the trophy is beautiful, but the background now looks a little unrealistic compared to the trophy. I liked the first one best. Kindly, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 06:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above and also poor masking on the foot. Not every object is nicely cut-able: it has to be sharp all over to have a good degree of success. Lycaon (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 2[edit]

Info Transparent background (wasn't sure if interlaced GIF was better or not or if I should've saved as PNG). --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the first one was the best conversion to GIF has muddled this one up, and it seems poorly cut out (look at the top rim of the cup). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the first was the non-interlaced version, I guess I'll know for next time, but the apparent "poor cutout" look is just something that always happens with thumbnails of transparent GIFs. The top doesn't look anywhere as bad in full-scale. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I barely saw the thumbnail. I looked only at full res. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jagged edges and posterizing (loss of information) by GIF conversion. Lycaon (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - Wikimedia France - MDL.99.8.3.IMG 1762.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 16:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

InfoEngraved bone featuring a horse, Magdalenian (17,000 BP to 9,000 BP). About 2 cm diametre.

Muséum de Toulouse, Accession number MDL.99.8.3.IMG_1762
Created by Rama - uploaded by Boing-boing - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain -- Rama (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is it? Needs a more meaningful filename and description. - MPF (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm sorry, but the photo is really grainy. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral interesting but poor quality Cathy Richards (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Insulator railways.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 09:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ceramic insulator used at railways - created by --Thermos (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC) - uploaded by --Thermos (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC) - nominated by -- Thermos (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thermos (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose imo too tight crop at the right, also a bit too noisy. Nice lightning and nice composition otherwise though. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well framed and it pops out at you nicely. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, sharp picture, but I don‘t think this is an exceedingly subject... --Brackenheim (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Is too small of a crop, but doesn't detract too much from the pix. –hover Fly | chat? 17:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plan-fort-roppe-fr-FR.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 06:36:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really impressive - b/w scheme, technically not complicated - good piece of craft, but not FP though. Additionally it's not language neutral. Masur (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masur. Also strange scale bar and the actual plan is relatively to the whole image too small. bamse (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary Plan, ~~the scale symbol seems erroneous (150 m),~~ the Légende is quite large relative to the drawing. — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 14:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The scale symbol is not erroneous. --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How long (in metres) are the black/white bars of the scale symbol? bamse (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scottish Fold cat (blue).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 11:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Scottish Fold cat, usually used as a domestic animal. Created by Peter Perepelkin - uploaded by Peter Perepelkin - nominated by Peter Perepelkin -- Peter Perepelkin (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter Perepelkin (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose white balance --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of too much blue --Jonathunder (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "Too much blue" doesn't seem like a legitimate reason for FPX to me. It looks like a blue variety (maybe a little w:British Shorthair mixed in) taken near a window, at worst there might've been some camera problems. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - before MPF corrected the color balance, the entire image was unnaturally blue. Jonathunder (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh I see, but GIMP's white balance shows a bit more blue than the current version. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't claim my colour edit is perfect (purr-fect, with a cat involved?), if you can do better, please do - MPF (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I like your version better than GIMP's. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colour balance corrected - MPF (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - poor depth of focus, with nose and eyebrows blurred, and bad glare at rim of head - MPF (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halcyon (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Major lighting problems. Steven Walling 17:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojado (talk • contribs)
- Sockpuppet! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor cropping -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality and depth of field Cathy Richards (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:StSophiaChurchNave-Sofia-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 07:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The vaulted nave of Hagia Sophia Church in Sofia.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice compo and light. Strange and interesting. I like it very much.--Jebulon (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a ceiling? --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is a ceiling.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support for good quality, but TBH I don't think most people will find a picture of a regular ceiling made of bricks very interesting; I know I barely do even though it's an old building. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Czech Mi-24 CIAF.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 19:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Wolf - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose rotor blades are cropped out what ruins the composition. Would be featured imo with a better crop... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as part of the composition: Neutral now --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Wow, I didn't really expect to see this picture nominated. If I may just add something, this was the intention to crop the blades and give an impression as if the copter was hanging on them, attached to the edges of the photo. Wolf (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhenium single crystal bar and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 20:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but why are the samples to the left and center different? --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sample on the center is a polycristalline material. For more infos please read the image description. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose okay for QI and I'm sure a VI too, but for a Featured picture the lightning is imo not good enough. A lot of under- and overexposed areas with no details on the Rhenium. Sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see FF:FF:FF or 0:0:0! Please try to take a photo from a round mirror ... (das Bild ist nichts für alte Röhrenmonitore!). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vielleicht liegts wirklich mal wieder an meinem Monitor... Das kann natürlich sein. Ich schau mir das Bild bei nächster Gelegenheit an einem anderen PC an. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC) PS: nach ganz genauem Suchen hab ich übrigens doch mindestens einen Pixel mit ffffff gefunden ;-P[reply]
Das "eine" Pixel ist der Pixelfehler meiner Kamera ;-P --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 17:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not collors? b&w? Really useful?--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect, as always. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support difficult motif, perfect job!--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Memorino (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alpendohle, Pyrrhocorax graculus 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 18:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Chough is really good but the background spoils the picture. Legs?!? Lycaon (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lycaon. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info the image is to show that this bird is very tame. (Relevance criterion) see item description. --Böhringer (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about this improved version, Böhringer? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks, I'm aware of the image with the top striker in the background so chosen --Böhringer (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, fine. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. The tail and shadow line up so closely as to be confusing. 75.41.110.200 14:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, no anonymous votes. Lycaon (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support distracting background, well-detailed subject though Cathy Richards (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moraine Lake-Banff NP.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 21:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tobi 87 - uploaded by Tobi 87 - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - tops of mountains at left cut (shame, because it's such a nice-looking place). Would also have benefitted from taking at an angle which excludes the canoe landing stage. - MPF (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose really nice place, however bad composition. I agree with MPF about left cut of mountain. --Chmee2 (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may crop an original image on the left hand side to get rid of the cut off peak.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose excellent landscape (as a subject) but need a more creative angle/view or even a panoramic image.. i.e. I think that the tree at the lower left part in another angle can disappear. per {MPF, Mbz1} Ggia (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above about the cutoff mountain, otherwise I love this -- that's how trees should look when photographed and is the water really that blue!? So average out a Strong support and a Weak Support. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RJC1 PJC.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 22:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - prefer this one to the second. A little bit of ~~current account~~ chromatic aberration in the Alnus foliage at the top right, but not enough to downmark it (though it would be nice if it could be corrected) - MPF (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the branch and the other elements in this one give the shot balance. Steven Walling 17:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this to the other alternatives. It would be nice if the branch could be removed, but all in all, it's an excellent picture. Clementina talk 07:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version Cathy Richards (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An intrusion on the composition, and perhaps slightly washed out colours on the left. --99of9 (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 22:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Support --Ghabara (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than first one, does not show branch. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is my favorite one, but the mountains aren't very sharp, almost a bit chromatic aberration. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2[edit]

Info retouched by kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I prefer this, thanks. --Cephas (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and alt 1. It feels cramped... I'm not sure why the branch couldn't simply be cloned out. Also, CA is rather disturbing along the mountains. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support no cutted hills at top, the interesting brown and blue water – I think that's the best. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The water's clear, what you're seeing it the river bank itself and the sky reflected. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much CA. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:RJC1_PJC.jpg

File:Rodão September 2010-2a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 12:37:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Tagus River at Portas do Rodão, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is that strange design in a few places above the left tunnel? --Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wire netting to catch / prevent rock falls - MPF (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral seems unsharp and washed out to me. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- I believe it is a protective net to avoid the fall of rocks on the railtrack -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the right part of the image seems more or less OK, the left part has some areas that are extremely unsharp, and the colors look washed out.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This image has to much light (look like washed out - per Maurilbert) and some parts are blurry (but blurry is a minor problem for me). But the composition is good (aesthetically). This is a problem of digital sensors.. it is better to have dark images and add light later rather to have an image full of light (it is hard to darken it afterwards). Ggia (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info -- Not giving up. In this version, contrast and saturation were slighty increased. The framing is also a bit larger. -- Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serengeti Impala3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 12:25:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral composition is much better now, but the animal is imo too noisy (ISO 800) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fur with tenthousands of hairs. Any denoising would result in a less sharp image impression at reasonable viewing distance. You don't have to believe me-try it on your computer and you will see it yourself. --Ikiwaner (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but I don't think that the horns have hairs ;-) And I nill see a denoise image, but maybe you can take a photo with a less ISO item? And: I don't oppose, I just abstain with neutral. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good pose and EV --Muhammad (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I agree with kaʁstn, there is noise, and in the eyes also. --Cephas (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like opposing, but I think acutance is a quality of wildlife photography, an ISO of 800 is just too high. Sorry Ikiwaner. --Cephas (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would support if the distracting branch between the horns would be cloned away. ~~--Cayambe ([[User talk:Cayambe|<span class="signature-talk~~Signature correction --Cayambe (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info How's this? I've cloned out that branch, and applied a slight noise reduction, which has, I think, improved matters especially around the head, when viewed at 100%+. Smalljim (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done imo. --Cayambe (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral still too noisy --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a little noise, but as this is a "furry" motif it doesn´t really matter imo.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Serengeti_Impala3.jpg

File:A common squirrel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 17:23:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A common squirrel, found somewhere among a common russian forest (made with a budget lens that have a poor depth of focus) created by Peter Perepelkin - uploaded by Peter Perepelkin - nominated by Peter Perepelkin
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Perepelkin (talk • contribs)
Support DOF's kind of shallow in the foreground. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the composition and cut off squirrel.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojado (talk • contribs)
- Sockpuppet! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mbz1. About 1/3rd of the image shows an uninteresting tree bark. --Cayambe (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor white balance --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Cayambe.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hosjö kyrka 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 13:41:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by V-wolf - uploaded by V-wolf - nominated by V-wolf -- V-wolf (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creepy but good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colors --Citron (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zhuk (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 16:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mont St. Michel Spire.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 13:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nilington - originally uploaded by Nilington - uploaded in Wikimedia Commons by Alexius Manfelt - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not convinced. A bit dark at the base, a bit too tight at the top, maybe it should be recropped, or maybe the perspective is too strong... I can't quite put my finger on it for now. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20100923 Kompsatos Bridge Polyanthos Rhodope Thrace Greece Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 00:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info The above photo has been shot on 23-Sep-2010.. 3 days after shooting this panorama the landscape was different due to a recent rain. Look to the image to see the differences..
Ggia (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. People on the bridge are good for the scale.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have been better if it was allowed to nominate the other photograph as an alternative and the community decide which one likes.. both of them have the same concept / subject.. even they are different "versions".. Ggia (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could. It seems to me that nobody, but alvesgaspar is going to enforce the rules, and apparently he's going to enforce them on my nominations only.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is one unsafe-looking bridge. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pouts31 07:36, 27 september 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bridge may be interesting, the rest is not and ballast for the picture. Lycaon (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment probably you like more this view [1] but the landscape is not so ugly IMO, it is also a typical landscape for that region of Rhodope mountains (south part). 13 of August I tried first time to nominate this bridge.. but I withdraw the nomination after the fruitful comments of AFBorchert and MPF). The old nomination page is here [2]. Ggia (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 14:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "That is one unsafe-looking bridge" ... does look like it could do with a lick of new paint and a bit of a repair job at the left end ;-) MPF (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Beautiful! –hover Fly | chat? 17:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - only because I much prefer the other view: I think the lighting is better in that one, and having a person in the center adds scale and a point of interest. Jonathunder (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amanita muscaria qtl4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 20:31:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A young Fly Agaric (Amanita muscaria) breaks though the underbrush. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm hoping you didn't eat it afterward, though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did you use the camera's pop-up flash or an external one? And was it attached to the hot shoe or somewhere else using a cord or wireless thing? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the standard pop-up flash. I was lying low on the ground for this one. Do you miss harder shadows? --Quartl (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 03:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Night view of Rokkō Island and Higashinada-ku, Kobe, Japan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 05:49:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Laitr Keiows - uploaded by Laitr Keiows - nominated by Laitr Keiows -- Laitr Keiows (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not the good exposure — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 14:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Habib.mhenni - except opposite. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - glare from lights and excessive motion blur in water (OK, yes, that's a way of saying I don't like night pics, but it gives the reasons for my not liking them ;-) MPF (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too busy composition Cathy Richards (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...It's a city. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Petritap (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work on a difficult job!--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm with ΠΣΟ˚--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Tripneustes ventricosus (West Indian Sea Egg-top) and Echinometra viridis (Reef Urchin - bottom).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 21:44:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nhobgood - uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition particulary interesting! -- Citron (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting, high quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Per The High Fin Sperm Whale --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good, considering the difficult conditions. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support not only encyclopedic / high technical quality.. but well balanced composition of colors / form. Ggia (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Mile (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Wonderful colors, composition, and contrast! –hover Fly | chat? 14:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Crocuta crocuta.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 05:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Ikiwaner - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Size mitigates slight unsharpness. Lycaon (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here is it extreme: noisy and imo a bit blurry/motion blur --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy (and perhaps blurry)--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry, too noisy and unsharp. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see DerHexer.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gosau pohled 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 19:18:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj --Karel (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{Support}~~ nice picture! --93.72.125.208 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC). Sorry, no anonymous votes. Lycaon (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral One of the better landscape ones compositionalwise on FPC at the moment. Lack of sharpness and CA-problems (e.g. on the church tower) prevent me from supporting. Lycaon (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice place.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place and composition, but partially unsharp, Chromatic aberrations (Church, clouds, mountains), distortion (church), overexposure of the two houses in foreground (yellow and white), unfortunate shadow in corner left below.--Jebulon (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manuel Reimóndez Portela - A Estrada - Galiza.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 23:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

[reply]

Info created by lmbuga - uploaded by lmbuga - nominated by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez -- Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice detail and composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 14:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, but please remove dust spot (see image note) --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Spot removed. Thanks--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~{Neutral}~~ - would like to see a bit more detail in the description (size of the bust; and who he is in Englsh as well as Spanish, also a Catalan description) - MPF (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC) change to support, now more info added - MPF (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Español: Procedo a incorporar datos en todas las lenguas que domino aceptablemente. Lo que no se me puede pedir es que escriba en las que no domino. No sé escribir catalán, aunque puedo leerlo con mucha dificultad. Escribo inglés con ayuda de traductores automáticos. Sea como sea, no sé decir en inglés quién es el personaje de la foto, pero puedo intentarlo, aunque ya lo he intentado y fracasado. Entiendo que este es un proyecto colaborativo y que otros vendrán que nos harán mejores
- Translation (poor english): I want to incorporate data in all the languages that I dominate (es, gl, or perhaps pt). I can't write (always) in a language that I do not dominate (english). I can't write in catalan (but I can understand). I write English with the help of automatic translators. I do not know to say in English who is the personage of the photo, but I can try it. (I do not know to translate the end)--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done but not in english or catalan (yes in gl, es, pt), I can't write in catalan, I can't write in english this--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Size of the bust? Size of insects in other images? Size of structures? Size of pictures? Size of...? For you: Natural size--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - See this--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        But you won!!--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks! Sorry, I meant Galician, not Catalan ... Oops!! On the size, I asked because there are no visual clues to its size, from the photo it could be anything from 20 cm to 3 m high. (Traducción de Google): ¡Gracias! Perdón, quise decir gallego no, el catalán ... ¡Uy! Por el tamaño, le pregunté porque no hay pistas visuales a su tamaño, de la foto puede ser cualquier cosa desde 20 cm a 3 m de altura. - MPF (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and thanks. It is very difficult to me to say what I want in English. I only can do simple orations. I am not angry. I did not understand. I don't understand now too much, but i'm sure that you are a collaborative user. Sorry.--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- Caro Luis, há duas coisa de que eu não gosto nesta imagem: a luz, que é muito agressiva (demasiado contraste) e o enquadramento, que é muito cerrado em torno do busto. For the rest of us, sorry for writing in Portuguese (which is almost identical to Galician). The comment reads: Dear Luis, there are two things I don't like in this image: the harsh light (too much contrast) and the tight framing around the statue. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Compreendo perfeitamente o português, mas levo uns 25 anos sem o falar ou escrever. Actualmente não o sei escrever, e preciso de FLiP (creio que você conhece FLiP). É evidente que a sua postura não tem que concordar hoje com a minha, não há problema, manha, noutro espaço, podemos concordar. Com você. Para mim, passadas diferenças foram esquecidas--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Espero que se compreenda o que quero eu dizer. Quero dizer que não há problema se temos posições diferentes--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sobre a imagem: Não concordo com a questão da luz (desacordo total com o do contraste), mas si concordo com o do enquadramento. Tenho que dizer que o enquadramento devesse a que o há por detrás não é aceitável (vejo todos os dias a escultura). Posso tirar a foto uma e mil vezes--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pregunta Question: JK, no hablo espanol. =( Who is that? --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bust of Manuel Reimóndez Portela, president of "Patronato do Museo do Pobo Estradense" and president of commission of "gl:Estatuto dos dezaseis", A Estrada, Galicia (Spain)--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Now that I know. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Info As I may understand a bit spanish and latin, I've tried to make a french translation of the file description page. There is no article in the french WP about the "commission of the status of the Sixteen", so, after reading galego article (latin brotherhood helps a lot for this !!), I tried a very short explanation, with a link to the french WP article to Galiza, not so bad, but without any information about the galician post-franquist period history...Nevertheless, I hope my little work will help french native speakers ! Cheers.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can read French, but not always (I can not write french). I believe that your contribution is perfect. Thanks--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Colonial anemone zebra.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 21:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nhobgood - uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality and composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Steven Walling 17:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 18:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. --99of9 (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Man, I love these contrast-filled underwater pictures! –hover Fly | chat? 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Another Believer (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Equine evolution.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 17:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equine evolution. Composed from Skeletons of Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe, Germany.
From left to right: Size development, biometrical changes in the skull, reduction of fingers (left forefoot)

Support -- Llez (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Actually the best I've seen this year (and we're almost October!). Lycaon (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One small comment The genus names should be in italics, while the geological periods should not be. Lycaon (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done No problem --Llez (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another small comment ;-) the yellow note boxes aren't all congruent, it would look tidier if they were. Oh, and 'toes' not 'fingers'. - MPF (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As it is the forefoot (the hand) which is depicted, I chose "finger" (but everyone can change it, if he wants to). The boxes are arranged horizontally (with explanation) and vertically (with other explanations). If you go to the overlaying parts, you can see the comments for the horizontal and the vertical boxes respectively. That's the reason for this arrangement. --Llez (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "Finger" is normally only used for arms, not for forelegs, in English. But I'll wait to see what others think. What I meant with the boxes, was that they were not fully aligned (e.g. column 1 started 343 px from the top and was 7620 px high, column 2 started 329 px from the top and was 7634 px high), I have aligned them all now. - MPF (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Thanks for aligning. Finger /toes: I'm not so familiar with English to know this difference. I accept your argument, I change to "toes". --Llez (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why the most recent above, and the most ancient below ? Looks unlogical to me and seems a contrary of an evolution... It is not "evolutive", is it ? (and sorry for my poor english too, but I'm sure you understand what I mean) --Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All genealogical trees (human or in palaeontology) are arranged in this way (the oldest at bottom, the youngest on top). This corresponds also to the stratigraphical layers in geology (the youngest layers - and fossils - at the top). --Llez (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Many thanks for the answer & explanations. It is indeed more logical than it seems ! Could be featured among the featured, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow, I'm impressed, this may be almost as good as my pet flower poster ;-). Carry on with the good work, the project aknowledges! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - Isn't the size of the labels way too large? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's fine as it is nicely readable in thumb, yet not overpowering so. Lycaon (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, nice, quality, useful, educational...--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The highlights on the skulls seem a bit bright, but this is good quality and educational, it reminds me of a museum placard. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would like to see a white background version, if only for comparison. Steven Walling 18:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Sorry, it is not possible to me to do this within the next days, it's a lot of work, and I don't have the time. It lasted severeal days (besides other things) to arrange the picture in this way. I tried several backgrounds and I found black to be the best. --Llez (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Were all the of the individual photographs taken by you, Llez? The source section doesn't give any information on the source of the photos, it merely says "Own work", which could be referring only to the collage. Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info All photos are taken by me in the "Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe" (SNMK). Equus grevyii is an original skeleton, the others are replicas of specimens of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, also presented in the SNMK. --Llez (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question of a Beotian : why choosing a zebra, and not a horse, even both are members of "Equus", and both at the top of evolution ?
- Info You can choose any modern Equus as example. But the reason is simple: At the Museum (SMNK, see above) these four skeletons are mounted to demonstrate horse-evolution. No other modern Equus-species is shown as skeleton. To photograph other species, you must have skeletons arranged in the same way. But I hadn't. In addition, I dont think that the skeletons would show serious differences. --Llez (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for interesting answering.--Jebulon (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the annotation must be corrected, if I'm not wrong (Equus grevyi looks better than Equus greyvi ) Sorry if I mistake.--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the hint. A writing error. Corrected now. --Llez (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kitzingen BW 6.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 13:58:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Synagogue of Kitzingen, Germany -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not really sure. Quality is excellent, as always, and I love the background, but there seems to be heavy distortion around the tops of the two towers. Also, I don't mind it straight on or from an angle, but this is not really either. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and valuable. The distortion is the almost inevitable side effect of a perspective correction or the use of a shift lens. -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - the patch of dark cloud is a bit distracting - MPF (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition with dark cloud --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but I don't think the image quality is up to the current standards. Lighting is not the best, there is some disturbing geometric distortion and I don't like the framing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Alvesgaspar. Geometric distortion is clearly visible under a grid, and also directly on the towers. --ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy distortion around the tops of the two towers--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SMP September 2010-6b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 14:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info I like the contrast between the bluish tones caused by the partially overcast sky and the warmer colors of the clay in the headland. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to edit this image to make the colors not to look like "washed-out". Do you mind if I update this image with my version? if you don't like the new version you can always revert to this one. BTW, why some kind of vignetting occurs in the left side? Ggia (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please upload as a new version. I've no idea where the vigneting comes from. A correct version, with a slight saturation increase, was uploaded -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Comment here it is. Ggia (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is better, sorry Alvesgaspar! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but this edit it is based on the first 6,2 Mbytes [3] version and Alvesgaspar updated the photo with 11,61 MB size.. I don't know if the new version has more details, has more quality etc. Ggia (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Well, the two versions are almost identical (mine is a bit darker). And I have no idea why the first file is so much larger! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breithorn Panorama.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 10:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Xavax - created and nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ever seen Matterhorn, Jungfrau, Montblanc as well as Switzerlands highest mountains Dom and Finsteraarhorn at once? -- Ikiwaner (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pouts31 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great educational value. Jonathunder (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work --The Photographer (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry to disagree but I don't like the long and (too) narrow stripe, much of it of sky. The image quality is not excellent either, and the labels are difficult to read. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a discrepancy to me: If I'd had made it wider you would see even more sky and on the ground projection distortions would become obvious. Please consider the image resolution of 56 Megapixel when judging image quality. I have a 2m wide printout at home which looks absolutely perfect. If you can't read the labels you can scale the graphic-that's the advantage of a vector format. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I understand the difficulties, which may not have an adequate solution. I'm also aware of the lighting problems with this kind of image. Maybe this was not the best spot to take the 360º panorama; a higher place would have been much better, of course but is there such place? The truth is I don't sympatize with 360º panoramas, not only due to the technical problems involved but also because they don't offer a realistic view of the subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be better to switch the names with numbers for non-English speakers, that way the mountains could be labelled on the image page description. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translate field names like Matterhorn to Horn above the alpine tundra?? You should find the field names as lemmata in enwiki, i.e. the ones linked in my support vote. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously not. But very definitely to Cervino and Cervin - MPF (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create a fernch or italian only version for the specific wikis. In cartography however it's a standard to take the names in the language that is spoken prominently in the place of the object being labeled. --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Alves. I can't even read the labels, and I don't think this was ever meant to be an SVG. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ditto to Alvesgaspar. Agree with IdLoveOne too, as numbers can be put in a much larger font than names. - MPF (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is not what SVG is for; also, the large-image link does not seem to work on this, and should be removed from the file page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question how do I open the file? The option "Interactive large-image-viewer (non-Flash)" does not work. Ggia (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong Pro. I know how hard it is to create these panoramas - this one is near perfect!--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong support.. Excellent work.. but I have the following question.. how this file can be used online? because the firefox does not load it.. and the "Interactive large-image-viewer" cannot read it. I opened the file off-line to view it after downloading it. Ggia (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dangar Falls Dorrigo-retouched-by-karstn.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 12:18:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Siantar, retouched by Carschten, nominated by Carschten. The Dangar Falls in Dorrigo, New South Wales, Australia. A nice composition picture of an interesting waterfall.
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty good, but a bit tilted (notice the trees on the left, the one in the BG). I know it's natural perspective, but it's not so nice.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect amount of motion blur. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For my reasons above, but the motion blur is decent. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ghabara (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The waterfall gives a very fresh feeling. I'm sure everybody who looks at it will not be able to help but agree. :) Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 08:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see a lot of people support this image. My objection is about aesthetics. First of all the image is a little titled but this one (minor issue) can be easily fixed. I don't like the way that the pond (small lake) is cropped. I would like to have more pond or more landscape in the lower part of the image. Probably a more tight crop in the lower part of the image can work as well. Ggia (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I uploaded a new retouched version of this image, in case you like it more.. I tried to fix the skewed horizon and I tried a more creative crop in the lower part. Ggia (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the original is better; particularly note the pole and fenceposts on the hill at the top left are no longer erect on the retouched version - MPF (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok -- it was an attempt by me to have another version.. since you support this image.. probably these leafs in the border in the lower-left part can be patched.. Ggia (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Göteborgs domkyrkan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 09:25:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ankara - uploaded by Ankara - nominated by Ankara -- Ankara (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ankara (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It needs renaming, though; either to "Göteborgs domkyrka" or "Göteborg, domkyrkan" --V-wolf (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tree on the left blows it, and sharpness is sub-par, sry.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nofretete Neues Museum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 03:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Xenon 77 - uploaded by Xenon 77 - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy... --Citron (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very expressive — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support whichever is more natural/realistic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Beautiful colors! –hover Fly | chat? 17:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support noisy but very beautiful Cathy Richards (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ The object (work of art, if it was a work of art) is beautiful. The subject (The Queen) is beautiful too, according to our modern culture standards (not sure for the post-Akhenaton egyptians !). No doubt for me. But I'm not convinced by the photograph, even it semms to be the best we have. It is noisy, and I dislike the (maroon) post-processing very disturbing IMO on the chin, the neck, and on the shadow of the chin. The highlights over the eye and the shoulder should be a bit corrected to, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though I suppose I'm too late to make any difference here. Surely one of the characteristics of an image that is among "the finest on Commons" must be that it is not capable of being significantly improved upon. I don't think that's the case with this photo: there are reflections from the glass case in the lower neck area and ugly blown highlights on the shoulder, nose and forehead. In addition it's noisy in the shadows, and the colour balance is way off. I've uploaded a cleaned up version (aside), but since this is an easily rephotographable object I'd really prefer to see a better quality, higher resolution photo featured. Smalljim (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change "neutral" to Oppose, agree with Smalljim--Jebulon (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Smalljim. Lycaon (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Nofretete Neues Museum.jpg

File:Pompée Vaux.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 00:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me, except the sculpture -- Jebulon (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is not really sharp, which is obvious when comparing with the razorsharp background removal; too much white space in the top part. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taste is taste. It is very sharp IMO. But there is no white space in the top part, there is voooooid. A previous version was declined in QI because of too soft masking. Lol !--Jebulon (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the other picture with the black background has a bit better quality and a special pizzaz to me, but this one with the afterwards inserted white background hasn't the featured feeling, sorry. How you said: „Taste is taste“. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But a black background was impossible because of the black marble... You are welcome if you have a good idea for a valuable background. And I don't understand the words "Wuality" and "pizzaz", sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - yeah, here is a black backgrong not good. But the white has not the pizzaz (--> Flair, Atmosphäre). I corrected my mistake with the «wuality» ;-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I understand now. I'll try something as suggested below--Jebulon (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Something like a reddish coral or burnt sienna background would be better than white. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You've gone overboard the other way now Jebulon ;-). You have cut away parts of the statue with your masking. It's a tricky business... Lycaon (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a very beautiful statue and a good picture, and it's a shame I have to oppose. But Lycaon is right, the price for this masking to look so crisp was the sacrifice of some details. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Without a comparison with the previous version, could you show me were details are lost, please ? --Jebulon (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - One immediately obvious example is the neck (right). Lycaon (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you mean. ~~But I disagree. What you see cut horizontally is not a part of the neck, but a plaster part of bad restoration ( sorry for my wrong words, technical words are hard to know and to use).~~To be honest, I really don't know, now...--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Anyway, ware you right, I think really (and respectfully) that it is not so "immediately obvious"--Jebulon (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, do you think an improved version is possible, masked from the original file, the first one with original background ? Your comments are initiating a real challenge to me !! Theorical help would be welcome ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motif, but sharpness (Plate) and masking (neck right, left ear...). Sry.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no problem with the left ear, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Three Gorges Dam, China.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 09:22:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by a NASA Expedition 19 crew member - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThis image captures the flooding behind the Three Gorges Dam.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - could do with some indication of compass points. The current version is also 180° to the previous lo-res version, maybe it should be rotated? - MPF (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done The best I could Originalwana (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zinc fragment sublimed and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 19:13:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- The whole picture is sharp except the upper left edge of the cube. Why is that, a focus stacking problem? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think yes. I try to correct it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 13:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything seems sharp to me. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yes, it is now. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. --Elekhh (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Albertus teolog (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Whithout colors. I can not understand why--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zinc is a silvery blueish metal. It simply hasn't a color. That is an encyclopaedic image. Do you prefer a colorfull background? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Backlit (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Al acecho.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 23:44:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Camino a Gaia - uploaded by Camino a Gaia - nominated by Camino a Gaia -- Camino a Gaia (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Camino a Gaia (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy, looks oversharpened, distracting blades of grass in the way. Sorry! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too buzzy area --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is quite hidden. — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 13:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subject not clearly visible. --Another Believer (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hidden subject, poor quality Cathy Richards (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:A beachcomber is touching a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean beach edit 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 18:21:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThe scientists were not able to ID the whale. The gratify was probably done by vandals. The most interesting thing about this image are the marks of w:great white sharks bites. Those are the best I've ever seen, and I've seen quite a few.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very obvious cloning on the first wave front. Please fix. Lycaon (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A few days ago user:lycaon left a message at lar's talk page, and was told: " Lycaon, you (or your wife) need to not vote on Mbz1's work" and "You need to stop voting on Mbz1's nominations. That's not a request". The user was told to stop voting on my nominations because the user is involved with me. I believe it is about the time for user:lycaon to listen to the administrator. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what are you going to do? Bully every one who criticizes your images into submission? Get a restraining order for every hapless user who dares to comment on your clumsy cloning? Who is next? Alvesgaspar no doubt, and many to follow. Your 'fix' came rather speedily anyhow, didn't it? Ah, if I opposed everything you nominated (FP, QI, VI) indiscriminately, you might have a bone, but I only contest poor/insufficient quality images, just as I do with my best friends. Don't flatter yourself, you're nothing special in my book. Lycaon (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bravo! I mean it. It was a first time in more than one and a half year you talked directly to me! lycaon, you are not everybody, and you know it. I will ignore alvesgaspar's review. Tomas said it all. I've nothing more to add. But with you, Lycaon, I wish we are to start from the beginning, much before CU request, and you'd tell me what have I done to you back then, when all this have started. I literally begged you to talk to me, a few people wanted to meditate for two of us. I was ready on everything, on any mediator of your choice. You refused. You do not respond my questions about your reviews of my images, you just do not wish to talk to me at all, and then it was that infamous "kicking back on me" I will not provide the link, but you know what I am talking about, don't you? In such situation, it will be better to avoid each other, isn't it? It's all I am asking. Oh, and BTW, if you noticed the problem was fixed, maybe you could change your the reason of your oppose, or remove your oppose altogether as no longer valid? After all you should know better than alvesgaspar and kuiper do that the subject of this image deserves to be featured.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 100% FP. JukoFF (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing featurable here, in my opinion. Either in the subject or in the image quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing wrong with quality, interesting subject. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just an interesting subject, but quite unique subject too. The other image of the bites marks

is used in w:great white shark article. It is not a common subject --Mbz1 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The correction just made to the stitching errors in the surf looks so clumsy as to be almost almost offensive to the reviewers in this forum. I wouldn't hesitate to use a FPX template if I could. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't hesitate to use a FPX template, if you could? Really? I thought there is no more need to prove that Tomas was right.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you add a note were the error is? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried to point the worst part out to you, but nominator starts yelling and removed my note. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact you're visiting FPC so very rarely , that you added your note to a wrong place. It should be added to a nomination, and not to an image, but you came here not to review the image, and you know that.--Mbz1 (talk)

Oppose - I also looked at previous versions, there is too much manipulation here. Anyway, decaying sea animals on the beach are not the most appealing subjects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing, the subject of the image is a whale, or rather the mark of the bites of great white sharks. The whale was not retouched. The ocean was. There were a big waves that day, and it is all, but impossible to stitch the waves automatically. I did my best in stitching those waves, and I believe I have done a good job, but once again, the subject of the image is the whale, and the marks of shark bites.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There seems to remain a stitching error on the whale remnants themselves. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please add note to the nomination? But I very much doubt there's one. If there were alvesgaspar and/or lycaon would have noticed it.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just did so. Well, it's not strikingly obvious, so other reviewers might have overlooked this detail. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stroke my vote so that it won't be taken into account either way, and don't wish to replace it with another review of this picture. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to ask everybody, who is here to review the image, if you'll see a stitching error, please do not oppose it right away, but add a note (not to the image, but to the nomination). Please also notice that the subject of the image is not the waves. One more time, I would like to stress out that the subject is quite unique, very rare to see, has a great EV, and reviews like "Anyway, decaying sea animals on the beach are not the most appealing subjects" should not be taken in the account.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. I think its a great subject, and a very valuable and unique picture, too. Who cares if it isn't a butterfly on a flower? I'd honestly rather see a decaying whale, which is a very interesting subject matter that isn't something you see everyday (a big factor, I would think, in whether or not something is worth featuring). As for the stitching, I understand why manipulations on the ocean had to be done, and I fail to see why that's a deterrent; the subject in intact and looks good (not that type of good...), while the ocean is an ocean, and isn't a big factor in the image. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is photo about rare event, not a whale illustration --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kevin and George. --Cayambe (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare, impressive and moving image. Here I am sensitive to the rarity of the event (on Commons at least), the contact between human and (dead) animal, the damages made by sharks and vandals, the sadness of this huge beached body. --Myrabella (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trycatch (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Trycatch, for pointing out some errors. I believe I fixed them. When you have a time, may I please ask you to take another look. I left your notes as you put them.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kooritza (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note the imperfect source for the id, quoting a marine biologist, says Sei (B. borealis) or ~~Bryde's (B. brydei)~~ [doh! Fin (B. physalus)] or Blue hybrid. I imagine the boffin blathering on about uncertain taxonomy of the genus, and the reporter seizing on rare and hybrid to fill the column, but noting it as a species of w:Balaenoptera is probably reasonable. Beached whales are not rare, neither is being chewed round the edges before they land. Questions: This was taken with the same camera that produced the image at the Great White article? Is it possible to see the source without retouching? Where is the citation that states it was that shark species, or is that assumed? cygnis insignis 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, beached whales are more or less rare, and appear only in some regions, even at ocean shores. I live 10 minutes walk from the ocean. I see a beach wale about 1 time in 2-3 years in 40 miles radius from my home. It was only second time I saw a whale with the bites by a great white shark, or any shark for that matter at all. I saw elephant seals with the bites of sharks. All the images were taken with the same camera. Also amazing were the huge bites taken out of the whale that experts said were from great white sharks. I am not sure why do you need to see the source files.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't cite that source, good copy is the priority. I can't cite you until you are published and reviewed, but dead and dying whales turn up on beaches more often than other regions, if not always. I see and hear of them in my immediate vicinity many times a year, I've never thought to photograph them, is there an audience for deserted and dying humpback calves. This used to drive the locals nuts, keeping them awake all night with their wailing until somebody went out and shot it. Stinking up our favourite beach isn't much fun either. I had the idea that making the original data available was sop, at least for restoration, and I fancied having a look after I zoomed up on the retouched file. Is it impolite to ask, ignore me if it is. cygnis insignis 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count four in the last three months, on beaches I can see from my window. One was 'resting' in the harbour for a fortnight, then was blown up; again, I didn't think to get a snap of that. BTW, you should add a warning about touching dead mammals, not a good idea. Rarity is not a consideration here. cygnis insignis 20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support good quality, well balanced composition, educational subject.. I don't find problems with image stitching. Ggia (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work here. --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 20:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong composition and a valuable educational photo. Steven Walling 07:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good educational value and nice composition and quality. Regards, --Kjetil_r 20:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good educational value and photographic technique, as always from Mila, great. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beryl-Muscovite-aquamarine nagar balanced budd.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 23:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rob Lavinsky - uploaded by RKBot - nominated by IdLoveOne -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting rock.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background looks unacceptably artificial. Steven Walling 17:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad background --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The artificial background blows it. Motif itself marvellous and well pictured. Pls fix it, and you´ll get another (sup).--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice, as for artificial background, it just looks like it is on display in a museum –hover Fly | chat? 14:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)+[reply]
Support One of the thousands of Rob Lavinskys very fine mineral pictures. :-) -- Ra'ike T C 07:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per PI-SIGMA-OMICRON--Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artificial background. --99of9 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info White balanced. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one has some blown highlights. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background looks unacceptably artificial. Steven Walling 17:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artificial coloring --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why two chances for this picture ? Must I vote for the two pics ? Is it another nomination ? "Alternative versions" are confusing IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just liked the brightness of the aquamarine when white balanced and wondered if others would too. GIMP's white balance is definitely not infallible (you should see some of the thing's it's done, yeesh) but it's usually considered more realistic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CentralMineralBath-Sofia-8a 3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 20:04:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The sky is strangely black on top, I think it needs color adjusting or white balancing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicoreus ramosus 001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 16:28:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicoreus ramosus, Branched Murex, Muricidae, length 18 cm, originating from the Indo-West Pacific. Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
From left to right: Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Support -- Llez (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jonathunder (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Another Believer (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Kecskemet 2010 Frecce Tricolori photo 55.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 18:31:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Wolf (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image of the Frecce Tricolori that you intend to get featured does not show the formation with their traditional colours. displaying the national colours of italy is what makes them so remarkable. the blurry bush seems rather distracting here and does not improve the composition. i would be glad if you could provide another picture showing the colours at this size. using digital image editing - removing the fauna will be the least problem. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by their traditional colours? This? As far as I know, the F.C. had never had this kind of livery on the MB-339. And if you want to remove the tree - sorry, no deal. Wolf (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- their traditional colours / national colours of italy refers to the green-white-red smoke trails as seen on other pictures. my point is not about the planes' colours - i opposed because i think showing the Frecce Tricolori without those smoke trails does not cope with what they are renowned for. if reviewed at 100% sharpness and detail could be better as well. for this is not an image showing a historical singularity an image featuring all the aspects mentioned here could still be created. think of someone who is not into aviation and does know about the Frecce Tricolori - which composition would be better to explain what is seen on the picture? --Peter Weis (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, the smoke, now I understand. Honestly, no, they are not renowned for the colour of the smoke. They're simply not. You could say that Patrulla Águila is, in a sense, because they're the only team to use yellow smoke. And mind you, this is not Wikipedia the Commons FPs do not need to be educational in the strict sense. And there is never an indication of what a particular image is supposed to illustrate. The argument would, however, be perfectly valid for valued images, that is where we pay attention to how the image illustrates a given topic. There due to the reasons you mentioned, I'd oppose the picture myself. Wolf (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - i think there is always an indication of what a particular image is supposed to illustrate. it first of all is image itself: the level of detail you can perceive, the movement within the image, the way the image was shot concerning technical aspects. the question one needs to ask oneself is: what does this picture tell me? does it tell about the aircraft type? not really, shape is visible, but technical details are not. does it tell about the formation they fly? yes it does - to a certain degree, film could do better to give a illustration of what they are able of. speaking of the connection of colour and Frecce Tricolori - i think it is the same with Patrulla Águila. they do formations including their national colours as well. that was my point. after having seen several picture of the Frecce Tricolori, visiting their website and browsing through the article i got the impression that this what they are renowned for. but alright, you are the guy who's into aviation. i would be very glad if you could get me the part of the guideline where it says, the Commons FPs do not need to be educational in the strict sense, i did not find it so far.--Peter Weis (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And where does it say that an image has to be educational? That's exactly the point that EV is absent from the guidelines altogether. Commons FP (as opposed to Wikipedia FP) deals with the image itself, not the image in the context of a particular article. And as for colours, the truth is that most stunts are done with white smoke, the colours are mostly reserved for fly-bys and some formation manoeuvres. Wolf (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - after digging deeper and deeper in the mine of understanding, i unearth your idea here. besides colours or not, besides educational value or not - what is the aspect of this image that makes you think it deserves featured picture status, what makes it convincing?--Peter Weis (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I like the diagonal composition and - as mentioned below - the idea of the planes popping out from behind the cover as if in a low level air raid. By the way, I've just nominated a picture with high (I think) educational value. You can consider it to have a dedication just for you Really, no hard feelings. Wolf (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a final note. for further uploads and your personal interest: Commons:Project scope. please note that educational values is not absent from the guidelines altogether. after all - knowing the whole range of policies and guidelines is rather impossible. use this for your advantage. PETER WEIS TALK 11:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, but I would like to make the tree disappear. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say I uploaded this picture, because I like the tree, I like the idea of the planes popping out from behind the cover as if in a low level air raid. Wolf (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I understand why one wouldn't want the trees there, I like them as it shows (to some extent) how low the planes are flying. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The trees are not an issue. It adds IMO. FP to me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon. --Cayambe (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moulins La Mancha.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 00:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me --- Jebulon (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great place, great composition, great quality!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mila. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mila. --Myrabella (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 10:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support noisy sky (you cann see it with a magnifier), overlapping mills – but I like this picture very much! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Cayambe (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A nice composition. I'm always expecting D. Quichote de la Mancha to come out of the castle to fight the monsters... But there is an obvious ccw tilt that should be corrected. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, I think such a tilt is not that "obvious". I see other little issues, as always when I watch very carefully my pictures (I'm never fully happy with them), but I really don't find any tilt.--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Please bring the picture to full size and align the left and the right walls of the castle with the right margin. You'll see the tilt. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that previously. It seems more to be a perspective distortion IMO, because there is no other way where a tilt could be possible (and the right wall of the castle is not straight in real). Not sure it needs to be corrected. Thoughts about ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, it could be the effect of barrel distortion since a small focal distance was used -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reckon it's a fine photo, composition-wise. Sticking a grey point on the shadow of the foreground sail shows that there's a slight magenta tinge, there's also a touch of colour noise in the shadows, and it could be a little brighter and more saturated to emphasise the strength of the Spanish sun. I've uploaded a version incorporating these changes (aside): I'd be interested to hear what people think. Smalljim (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for comments and very nice and interesting work. No need to emphasize the strength of the spanish sun : I was under, and it was enough, for sure !! Maybe I prefer my work, because the landscape looks more "arid", a bit "dusty", and in fact it was so in real ...Let's discuss.--Jebulon (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft. --Karelj (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Moulins_La_Mancha.jpg

File:Praha, Háje, Crossway Veolia.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 15:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aktron (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose below par, insufficient sharpness. Sry, but this picture lacks excellency.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp and quite an ordinary picture. Athyllis (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary illustration — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Růžovka Rakousko.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 19:42:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit soft. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing extraordinary deserving to be featured imo. The lighting is not the best as well as the composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shade and size are not appropriate. — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 14:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wigry - eremy 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 10:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like the right edge of the picture. I believe either more of the buildings should have been included, or it should be left out completely. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as Maurilbert --Böhringer (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like much of it, but agree with Maurilbert on the crop. Jonathunder (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice photo --Pudelek (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Maurilbert--Llorenzi (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose idem. And Perspective distortion for the church--Jebulon (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, right corner cramped and perspective.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grande mosquee sayada perspective estompee.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 11:56:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Great mosque is the first one in the town of Sayada, it was built in 1750 and to this day the mosque has preserved its original appearance. Image created, uploaded and nominated by -- — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 11:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 11:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The crop was not better possible? You couldn't move backwards to widen the angle? Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the street is very narrow, you can see the geolocation of the place of taking the view. — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and crop is not so bad but too much noise. (after taking a look on the exif data I know why) --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for commenting. Regards — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 18:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is lacking. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose visible JPEG artefacts Cathy Richards (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite low quality... Best regards, –hover Fly | chat? 19:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite low quality. Too much noise--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liptovská Mara - church tower1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 14:15:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality substandard FP --Citron (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Quality is correct, if not extraordinary. Framing is not very interesting: lack of breathing space on the right hand side, whereas the man in a wife beater and the green hatchback on the left hand side could be left out. --74.59.181.116 20:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC) -- Please log in to vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness and CA below par, angle and framing.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Narodni trg Zadar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 19:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very nice picture ... but needs to go back to the "drawing board" to correct geometric distortion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I don't quite get what you mean, Alvesgaspar: since it is a panoramic view of a square space, the horizontal lines have to be skewed (into sections of sine waves, to be specific)... Actually, i just love the Escher-esque feeling of this candidate. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm only talking about the verticals, which I believe can be fixed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Um... The clock tower... --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. ?? verstehe die Frage nicht --Böhringer (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's referring to the slight ghost on the front-left wrough iron bracket atop the tower. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the naked guy but w/e, ~~Support~~ --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yeah, I see that stitching error now.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would be great if you could provide meta information on the equipment you used. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Exif --Böhringer (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice picture (subject, composition, colors, lighting...). There are no major problems with the verticals IMHO, except some distortion at the left. -- MJJR (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the verticals, and given it's an historic downtown, the walls might as well not be perfectly vertical IRL either. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palomena prasina qtl6.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 20:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nymph of a Green Shield Bug (Palomena prasina), fifth and last instar. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very nice picture and composition. But not up to the present standards in terms of image quality. Please take a look at the FP bug gallery. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy with the quality (an example of how this supposedly fails would be a stronger argument against it) --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO quality is good. --Andrey Legayev (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tamba52 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Alvesgaspar. Falls short of established macro standards. Lycaon (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the other two. The composition is good, but the lighting is off. Steven Walling 17:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a featurable level of detail compared to existing insect pics. --99of9 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 14:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per 99of9 -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 03:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9 --Memorino (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not sharp enough, imho. Sorry, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Albertus teolog (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I love this bug, and it's a quality image for sure, but not quite featured level for sharpness. Jonathunder (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Memorino (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per 99of9 --Citron (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pano of Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco from Twin Peaks 1 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 18:03:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fell that some of the landscape in the lower part is missing. The image seems a little bit tilt (may-be it is distortion due to image stitching). Ggia (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too obvious barrel distortion, affecting the horizon (which is curved) and the verticcal lines (mainly at right). Needs re-stitching with different parametes or pos-processing to straighten the lines. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice panorama IMO --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - see Alvesgaspar.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amanita muscaria 3 vliegenzwammen op rij.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 23:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Onderwijsgek - uploaded by Onderwijsgek - nominated by Onderwijsgek -- Onderwijsgek (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Onderwijsgek (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft and noisy, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice light --Zhuk (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack The High Fin Sperm Whale and unshaarp + low DOF. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy. --Aktron (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral noisy, but very nice Cathy Richards (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rick West at Skymont Boy Scout Camp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 04:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Navy Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Jennifer A. Villalovos - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Benchill -- Benchill (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Benchill (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Bad crop (too tight), bad illumination, farther parts of face not sharp and pretty noisy. Masur (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, all said by Masur. Sorry, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well lit behind the ear, otherwise not. --Elekhh (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmm, guy with black hat facing some dark wall in the shadow... that's definitely the worst composition ever. However, the technical quality of this picture is not that bad. :-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aktron (talk • contribs)
Oppose bad lightning, lots of noise Cathy Richards (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cmentarz na Rossie 7.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 07:45:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Wow, looked so good, I thought it already was FPX 72.91.241.104 16:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC) a no valid IP votum, please login first. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the background, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to some CA on the edges of the subject, and distracting overexposure in the background close to the subject. --Relic38 (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dundasite and Crocoite.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 08:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 08:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 08:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition seems slightly unbalanced, but the colours and shapes are so lovely, I can't oppose. --99of9 (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per 99of9. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: So beautiful, I thought I already was FPX! –hover Fly | chat? 16:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per 99of9. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. --Elekhh (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Karelj (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like salt or sugar-covered carrot or sweet potato sticks lol --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it looks like "Frites Citric" (saure Pommes) ;-)) -- Ra'ike T C 20:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could go for some of those if I was at the movies. =D --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very good. -- Felix König ✉ 18:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice. Jonathunder (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rossa - Lelewel.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 13:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The subject is dark, undetailed and unsharp. I don't think the image deserves the QI status either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- confusing background, dark subject. --Elekhh (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info retouched by kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- See above. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing an "alternative version", not made nor chosen by the nominator, is a bit confusing for reviewers I'm afraid...--Jebulon (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smaky 100 IMG 4149.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 05:07:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the "kill" button. --Von.grzanka (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically good (framing, sharpness), nice colours, historic image. --Cayambe (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good one. keep on rolling. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above --Jebulon (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, okay. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, would support, but it seems tilted. –hover Fly | chat? 13:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not! This should be under illusions! Still not sure if i should support it... –hover Fly | chat? 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should. You said you would if it's not titled :) --Lošmi (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, therefore,

- - - - Support: Great colors! –hover Fly | chat? 19:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cayambe. --Lošmi (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Mineral de Pozos 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 14:50:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wanted to support this, but I'd prefer the archway to be in focus. --Relic38 (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Epees IMG 5568-12b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 06:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Officer sword, France, First Empire. On display at Vevey historical museum. Focus stacking used to obtain sharpness on both the guard and handle on the same photograph. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hilt of the sword behind is poorly cut-out. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Could be featured nevertheless--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Moby Dick. Wolf (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cetacean is correct. There is a marked difference between the masking of both hilt versions. Lycaon (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Has been improved. Lycaon (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, thank you to the opposers for pointing these defects. I have uploaded an improved version where the smaller hilt is a scaled-down clone of the high-resolution one. Featurable or not, definitely better, I think. Rama (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support now, very much better indeed. The problem of the colichemarde is solved--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I like the idea but think it is not well implementd. Two reasons: the images are too dark, affecting the details of both the blade and the handle; and the composition is unbalanced. Why not move the handle upwards, as to become ligned-up with the top the sword, and show a little more of the blade? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not bad. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IAR 99.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 13:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wolf (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bravo! Another good one. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good illustration — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 14:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support i like your composition featuring the cloud. would be great if you could provide the meta data of your camera. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Done--Peter Weis (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try, just tell me, how to do it (I mean, how to add them to the file itself). Wolf (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You could either consider w:Exchangeable image file format#Viewing and editing Exif data or apply Template:Photo Information. Reediting exifs will assure that people downloading your image know about the technical details. Providing metadata helps to understand how an image was taken. Regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Albertus teolog (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed imo, for the file size very unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the file size very unsharp--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grasshopper June 2008-2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 16:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of an Egyptian grasshopper, second try. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is different now to the other candidates Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grasshopper June 2008-2.jpg and Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Grasshopper June 2008-2.jpg? I see no new version or another reason for a revote! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question according to the rules isn't it allowed to propose a photo for revote? Ggia (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info It is the same image. As far as I know there is no rule preventing re-nominations. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but looks like a waste of resources to re-upload the image, just because somebody want to nominate it as a feature picture. The rule doesn't prevent re-nomination.. I believe that you are right.. But has this been discussed before? Before most of us believe that something is nominated once. And if re-nomination is allowed.. should be clearly mentioned in the rules.. and this should not be done by re-uploading the image with different name (waste of resources to have duplicate identical images). Ggia (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the image was not uploaded as a new version... It is the same image! As for re-nominating a picture, the practise was not rare in the past 2 or 3 years. It is a fair thing to do if the first nomination did not receive much attention, which is the present case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter how much attention the picture got. Obviously the rules do not disallow renominations, so you are allowed to renominate an image as many times as you wish, even if it was rejected by a vote of 20 to 1. --Petritap (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. One way I'm not sure I agree with such a re-nomination, even if it is allowed by an unclear rule, but other way I didn't know this pic, and I'm happy to see it because it is very nice... Please convince me !!--Jebulon (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what to say to convince you, except that I love this picture and I feel more and more fascinated with the insect world. Do you realize how these little critters are so different from us? It's not by chance that the alliens appearing in the low-budget movies are inspired by them. Look at eyes. Not only the composite ones (which are banded) but also the three ocelli: two above the antennae and one below. Nobody knows how they work and what kind of vision these animals have. Look at the mouth parts. Scary, aren't they? Now, I realize that I have nominated this picture not only two but three times... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too short DOF for me. Sorry, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too short DOF for me. Sorry,--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dof and flash light are not convincing. aperture is okay, but focus could be better. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others above, mainly DOF. --Karelj (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor little and innocent thing... Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hallstatt z lodi 10.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 20:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Přepálená bílá (vzadu), protisvětlo, barvy mě taky netěší... myslím, že máš celou řadu mnohem lepších kandidátů na FP než takové snímky. --Aktron (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bezpochyby máš pravdu. Ještě včera jsem tu jeden měl a potřebaval jsem 2 hlasy. A to jsi udělal mrtvého brouka, že? --Karelj (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing really outstanding here. A good picture, for sure, yet not an FP. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberrations Cathy Richards (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aktron --Chmee2 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karelj (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SVT valdebatt 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 21:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by De rödgröna - uploaded by Pieter Kuiper - nominated by Athyllis -- Athyllis (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- What is this and why do you think it is featurable? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Who's the subject?

See: Swedish general election, 2010. I think it reminded me of one of the candidates to Commons Picture of the year, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_honor_guard_at_Tomb_of_the_Unknown_Soldier,_Alexander_Garden_welcomes_Michael_G._Mullen_2009-06-26_2.jpg. Athyllis (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Oh yes, but I'm afraid there is a considerable difference... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - some subjects not in focus. Jonathunder (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the point. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to one particular object. Athyllis (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm going to go out on a limb and support this one. The subject is the central woman, who eventually won the highest primary vote. This puts her in an interesting and valuable context, with good composition. There is a little noise, but I think it's acceptable for an indoor shot. --99of9 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: With 99of9 –hover Fly | chat? 14:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jonathunder and Alvesgaspar --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting use of DOF. Lycaon (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amanita Muscaria premio Bolo 2006 Parque Natural de la Sierra de Cardeña y Montoro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 00:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Camino a Gaia - uploaded by Camino a Gaia - nominated by Camino a Gaia -- Camino a Gaia (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Camino a Gaia (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy and too much purple fringing. And why the sudden stream of fly agarics? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Overly good (Can you add English description?) — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 13:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chromatic aberrations --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberrations, bokeh, noise Cathy Richards (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jetboot Jetski DM 2007 Krautsand 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 20:51:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Backlit (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Backlit (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good action shot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow.--Jebulon (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 08:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good. -- Felix König ✉ 18:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Memorino (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice shot. Congrats --Chmee2 (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:After study desk-detail.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 11:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PetarM - uploaded by PetarM - nominated by PetarM -- Mile (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I appreciate the light and shadows, however the composition isn't really convincing — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 13:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing on focus here. I also appreciate artsy photos, but I'm afraid this is not the best forum to have them evaluated. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Albertus teolog (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great composition. superb depth of field. shallow focus. too much luminance noise. severe chromatic abberation. still a good idea to provide an image not showing a certain item, but something rather intangible. see file usage here. there should be more featured picture candidates trying to display intangible things like emotions or else. --Peter Weis (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, also hard CAs. Sorry, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unclear subject Cathy Richards (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Had the composition been a tad better this could be featured. Athyllis (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montastraea cavernosa (Great Star Coral) with Elacatinus oceanops (Neon Goby).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 07:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support HQ & very interesting. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good. -- Felix König ✉ 18:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oh, baby pumpkins for Halloween... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

xD well seen!--Citron (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support very nice --Llez (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support yep. Lycaon (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Praha, Smíchov, pohled na noční Emauzy.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 15:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aktron (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Common night shot, nothing featurable here. Please take a look at the night shots taken by David Iliff: [4] -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Alvesgaspar. Sry, but a Canon is way more capable than this.--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilno - kosciol sw. Kazimierza.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 10:23:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The white balance seems off and the contrast somewhat dull. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is much to at the top and the power lines are distracting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it's too much cropped above -- Ra'ike T C 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop, not a lucky angle and bad lighting... --Aktron (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, underexposed Cathy Richards (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC) After 5th day -- Colin (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mineral de Pozos 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 14:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although do you think you could add the date? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment. It seems to me that all vertical lines slightly lean towards the left. --Cayambe (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral All are leaning... except the rightmost one! Would support though. –hover Fly | chat? 19:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image rotated. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose weird trees. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vignetting Lycaon (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ahh!!! Well!!! Hello my dear friend!!!! Is that the best you can do? Well, guess what... the effect is caused by the clouds!!!! If you take the time to analyze it carefully, you will see it. And probably you will find many, many more faults so I won´t think it is a systematic oppose. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely. Stellarkid (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Lycaon and IdLoveOne--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support after rotation. --Cayambe (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

Image:Lasius niger (Schwarze Wegameise).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 00:45:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by McIntosh Natura - uploaded by McIntosh Natura - nominated by McIntosh Natura -- McIntosh Natura (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- McIntosh Natura (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy and pixelly. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image quality is poor and the subject is not focused -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment You're right, it's not a perfect picture. Sorry!--McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pulmonata.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 20:11:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by H. Morin- restorated,uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slugs! My favourite! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fine old picture :-) -- Ra'ike T C 12:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it very much --Schnobby (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good restoration. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment great to see someone else who's into restorations. please upload original and refer to it on the image page. adding your restoration achievements by using the {{Retouched picture}} template or simply adding it to the info template will help to understand what you've done. providing metadata from this page could help others. several spots have not been taken care of yet. black/red snail features a huge crack (right in the middle of the snail); left to that snail right on top of the small mushroom another crack can be seen in the background; on the right side the snail which crawls upside down has a crack in its shell deriving from the paper structure; right beneath it between the two empty shells another crack can be seen. these are just my impressions. if those spots where left there intentionally - never mind. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tockus leucomelas 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 16:41:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting bird and I don't think the branches detract from the quality very much at all. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition! --Citron (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear, satisfying and interesting. Clementina talk 09:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 12:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment However, the hand processing for vanish the CA on the (a bit noisy) branches in foreground is visible. The two little branches below do not add, IMO. Maybe a FP, but not a perfect one.--Jebulon (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removed offending twigs. CA was never there (I checked on the uncropped original). Lycaon (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great image, high ev, alas disturbing ca per Jebulon. the original don't feature them on the bird itself, but on the branches - still visible in your edit. a reedit would would be nice. PETER WEIS TALK 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a strange blue color visible at high resolution between black and white feathers on the right wing of the bird (left), and near the beak too, on the neck feathers--Jebulon (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear and Crisp. Excellent image. Stellarkid (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful bird. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zebras Ngorongoro Crater.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 05:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 08:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better than the last zebra pic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IdLoveOne. Lycaon (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neat! Stellarkid (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jonathunder (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per fix. Thanks! Oppose until stray bit on the right is cropped out. (See note.) Steven Walling 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was just a cut-off zebra in the BG. Anyway, it's fixed now --Muhammad (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Our Lady of Međugorje.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 16:46:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background and a bit dark for my taste. What does she have on her nose? bamse (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: because it is underexposed and has a distrcting background -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose--McIntosh Natura (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chlorocebus Global.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 19:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why the Interactive large-image-viewer gives me an error when I try to load the image? Ggia (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's so large. I have the same problem. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of space in the center, and hardly any space around the edges. I'd prefer you reduced the former. --99of9 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well observed. The center space to be occupied by the label of the nineteenth century. This is a beta test for the digitization of the collection of primate skulls from the Museum of Toulouse, which will begin in December. The skull is shown here is a contemporary skull whose label has no historical interest.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I didn't think we featured beta tests! I'll still be happy to support with less blackspace. I understand this will make it inconsistent with the labelled ones when they arrive, but it will look better in our featured galleries. --99of9 (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - spacing and composition. Jonathunder (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't like the arrangement either -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Meerkat feb 09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 19:44:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The last upload by Fir0002, it would be nice if it could become a FP -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support without words... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Albertus teolog (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yay! Wolf (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 10.10.10 — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too tight crop on top. Let the poor thing breathe -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Another Believer (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Glad to see an image from Fir0002 that has not been savagely and cynically downsampled to just above FP requirements. I just wanted to add a note that Meercats do not run wild in Victoria, so this must be at a zoo, but the details are missing from the description. --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose the still insufficient description. 99of9 (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support : Going right on my desktop! –hover Fly | chat? 16:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop on top. Bad composition--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Cute, but too tight framing on top. --Elekhh (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Felix König ✉ 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! The crop is close but does not disrupt the image for me. --Relic38 (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight framing. Lycaon (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop's fine to me. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like this photo, but it should have a bit larger crop to be featured. Jonathunder (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. Rastrojo _(D•ES) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nymphaea alba in Duisburg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 14:03:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —DerHexer (Talk) 14:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Love the soft texture! –hover Fly | chat? 14:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Memorino (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 15:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition (the fly too) — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 16:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niemot | ⁂ 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Nearly so nice like DerHexer himself :P[reply]
Oppose Don't like the fly and the holes in the under petals. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you like how I've photographed that fly or does it disturb in general? Flies are kinda usual here, see e. g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Looks a bit symbiotic to me. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I don't really know what the main pollinators of the plant are, but I don't think a bug-free flower was impossible task. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the flower is lovely; the fly is part of the composition and doesn't distract, in my view. Jonathunder (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:StSophiaChurch-Sofia-10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 17:52:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The nave of the old basilica St. Sofia in Sofia, Bulgaria.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Albertus teolog (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but I think that furnitures (Chairs, benches ?) are too dark (underexposure?)--Jebulon (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed zones and subexposed zones. Bad quality--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Lmbuga. --Llorenzi (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Troki - zamek.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 20:52:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Kind of 'meh' to me. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed Cathy Richards (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose a bit too dark and gray and the boats don't fit into the picture --McIntosh Natura (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

File:20100820 Spinalonga island Crete Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 21:28:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really very nice picture, but unfortunately the sky is very noisy. -- MJJR (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little, but nothing significant. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to mention that the resolution of this image is 18.372 × 2.790 = 51.257.880 (around 50 megapixels). Looking to this image ie. 50% of the original size you don't see much noise. Ggia (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral the grain and gradient in the sky are removable. consider uploading an edit. be aware that displaying an image is not the only form of usage. especially if it gets to printing, noise is quite a pain. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question how the noise in the sky can be removed? Ggia (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment depends on your software. i use photoshop and a noise plugin. photoshop itself comes along with a sufficient method of noise reduction, but this plugin has proven better quality and usability. if you don't have the technical requirements to perform noise reduction, feel free to drop a line - i can take care of it. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the comment.. I tried neatimage.. but exif information disappeared.. the new version is updated but has half size from the original one.. Ggia (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment noise reduction most not be used on the whole image in your case. try to apply a layer mask, keeping the rest of the image unharmed. details won't get lost in non-sky areas. metadata can be reapplied: w:Exchangeable image file format#Viewing and editing Exif data or as an alternative use Template:Photo Information --Peter Weis (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried once more to reduce the noise from the sky appling a mask there. The image is updated. Ggia (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment severe change. the still obvious gradient is very distracting. please reconsider working on it as well. dunno whether this has to do with the light situation on the set, the specs of your equip or anything else. PETER WEIS TALK 22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The image is underexposed. Try to correct brightness and constrast and you will see how it will become more vivid (yes, I did try). Also, the composition would benefit from cropping out the headland at right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor white balance, quality imo not good enough --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I uploaded a new version, with much more improvements. This image is made from the beginning directly from raw image files. The sky has no obvious gradient or noise (thanks to the comment by Peter Weis and the very good advices about denoising filter - mask - I did't know before how to remove noise from sky). The white balance I think is better now and natural (thanks to the comment by kaʁstn). The colors are more vivid, the sea is more bright and the whole image is cropped a little bit in the right (thanks to the comment by Alvesgaspar). Ggia (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you see something wrong please add a note in the image. Ggia (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image is still underexposed, in my opinion. What I meant with the headland at right was to remove it all! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the comment.. did you try to refresh you browser.. probably you have the old version from the cache and not the new version.. In my screen it doesn't look underexposed.. I think the headland in the right part of the image is balanced with the left part (see and land). Of-course a new cropped version of this image if you want to create/suggest.. is also welcome.. Fell free to update the image if you want. Ggia (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I re-uploader the image with more bright colors. Ggia (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support now, though there is an obvious geometric distortion at left (check the posts). But you have time to make the necessary corrections... Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antarctica 1912 edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 00:46:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info edited, uploaded and nominated by Peter Weis (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter Weis (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great :) --Phyrexian (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, loses a bit sharpness at borders but still looks good to me. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong supportNicolas M. Perrault (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Maps

File:Boletus erythropus 2010 G3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 09:40:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Dotted Stem Bolete Boletus erythropus. Ukraine.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support not bad --Mile (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good composition, but I don't like the flash light much and outside the mushroom is pretty noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand THFSW, but I think it (the flash light) gives a very good effect. I like this. No unacceptable noise to me.--Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I also like that light. I tried to reduce noise at borders in File:Boletus_erythropus_2010_G3_edited.jpg. Feel free to do whatever you want to do with. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would prefer if in the image a mask will be applied in the upper part (above mushroom).. in order to increase the brightness. But the image nerveless is good. Ggia (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... after pondering. --Cayambe (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise is not a very big problem imo, but the flash. The upper part of the mushroom is too dark and looks like lampshade which lighted the lower half. The background looks somehow photographed somewhere else and then copied in it (I think because of the flash). The foliage at the bottom left should be also removed before taking an image. It can't be a big problem to take a photo of the the mushroom with a tripod without falsh light. Quality is okay, but I think it could be better too. So this picture isn't featured in my opinion! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. Lycaon (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Carschten--Miguel Bugallo 21:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Eastern Water Dragon Clontarf.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 10:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; crop could be discussed but what I can see looks fine to me. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality Cathy Richards (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20-1-Jokulsarlon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 16:25:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Silverkey - uploaded by Silverkey - nominated by Silverkey -- Silverkey (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Silverkey (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hard chromatic aberrations, unbalanced composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer kaʁstn.--Jebulon (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support despite problems with colour, it looks fine Cathy Richards (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parthenon-2008.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 17:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

x300px|The Parthenon of Athens, Greece.

Info created by Kallistos - uploaded by Kallistos - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Habib M'HENNI ^{[¿tell me?]} 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective correction is not always a mandatory, especially in this case, but I'm very disturbed here by the leaning scaffoldings left and right...--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Jebulon. Also CAs, esp. at left side. Sorry, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personally, I think that the warping adds depth. I like it! –hover Fly | chat? 15:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can agree about the warping of the monument. But not with the leaning scaffoldings... --Jebulon (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Modern intrusions. Sorry. --99of9 (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberrations Cathy Richards (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perspective correction required --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. Perspective correction required--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak opposeGood composition but modern intrusions Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le Chapeau de Paille by Peter Paul Rubens.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 23:39:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Peter Paul Rubens/National Gallery London, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Maedin
Support —Maedin\^talk 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah- Rubens! Lovely photo. Love Rubens, being just his type. Stellarkid (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Welcome back to our company, Maedin! I don't know why but always found this painting creepy. The expression of the eyes and mouth, the stormy sky, the way breasts are hold by the dress... Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, she is a little scary! I wonder what Rubens thought, :p Maedin\^talk 21:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The painting is beautiful, but it's a bad digital reproduction, you can't see the detail of the true painting, canvass, paint, and halftoning is visible. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look on the detail of this reproduction Przykuta → [edit] 06:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I mean, that's a weird digital issue. In a good digital file of a painting it should be like you're looking at it in person, where you can see the brushstrokes on the canvass. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I hadn't noticed. Maedin\^talk 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:African penguins.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 01:54:10

Info Low resolution, compounded by the fact that the actual subjects are only a small fraction of the picture. I'm not saying it isn't nice, but it's not feature-worthy anymore. (Original nomination) (2007 delisting discussion)
Delist -- 99of9 (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This is not a fpx! –hover Fly | chat? 13:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It is a very nice picture, but size + tilt = delist. Poor penguins. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom.--Cayambe (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solsort.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 01:41:53

Info Less than half the required size, and underexposed such that it lacks detail on the bird's body. Very unlikely to be featured if nominated now. (Original nomination) (2007 delisting discussion)
Delist -- 99of9 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Cathy Richards (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per 99of9. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist File size, also there is a halo around the belly of the bird. --Cayambe (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good picture, but too low resolution ... --McIntosh Natura (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist underexposed in the bird body / low resolution.. Ggia (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amphiprion ocellaris at Raja Ampat.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 06:41:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hulivili - uploaded by Haplochromis - nominated by NaidNdeso -- DIAN (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a beautiful underwater picture of Raja Ampat, Papua, Indonesia DIAN (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality substandard. A good underwater picture looks like at this picture File:Australian_blenny.jpg! --Citron (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 13:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a very nice pic, but I agree with Citron. --Phyrexian (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Citron. Lycaon (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several areas overexposed and low quality --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Citron --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor focus. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eustrombus gigas 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 15:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eustrombus gigas, Strombidae, length 20 cm, originating from the Caribbean. Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
From left to right: Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Support -- Llez (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another good one. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and valuable.--Umnik (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice indeed. ZooFari 06:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 11:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good, as usual. How many different species of shells are there?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
** InfoDo you mean in my collection or at all? At all, there exist about 80.000 - 100.000 (known) species. It's still a lot of work to do... --Llez (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Jonathunder (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Outstanding Job Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--თეკა (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Scopus umbretta qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 09:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Hammerhead (Scopus umbretta) in the Wilhelma Zoo, Stuttgart, Germany. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Quartl (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good zoo photo. But it's a bit noisy/oversharpened. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, I did not sharpen the image, but I could blur the green in the background if necessary. --Quartl (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The oversharpening-comment referred to the (very) small noise ;-) But I wouldn't change anything at the image. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noise? What noise? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that almost a quarter left does not add...--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to apply the rule of thirds here, and I think the image is well balanced (as is the bird), but of course I'm open to other suggestions. --Quartl (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I didn't oppose... I really don't know, because I'm not sure... I'll wait a bit, and probably support...;)--Jebulon (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not fond of the unnatural setting. Lycaon (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems like it has a white balance problem... –hover Fly | chat? 14:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what exactly is the problem? Are the colors too warm or too cold in your view? White balance could be easily adjusted. --Quartl (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Qianlong Emperor in Ceremonial Armour on Horseback.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 03:26:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Giuseppe Castiglione - uploaded by Gryffindor and Paris 16 - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good to me. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great quality. source seems to be broken. metadata would be nice if available. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kehlen chapelle rue d Olm int 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 09:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by --Cayambe (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Agnus Dei, Lamb of God, by an unknown 19th century artisan/artist in a chapel in Luxembourg. Venite omnes - Come all of you to me. For scale: the tiles are 15x15 cm wide.
An irony of history: Jesus opposed the sacrifice of animals (mainly lambs)..., to later become, after his own sacrifice on the Cross, the Lamb of God.
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, loses a bit sharpness at borders but still looks good to me. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and valuable. -- MJJR (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Alsfeld17crop 2010-07-03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 18:50:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:KlausFoehl -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose The perspective of the building seems that it was corrected manually not very carefully. --Aktron (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info The buildings themselves are not vertical, please see File:Alsfeld17rect 2010-07-03.jpg. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support A bit unsharp some places, but the lighting is good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Emha (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malá Fatra by Pudelek 03 - Pekelník.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 15:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality substandard Cathy Richards (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sépulture de Teviec Global.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 08:08:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a stitching ghost on the upper-left horns. Sting (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Until the problems are fixed. Otherwise, it's another excellent photo. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Llez and Sting: Can you please put the image notes on the nomination page instead of the actual image? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done There were several problems. Normally corrected --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of your bests, IMO--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- This is an amazing picture but I don't understand what really is. It looks like an archeological site but the whole thing is signed. Why? I think that the picture file needs a proper explanation. Will come back here, of course! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An exhibition "National" on the prehistory begins at the Museum of Toulouse in 2 days. I am still under embargo for information. Answer Wednesday. Thank you for your curiosity for "Philippe Lacomme" --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Myrabella (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dans l'attente de la fin de l'embargo :-) --Cayambe (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Giant picture! --Citron (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Embargo ended : see caption and for those who read French Théviec --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks. --Cayambe (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--თეკა (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Fijian Flower Close-up.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 00:49:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all byNicolas M. Perrault -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF too shallow. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many fuzzy areas --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too small DOF Athyllis (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arnisee (Switzerland).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 02:51:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by McIntosh Natura - uploaded by McIntosh Natura - nominated by McIntosh Natura -- McIntosh Natura (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- McIntosh Natura (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, blown highlights and purple fringing. ~~--70.70.230.55~~ 03:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that's me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to oppose? Your supportive words do not seem very supportive :). 99of9 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sorry! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What to you mean by "blown highlights"? And what could be done to improve the picture?--McIntosh Natura (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Das bedeutet, dass die hellen Stellen im Bild überbelichtet sind. Schau dir den hintersten Berg an; dessen Schneefelder sind so hell, dass sie im Bild komplett weiss sind - sprich, Helligkeitsunterschiede im Schnee sieht man nicht mehr. Der Kern des Problems ist, dass heutige Dateiformate und Bildschirme Helligkeitsunterschiede nur in einem bestimmten Bereich darstellen können, und wenn ein Bereich heller ist, kommt einfach alles als weiss raus. Du könntest nun das Bild nachträglich abdunkeln, aber das nützt nichts, da sämtliche Details in diesem Bereich bereits endgültig verloren sind. Es sei denn, du hättest noch eine dünklere Version dieses Bildes oder ein RAW-File, das idr. einen grösseren Kontrastumfang als das JPEG aufweist; dort sind die Details in diesem Bereich vielleicht noch vorhanden - Dann müsstest du aus dem RAW ein neues JPEG machen, dass dünkler ist (bzw. einen "zusammengestauchten" Kontrastumfang hat, der ins JPEG-Format rein passt). --Kabelleger (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für die ausführliche Antwort, Kabelleger! Leider sind die Helligkeitsverhältnisse auch beim Originalbild nicht besser... Okay, THFSW, now I know what you mean by "blown highlights." You're right, that's a problem, thanks for pointing to that. However, I still kinda like the picture... Let's wait what others think of it.--McIntosh Natura (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too. Is there any way you could reshoot with a darker sky, and combine it on this? If you can geocode it you may want to look into VIC. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Unfortunately I can't reshoot it (at least not now) and the original version isn't better. I'll try with VIC, thanx!--McIntosh Natura (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeI do not know what it happens in this photo: What happens with mountains of the bottom (too blue or white, and very bad)? There are artifacts (sky)? I don't like it, the color of the mountains of the bottom are disturbing--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "mountains of the bottom"? Can you explain that (in Spanish, if you want to)?--McIntosh Natura (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lo siento, no me expreso demasiado bien en inglés. Quería decir "las montañas del fondo", la azul y la blanca. Su contraste y claridad son excesivos para su color y definición.--Miguel Bugallo 10:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hace nada. Gracias para contribuir incluso que es un esfuerzo para ti de escribir en inglés! Ahora lo comprendo: "en el fondo" en tu sentido quiere decir "in the background", "bottom" means "basa". A decir verdad a mi personalmente no me molesta que las montañas tengan demasiado azul y blanco. Pero gracias para tu contribución!--McIntosh Natura (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "At the background", not "at the botton"--Miguel Bugallo 15:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All right, let's remove this nomination! My only problem is, that I don't know how to do that! Can someone help me and do that for me? Thanks! --McIntosh Natura (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can write {{withdraw}}. See this one--Miguel Bugallo 19:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)]]--Miguel Bugallo 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

The picture doesn't seem to be good enough, it's only wasting space on this page. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20100729 Cathedral and Sassis Matera Italy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 21:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Do have that GP-1 geocoder thing with your D700? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes.. and I am pissed off about the cable of this unit... because after time using the cable, it is damaged and you have to buy a new one. And a new one cost $44.95 [5]. Ggia (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the quality and the light. A little something bothers me in the composition, though. It somewhat looks like there's not enough sky atop the hill, or not enough hill under the buldings... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral agree with Maurilbert.--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will try to add more sky to the top. Ggia (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too tight crop (top, right, bottom) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the file has been updated.. has more sky in the top. Remember it is a panorama focusing the Matera Cathedral. Ggia (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very good light and high quality. -- Felix König ✉ 18:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as kaʁstn and below cut off too much, too bad --Böhringer (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Good quality and beatiful light (I want a D700 too) but the framing doesn't convince me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop. Lycaon (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sommarnöje (1886), akvarell av Anders Zorn.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 04:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Painted by Anders Zorn - Hi-res uploaded by AlphaZeta - nominated by IdLoveOne -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's okay for me. --Citron (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Green lynx spider Peucetia viridans.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 01:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wintertanager - uploaded by Wintertanager - nominated by Wintertanager -- Wintertanager (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wintertanager -- Wintertanager (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is in focus...? Masur (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing is in focus, really. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, thanks... Learning! Wintertanager (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 14:51:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by mbz1 - uploaded by mbz1 - nominated by ברוקולי -- Kooritza (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kooritza (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see just lot of grey and some distortions. Really, really nothing featured to me, neither the subject nor the composition. Mila has much better photos imo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just an interesting picture of a rainy day at the lake --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it, IMO great compsition! –hover Fly | chat? 19:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a picture about atmosphere... and therefore the perspective distortion doesn't bother me here. .--Cayambe (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice atmosphere --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Stellarkid (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pic and interesting subject. --Aktron (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Carschten. Lycaon (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. --Petritap (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think that the fog on the lens to the left is an issue. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Carschten. --Karelj (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Carschten --Chmee2 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Golden Gate Bridge at sunset 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 15:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Kooritza (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kooritza (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Felix König ✉ 18:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors - too much white, composition. --Mile (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's wrong with the colors? Interesting atmosphere --Schnobby (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the atmosphere! --Citron (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition. rather touristic impression of the bridge, but still great. tif would be great - why did you crop/downsample? PETER WEIS TALK 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 11:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the landscape, but not too much the picture. Improvable composition, rule of thirds--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Well, I like it a lot though some detail is missing; I wonder how it will look when printed. Why wasn't nominated before? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)~[reply]
Support--McIntosh Natura (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --თეკა (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I've been using this as a wallpaper for a few days. I just never realized I forgot to vote! Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example of photo collage against censorship.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 17:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photo collages and montages are a popular tool to express all types of ideas. [[6]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Executed pretty well, pretty eye-catching and cheeky IMO, the edges of the particular images are a bit harsh though. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - user uploaded this simply to make a WP:POINT. I have nominated it for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks photoshopped. The "X"s look drawn-on and unrealistic. Maybe it's just the lighting. Rocket000 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Serious) Comment Wow, I just noticed how awesome that Image Annotator got. The magnification thing is so cool. You can use it here to read to text. Rocket000 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--McIntosh Natura (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. And the boy's hand is out of focus. --Petritap (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The stitching errors! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are kidding, right??? ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks like Tomas has covered their mouths with something. Let them speak, man! --99of9 (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But they are speaking! You may not be listening! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I invite the community to enter the discussion of the deletion of this image at [[7]]--Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Censored thought.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 18:03:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lol interesting concept, but I don't think FPC's gonna have much sense of humor for something like this; FPC's usually very serious about photography. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, FPC is not about good photography I am afraid... or much else! That is my opinion, of course. Commons is a repository of images to be used in different articles, etc... This one is meant to illustrate censorship. Of course, nothing to do with what some people may think about the issues here! ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - user uploaded this simply to make a WP:POINT. I have nominated it for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda don't mind this one as it could be used for other purposes, but nominating here is going too far. FPC is serious business. Rocket000 (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--McIntosh Natura (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Otherwise fine picture, but ruined by the addition of text and graphics. --Petritap (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I invite the community to enter the discussion of the deletion of this image at [[8]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hypselodoris bullocki.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 17:06:42

Info Out of the focus. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Citron (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nom. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nom. --Cayambe (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Cathy Richards (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nom --McIntosh Natura (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom Ggia (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barents Sea in Bloom.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 17:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Norman Kuring (NASA) - uploaded by & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A summer phytoplankton bloom in the Barents Sea.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Memorino (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I love geography and stuff like that, but this has too many clouds, I thought I was looking at Hudson Bay. Can't see Britain, France, Denmark, just most of the water but no way of knowing without the title. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lithic core - PRE 2009.0.191.1-IMG 1431-1432-1433-gradient.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 16:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flint Lithic core. Three views of the same object. Found at Le Grand-Pressigny. Offered by Edouard Harlé to Toulouse museum.

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this but the background shows strange geometric patterns at full res. Please fix. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Color banding maybe? It seems minimal to me Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you blurred the background, that should fix it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip, I've tried to bluring the background. May the version in solid black is better? Rama (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i would support solid black version - gradients can be disturbing if reusing an image (print, presentation, etc.) please consider nominating solid colour/transparency. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 15:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, what is your own choice as nominator ? I would like to support one of the two, but I don't know where is the nomination...--Jebulon (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt1[edit]

Info Replaced File:Lithic core - PRE 2009.0.191.1-IMG 1431-1432-1433-gradient.jpg with File:Lithic core - PRE 2009.0.191.1-IMG 1431-1432-1433-black.jpg as nomination (I hope that this is an OK thing to do). Rama (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support solid black background version. i think adding "alt1" or something is more considerate here. the votes for/against the old version are only seen in the context of the updated version - seems rather confusing if not showing both versions. PETER WEIS TALK 22:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? Rama (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well the first image should remain the gradient version. otherwise using two pictures would not make much sense. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, this one is much better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The white balance on the top one appears different to the other two. --99of9 (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rules1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 16:49:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The dam of Rules, on the Guadalfeo River, Andalusia, Spain

Info all concerning the picture by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First things first: I Support! I love your images and this is again a very good one. The composition is lovely but not perfect (tight crop at right and left, foreground a bit full/distracting), the lightning and the colours are very good. Not soooo good at your picture is the quality. Sharpness is okay, but I don't understand ISO 200... Sky is noisy, and I think the whole quality would be better with ISO 100. But of course it's not too bad (you see, I support :-)). Regards --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC) if you want to answer please do it in German ;-)[reply]
- Erstens: I'm sure you may understand my poor english, which is much better than my german ( ich mag lieber Deutsch, aber english is easier to use...). ISO 200: Very simple: it was for me the beginning of the use of this new camera. It is an automatic setting and the lowest one, and I didn't know how to change it at the time !!! Am Ende: Vielen Dank für alle unverdiente Komplimente --Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ein bisschen Deutsch war ja dabei :-) The compliments are accurate! I know the problem with the cameras where 200 looks likes the lowest ISO... Pity, but overall at your image not too bad. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, and since I am in the water sector, double nice... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too poor quality (lacking details) to be considered. What lens are you using? ISO 200 should not be a limiting factor here. Lycaon (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome back, Lycaon !--Jebulon (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - thank you, and what lens? Lycaon (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I think Lycaon has a point here. You really have to find some sous and purchase a couple of higher quality lenses: one multi-purpose zoom and one macro. I wonder why the image is so undetailed and blurred. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SO undetailed ? SO blurred ? A bit exageration IMhO...--Jebulon (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The picture is good enough for its intended purpose. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That are the quality problems I tried to pointed out... But I don't find them too bad --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 08:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I agree with Tomascastelazo: nice and useful image that is certainly good enough for its intended purpose. But due to some minor flaws (e.g. noise in the sky at full resolution) just not FP... -- MJJR (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support noisy and blurred, however it looks very attractive Cathy Richards (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cathy Richards, especially on the effect on the water. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon.--MASHAUNIX 18:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young Lincoln By Charles Keck.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 11:45:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by [[Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)|]] - uploaded by [[User:Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)|]] - nominated by USERNAME -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry but the statue and parts of the background seems to be covered in lighting issues and chromatic aberration. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper IdLoveOne. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks overexposed Cathy Richards (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estrela Março 2010-44.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 19:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info I tried to capture the three different planes in a stormy, snowy environment: the plants (in the foreground), the mountains and the sky. I love the result though I'm not sure it has FP quality. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is a bit low, and I don't like the composition. It's a good idea, but I'd prefer more on both sides, even a panorama, and I think you included too much sky. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per thfsw. --158.158.223.2 03:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Please login to vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not too bad, might be better if it were wider. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing extraordinary to be a FP Cathy Richards (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tail of Czech Air Force Airbus A319 CJ.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 20:46:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Wolf (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd rather see the whole airplane, and the crop on the vertical and left horizontal stabilizer is too tight. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is of course a QI, but I don't know if it's really outstanding enough for featured... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well a polarizer could help there. --Aktron (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop, per The High Fin Sperm Whale--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I don't mind a really good photo of a part of something (and this is good quality), but I wished you'd gotten the whole tail, the bottom of it is missing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good detail, but composition unbalanced IMO. --Elekhh (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks incomplete and is little contrast. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose try using a polarizer next time - this will add some contrast to the image and is great if working with skies. your composition is not very convincing to me. no rules of third, no parallels, no straight horizon. a distorted/corrected version could be more appealing. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the picture is nice, but definetly not outstanding and isn't encyclopedically useful because it doesn't feature the whole machine (i.e. it would have to be very impressive or show the remaining parts of the plane as well in order so that it could be considered featured)--MASHAUNIX 23:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I give up. Why would a study of an airliner's tail, with the most minute details visible, not be encyclopedically useful...? Wolf (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Wildgrubenspitzen Roggalspitze.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 20:31:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support But could you actually put the note around the mountain, instead of a tiny one above it? And was this made with hugin? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the 1 Question, I do not understand (can not live English) // the 2nd Question = I have made the panorama with PTGui --Böhringer (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let me try to translate: Konnten Sie die Anmerkung um den Berg, anstelle von einem kleinen über ihm wirklich setzen? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love it--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great one! --McIntosh Natura (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is a really nice shot - sun and clouds, the mountains... --Schnobby (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--თეკა (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice compo --Muhammad (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athyllis (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panorama of Malbork Castle, part 4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 15:56:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me (minor changes by Carschten). View of Malbork Castle with Nogat river, shot in the evening. See similar shots. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —DerHexer (Talk) 15:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot --Memorino (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversharpened and downsampled. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I haven't seen that Carschten's change downscaled that file. o_O That should be fixed, true. —DerHexer (Talk) 17:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Done —DerHexer (Talk) 18:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks for fixing it. looks more appealing now. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support I don't know. I like the composition and lighting, but it looks like it's tilted, and the blurry birds are annoying. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could easily remove the birds, and I'm neither satisfied with its rotation. But I don't know in which way it should be tilted. Any ideas so that I can combine both tasks? Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be rotated a little bit clockwise. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly as I remember it. Lycaon (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shadow in the foreground is a little unfortunate, but still an outstanding photograph of a historic subject. Steven Walling 19:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Isn't it quite unsharp? And for a panorama pic I would like to see the whole castle. Athyllis (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tremo, Os Ánxeles, Brión. Vicente Ramos Rodríguez.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 09:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez - uploaded by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez - nominated by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez| -- Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--McIntosh Natura (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support superb bokeh, high resolution, good quality. keep on rollin'. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only one reservation: the crop of the pedestal looks a bit random.--Jebulon (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Statues on Stone Bridge in Písek (5).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 17:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Chmee2 (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chromatic ~~aberrations~~ noise in the sky--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for vote, however can you please marked me where CA is? I will try learn for my mistake for next time...--Chmee2 (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, mistake. It want to say "noise". All the sky in the part superior. There is no a uniform color: several violets, blue… (If your you want, I can try to reduce it)--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to invest your time on this, I will be glad. Any help is welcome every time :) However, this colours are there because of some soft clouds were present in the time of origin :/ --Chmee2 (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Statues on Stone Bridge in Písek (5) retouched.jpg. I am not sure that it is better (not FP to me: I can't reduce all tne chromatic noise).--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the best lighting and image quality. Why such weird exposure choice (1:1250, ISO 400)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sophie Milman at Waterloo adjusted.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2010 at 21:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Canadian jazz singer Sophie Milman, in concert. Image created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Tabercil -- Tabercil (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even in the thumbnail it's too noisy. --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

--Berthold Werner (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll withdraw the nomination. Looks like I might have to upgrade my equipment... Tabercil (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or try for Valued Image instead of FP. --99of9 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apple II IMG 4214.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 21:08:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apple II computer. On display at the Musée Bolo, EPFL, Lausanne.

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educational value. Steven Walling 19:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo, encyclopedic illustration, nostalgia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since you need at least 5 supports, I'll vote here, too. It's definitely a good pic! :) --McIntosh Natura (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the seventh, the last day. FP, IMO, per others--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Cheval fontaine fremiet carpeaux.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 22:48:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me, Sculpture by Frémiet -- Jebulon (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure that the fountain or the horse isn't copyright reserved? COM:FOP France wouldn't be effective here... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While created in the middle of the 19th century? I think the artist doesn't mind. -- Sting (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still have to watch out : If the work was made, say in 1865, and that the author died in 1920, then it's copyright reserved until 2020 (100 years after the artist's death in France, I believe). (Note that the dates I used are arbitrairy, just to illustrate the point that it may still be copyrighted...) -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have an answer here, with other photos of works of this sculptor, no more copyrighted. And don't worry, 70 years after the death of the author are really, really enough !!! (You have no idea how it is a problem which makes french members of this community of "Commons" careful !!). Well, you may support now !--Jebulon (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Might want to highlight the fish a bit more thoughNicolas M. Perrault (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ publicité déguisée --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
???--Jebulon (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support sorry, but your comments on my talk page were an invention to oppose with the rationale covert advertising. Should be a joke ;-P --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a joke. Sorry for the very horrible misunderstanding, due to the tongue IMO. As you have seen, the joking advertising was absolutely note "covert" ! And thanks for support.--Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publicité? Mais pour quoi? L'auteur est mort il y a un siecle. Ce n'est donc pas pour l'oeuvre elle-meme. Elle est ou cette publicite que tu as su demasquee si facilement? Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pas de problème, c'est un malentendu, c'est réglé.--Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice composition --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks cool, but wouldn't it really be better for the purpose if the water didn't divert attention from the statue?--MASHAUNIX 18:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really, because the water is part of the artwork. The water is supposed to be in the way, it is the way that one would see it in real life. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Mashaunix, but your oppose is a nonsense. It is not a "statue", as you say, but it is a fountain. I've never seen a fountain without water, because it is its purpose. Particularly this one: the horse is a "marine horse" (with a fishtail, like a siren), and you may see a dolphin spitting water... And I don't really know what other I may say...--Jebulon (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK then, thanks for explaining it; I've put a question mark there for a reason.--MASHAUNIX 22:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 21:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athyllis (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Porto Covo March 2010-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 22:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Walking on the beach (back to minimalism). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like, mainly, the composition--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very artistic, but I don't see much EV here. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition with the less common "father and son" theme. --Elekhh (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The quality's good, but there's virtually no subject. --IdLoveOne (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find something outstanding in this image. If the subject of this image is the waves, the color of Atlantic sea or the color of the sand.. I believe a better image demonstrating these things is possible. Ggia (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty colors, good lighting, but rather uninspiring composition. What exactly is the focus here? I'm with THFSW on lack of educational value. Steven Walling 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's a good picture and there are several messages you can associate with it. Like it! --McIntosh Natura (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is good, but I'm hesitant to support, simply due to its composition, as noted by others above. It's nothing astounding to me, but it isn't bad either, which is why I'm neutral. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me the subject is "walking on the beach": People and nature. I don't know if it's useful, but it's a human activity--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez --Cayambe (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Araneus diadematus qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 12:27:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Underside of a Diadem Spider. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Quartl (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The legs are OOF and it looks over-sharpened, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't do focus stacking here because the net was in constant slight motion and was quite happy to get the body of the spider as sharp as it is; I didn't perform any manual sharpening. --Quartl (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support das ist gut --Böhringer (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support sharpening doesn't seem too bad to me and the main parts are quite well focused.--McIntosh Natura (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 07:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pholiota squarrosa 4.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 17:23:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balanced composition, good focus, lovely lighting. Steven Walling 19:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not! --Citron (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very good lightning (but a bit underexposed), nice quality, but unbalanced composition. Disturbing wood at the bottom and bokeh in the background. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I prefer the composition below, and this one is more underexposed. --Relic38 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See the comments in the next image (alt)--Miguel Bugallo 21:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per myself below. You could also shoot on an overcast day. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Edit by Muhammad --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral except the underexposure the same critique as above, sorry... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cropped out the wood. Looks much balanced now --Muhammad (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The wood portion can be cropped out but it doesn't bother me --Muhammad (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shocking news... it's not Pholiota squarrosa, but Hypholoma fasciculare. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that there's more focus on the subject in this one. --IdLoveOne
Support per Muhammad--MASHAUNIX 19:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, composition and detail are good, however it's just a little underexposed. If this was a subject that could possibly run away before your next shot I'd understand. In this case there is plenty of time to get a better shot. --Relic38 (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Relic38. + White balance: I can understand the light of sunset if your image is a landscape. But if your image is a mushroom... --Miguel Bugallo 21:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am not right, but I am not in agreement with the white balance--Miguel Bugallo 21:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also overexposed (I see it with adobe lightroom 3.0)--Miguel Bugallo 21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually quite close to sunset. It was taken about 6:45 or so and the sun was not to far above the horizon. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The background is too bright. Get a reflector or use a flash. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stictocephala bisonia qtl4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 12:16:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Buffalo Treehopper boring a hole into a branch. The holes to the left are probably not caused by the cicada but are lenticels. To estimate the size of the bug see the second image on the description page. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps it should be more cropped though. Athyllis (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. Nice detail. --Elekhh (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support But per Athyllis. sorry, forgot to sign --McIntosh Natura (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be cropped a little. BTW, McIntosh Natura, you forgot your sig. --Relic38 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info cropped a bit. --Quartl (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Getting this requires lot of patience...--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 17:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 21:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hastdutoene (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Barack Obama sitting at the Resolute desk 2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 03:23:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pete Souza - uploaded by Philip Stevens - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, heavy distortion, and the desk is OOF. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, yeah, on second inspection (which you'd think I'd have learned is more reliable than the first), it's not as good as it appeared. Nevermind on this one... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gosau kostely.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 21:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good pic, but the shadow on the meadow is really disturbing. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good pic, but vignetting and shadow. To me, a bit overexposed --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other version (File:Gosau kostely-retouched.jpg). I have taken the license to create another version, the original image is good.--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, nice one, Luis! Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice shot, but vignetting and CA. ---donald- (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vignetting... you're jokers. Pleasing composition and good not over-saturated colours. Chalger (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate[edit]

Info Edit by Lmbuga -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 20:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metz Cathedral 001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 14:11:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coronation of Mary, Window by Hermann de Munster, 14. century, Cathedral of Metz, France
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks really cool and impressive ~~however its not entirely in focus. Upper regions of this stained glass panel are blurred, whereas lower are nice and sharp. Masur (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)~~ Masur (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info You're right. Original file overworked, I think it's better now. --Llez (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No flaws.--MASHAUNIX 21:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of the very circular halos private joke ;) --Jebulon (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Wasserfall Rosenlaui-Schlucht.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 21:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by McIntosh Natura - uploaded by McIntosh Natura - nominated by McIntosh Natura -- McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Interesting, despite the low quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support –hover Fly | chat? 19:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geotagged it. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per The High Fin Sperm Whale Cathy Richards (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. Stellarkid (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rama (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Suillus luteus 2010 G1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 06:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Large Slippery Jack mushroom (Suillus luteus)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- cap only visible -> snapshotty, nothing special. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --McIntosh Natura (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noise. I'm not sure how this passed QIC. Sorry, George, but you have much better mushroom pics than this! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A little too much noise, and not a great composition. Tiptoety ^talk 19:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for feedback responses. I am not afflicted. I will try do a better shots next time. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zukunft Kind.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 14:30:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Powerhauer - uploaded by Powerhauer - nominated by Powerhauer -- Powerhauer (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Powerhauer (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not sure I see the educational value of this, but even if there is one, the translation irritates me. Do you mean "Children are the future"? I like the position of the teardrop. --99of9 (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Now Oppose. 99of9 (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very interesting and a good picture. But too tight at the bottom imo. Could you correct it? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose off-topic encyclopedia --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it isn't completely "off-topic" as an image like it could well be in scope, but this does have limited use because of non-ideomatic English. (I think the word "the" is missing.) Also, the font and layout could be improved. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the idea: children's face with the Earth as a background. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo montage/collage or mixed media, however you want to call it... The phrase is not necessarily wrong. To say children are future is the same as saying ice is cold, meat is food, soldiers are human, dreams are possible, etc., etc. We could also say children are innocent, children are beautiful, and of course, children are future. The key is to understand philosophically that in this case a noun, future, can be converted into an adjective, in order to add new meaning to old words. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
provocative Comment: This image was made by and for western northern people. I agree that children are future, or the future, but not only blue eyed caucasians, a minority on this planet ... I think that the concept could be otherwise illustrated.--Jebulon (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the highest quality educational media. Not even sure if it is educational at all, actually. Steven Walling 20:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a good example of photomontage and can be used as such. Still I agree with Jonathunder that the layout could be improved and find the words superflous. Why is the image cropped at bottom? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above and Alvesgaspar--Miguel Bugallo 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Everest North Face toward Base Camp Tibet Luca Galuzzi 2006 edit 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 14:26:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lucag - uploaded by Alokprasad84 - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I think it needs something to act as a scale to do it justice, hard to determine distances, sizes and area visually. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but the lighting is way too bright. Steven Walling 17:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to have wrong white-balance. Athyllis (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not featured (is already featured). Lycaon (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swedish autumn Craterellus tubaeformis.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 14:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by V-wolf -- V-wolf (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OOF, crop too loose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I liked the framing of leaves, that gave the mushrooms a more vivid feeling, but I've cropped the photo heavily. Better now? --V-wolf (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Just for the info, what do you mean by loose? -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Loose crop means that much of the image can be removed without affecting the main subject (opposite to tight crop). --V-wolf (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I know you're going to hate me for this, but now the crop is too tight. And I think you need to use a smaller F-stop, such as f/14. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I thank you, criticism is the best way to get better. I withdraw, "lick my wounds" (I don't know if you have that idom in English) and will come back another time. --V-wolf (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is amazing, why don't you make it run? File:Nicrophorus_vespilloides_in_dead_rodent.jpg

already tried V-wolf (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't try the flash reduced one! By the way, to lick one's wounds is a correct idiom. -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I tried to get response on the flash removal on Commons:Photography critiques, and then I hesitated to take it further because it looked different on my stationary computer compared to my girlfriend's (newer) laptop. I suspect I ruined it with the clone stamp instead of the wrecking flash. V-wolf (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per The High Fin Sperm Whale. The areas out of focus are disturbing--Miguel Bugallo 21:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --V-wolf (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BossHoss 8,2l BigBlock.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 09:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Ritchyblack (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ritchyblack (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staggering contrast! Keep it up! Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing background. (War sicher viel Arbeit das zu montieren, aber leider ist der Hintergrund zu unruhig.) --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Ich finde, der Hintergrund passt sehr gut zur Motorradszene. Allerdings ein bisschen zu wenig Kontrast und ein bisschen dunkel.--McIntosh Natura (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tons of contrast! –hover Fly | chat? 15:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Berthold Werner. --Citron (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is too distracting. It's hard to discern the subject from the background. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale. Athyllis (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support While I certainly see the background as distracting, it is also the background that I find really adds the needed flare to the image. It has its downsides, but I think the outcome is worth it, even if it's hard to discern the subject from the background - it really is a nice quality image, and at full res, it looks great. I think part of the fact that it looks so cluttered is because it is viewed as a small thumbnail on here. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale.--Miguel Bugallo 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very high quality and very good derivative job, but the beackgournd is really a bit too distracting --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's a dramatic bike and the dramatic BG is fitting, but it is a bit obnoxious and visually loud. =) --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the background makes me crazy. --Schorle (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Kevin Payravi Cathy Richards (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ich bin mit Berthold einverstanden. Nicht genug Farbenkontrast zwichen Moto und background --Jebulon (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ariadne merione butterfly.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 06:54:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ragged wing edges, stingy license, ?downsampled. --99of9 (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but my picture, my license. And there are over 45 pictures from me with the same license, in fact an image with the exact same license was just promoted today. --Muhammad (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it is your choice of license, just as it is my choice of vote. I simply feel that stingy licences are a negative for reusers, and thus weigh against my desire to promote the image to reusers in featured galleries. Yes, there are plenty that have been passed with this license, even some I support, but the image has to be just that much better to outweigh this. I will try to be more consistent in noting it in future. --99of9 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, but that's where you're wrong. I can use any license that meets the requirements (and the current one does). And you, cannot oppose if the license meets the criteria. --Muhammad (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - To me, part of "most valuable" is its useability, and value is the primary criteria I'm meant to be assessing for. I admit that there is no other discussion of licensing in the FP criteria beyond commons requirements. But if you're going to bring up the letter of the law, perhaps some of those 45 need to be reviewed from the perspective of the very clear rule Images should not be downsampled. 99of9 (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSame as 99of9. The license is indeed a little stingy. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer 99of9. The message of the picture should be the beauty of the butterfly and not its age or weakness. So certainly no FP with these ragged wings! --McIntosh Natura (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see nothing wrong with the license, as for the ragged edges, what would you like the author to do, glue it back together? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ragged wings -> Find a nicer subject to take a featured photo of. Not all subjects are featurable. 99of9 (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ragged wings are a reality. If we had only pretty pics, how would we illustrate aging? --Muhammad (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the bug bar is very high. Jonathunder (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And how does this image not meet the bar? --Muhammad (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. That's like opposing every image on FPC because "the FPC bar is very high". Comments like this are not helpful. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I see the point made by 99of9, I myself am not going to oppose an image when it's fine of Muhammad to license as he wishes (within acceptable licenses, of course). On another note, the raggedy wings and age are fine by me - I feel that the aspect of realism is certainly a good one. Just because it's a butterfly doesn't mean that it has to be portrayed as a young, healthy, specimen; nature is nature, and if a picture conveys it in good quality, then more power to it. No need for a bloated fantasy - let's bring some of the grim of the world into here, even if its just a butterfly. In a way, that's an art in itself ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If only to balance the opposition due to the licensing. Is the image free enough to be on Commons? Yes. Then it is featurable. End of discussion. J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is fine, the license is fine, however, the overall image quality is not fine. For being just over 2MP it should be very sharp, however several wing edges are not. Also, a geotag would be nice. --Relic38 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe the bug is old, sick or got in a fight with a bird, in that case it's understandable to feel sorry for it. Otherwise, the photo is good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freezing Rain on Tree Branch.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 02:23:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Infoall by Nicolas M. Perrault -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'll go out on a limb for this. –hover Fly | chat? 15:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like it, but how can the date be 30 December 2010? Jonathunder (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I must of messed up the date on my camera. It was taken on December 30th 2009. Sorry for the confusion! I'll change it right away. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition could have been better --Muhammad (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition: Too much image (left side and inferior side) out of focus--Miguel Bugallo 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Almost support, if not for the distracting background branches. --Relic38 (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Thunder Chimp (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{WSupport}}~~ Neutral Not spectacular. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Junges Gras.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 23:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless unfocused grass on the left removed. Else very nice shot!--McIntosh Natura (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pour DOF to me--Miguel Bugallo 00:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Most of the blades look good, except the left one as McIntosh said. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient depth of field Cathy Richards (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great Wall of China July 2006.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 21:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nicolas M. Perrault - uploaded by Nicolas M. Perrault - nominated by Nicolas M. Perrault -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. --Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sky and background could use darkening and more contrast to my taste. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality imo not good enough, sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific concerning the quality of the image? Is it the exposition, the composition or the number of pixels that troubles you?

Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, bland composition, overexposed clouds and rather unsharp. Far away from being of FP quality, in my opinion. --Aqwis (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite unsharp and not nice colors. Athyllis (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IMO now, a "support" vote in FPC cannot be "weak", because it is FPC. Then I cannot support, because it would be a weak support, sorry...--Jebulon (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Take it this way: there are good FPCs and there are better FPCs. The quality varies upon different FPCs. If you think that this is FPC quality, even if it's a among the lowest FPCs, then you can vote with weak support. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose overexposed sky, background a little blurred Cathy Richards (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- The Thunder Chimp (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 16:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Largest square picture of the whole Earth available in free format PNG - created by NASA (Harrison Schmitt or Ron Evans (of the Apollo 17 crew)) - converted from unfree format JPEG to free format PNG and uploaded by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Jeff G. - nominated by Jeff G. It is currently used over 288 times on many projects.[9] — Jeff G. ツ 16:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. See also Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg (original JPEG version) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.png. — Jeff G. ツ 16:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - already featured, useless duplicate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an inferior duplicate of File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And now bloated so much that it won't display anymore... I reverted that, as it is used in so many projects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nieuwpoort Jachthaven Panorama3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 20:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is not impressive in any way (colours, compositions, focus... anything)--MASHAUNIX 22:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--McIntosh Natura (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose High resolution, nice reflections, but composition and conditions are unimpressive. --Avenue (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition could be better. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Extermination of Evil Sendan Kendatsuba.jpg, featured[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: Created by unknown, uploaded by Bamse, nominated by Bamse with help of Alvesgaspar -- bamse (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An issue raised in the previous nomination has been fixed. bamse (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ But is the black line at the bottom a part of this? If not can it be cropped out? --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Black line cropped out. bamse (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support and Request Got any info on this piece? --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. What info do you need? There is quite some image description and a bit more can be found here. You might also like the other images of the set one of which is picture of the day today! Or how about the hells or the hungry ghosts? bamse (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks! --IdLoveOne (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
支持 Takabeg (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image, educational value. Hekerui (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the little devils and the heads on the trident. Does it symbolize some "Commons users" ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Maedin\^talk 06:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks randomly cropped, what did the complete work look like, Lycaon (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The original work used to be a handscroll (emakimono) which included all the parts shown in Category:Extermination of Evil. It was later cut into parts and each part was mounted on a hanging scroll (kakemono). So what you see in this image is one of these parts as it exists today. Most of the image is occupied by the (cut) paper scroll (which is the national treasure). The border (with flower pattern) is part of the kakemono. It is likely some kind of silk fabric. I chose not to crop it out in order to show that this paper segment is mounted on a hanging scroll. bamse (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wilno -katedra - sw. Helena.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 12:23:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed –hover Fly | chat? 14:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made some corrections, see File:Wilno -katedra - sw. Helena-CN.jpg. Maybe it's a bit better and you will nominate it as alternative. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The new version is better but still not featured quality. Athyllis (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Always the same questions: why two chances for this image ? Is the alt version a new nomination (and what about the limit of two nominations by user ?) ? For which pic are we voting ? Where must I vote, here or below ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case the nominations are by different users. You can vote for or against either or both pictures, but because they are alternatives, even if both votes succeed, only one will be promoted (the one with the greatest number of supports). 99of9 (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lighting could be better. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info edited by kaʁstn --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support better.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lighting could be better. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windmuehlen Norden-CN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 18:16:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Matthias Süßen, retouched and nominated by Carschten. The wind wills Deichmühle and the Frisia-Mühle in winter 2009 in Norden, East Frisia. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With only 4,5 Megapixels it seems to have been cropped which I don't think is permitted? Athyllis (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, cropping is allowed. Take a look at the guidelines. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And image resolution is good. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed. Noise (especially in the sky)--Miguel Bugallo 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed (It can be corrected) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a brighter version. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately underexposed. Black and white in direct sunlight scream for an attempt at HDR (if everything is stationary). Plus a large portion of the structure is in a shadow which makes things worse. --Relic38 (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice setting, seems so peaceful. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting could be better. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common foxes in the snow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 16:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Friedrich Wilhelm Kuhnert - restorated, uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support –hover Fly | chat? 19:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Econt (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but please change {{Information}} to {{Artwork}}. Yarl ✉ 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lithography from a book, not a painting. --Citron (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support The quality of the color is uninspiring, but this is still nice. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MASHAUNIX 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fallow Deer in the German wood.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 21:38:38 (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) 21:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Really nice lighting. Was this taken with a pop-up flash or an external one? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{o}} Bad white balance~~ --Miguel Bugallo 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The image is made in the warm yellow light of the evening. This light came from the left side. You find the long shadows on the ground. I see no reason to change the colors of the evening light to daylight (5500 K).--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support nice colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support You're right. Now I can understand that the luminosity can be real and artistic in FP, and what it's "real". Sorry--Miguel Bugallo 10:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I think it would benefit from a slightly tighter crop at the top.--Cayambe (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LaPaDu Panorama 2010-10-03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 17:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten, retouched by Niabot. Panorama view of circa 140° over the prime elements of the Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support not a simple view, very well could be a little sharper --Böhringer (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed and the clouds of the right are overexposed--Miguel Bugallo 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Miguel Bugallo is right with right part of image, however still I like it and I am supporting because of composition and WOW factor :) --Chmee2 (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really nice, but the cloud on the right stands out too much.--MASHAUNIX 18:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark foreground; cloud at right too bright and cropped poorly. --Avenue (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion of the straight lines in foreground confuses image. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - dark foreground and per Snowmanradio. Jonathunder (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —for the lighting and composition. Maedin\^talk 06:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Snowmanradio and Maedin, sorry --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tragelaphus strepsiceros (male - head).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 21:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 21:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--McIntosh Natura (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Yes, it could be sharper but that is not the main issue here, IMO. Please repeat with me: tight crop, let the poor thing br*... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a face portrait, not a body portrait! The face doesn't need to breathe :) It is tight crop but I think acceptable for a face portrait. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Horizon interferes with the contour of the subjects... a little lower camera angle would have worked better. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support beaten at nominating this. I don't think it's that bad. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dont find the crop tight for a portrait. --JovianEye (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, Crop is OK for a portrait, sharpness is just OK (nose is OOF), and colour is adequate. --Relic38 (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I just checked the histogram, and there is room for improvement on the highlight end. I will change back to support if adjusted. --Relic38 (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Thunder Chimp (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anolis marmoratus.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 06:26:24

Info Quality is not good enough any more for current FP standards. I have to be as strict for my own pictures as I am for others'. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Lycaon (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Subject perfectly encyclopedic, no error photographic, simple problem of rule. Can be fair without being harsh. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Cathy Richards (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what is so bad about it. It's a bit noisy, but this can be fixed by a bit of softening. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Per my general opinion on delistings. Yes, it would have failed today but it is part of FPC heritage. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fishing for compliments ? Keep, until "Commons" can feature a better one. To delist such a useful (and nice) picture is near a nonsense IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was already deemed worthy for delisting in 2007, this is almost 2011. Lycaon (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - if it were nominated now, I would probably not support, but I don't think I would oppose. It is a nice photo. Jonathunder (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfect pose and composition, not an obvious delist IMO. --Elekhh (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I love the contrast Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --McIntosh Natura (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Miguel Bugallo 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC). 1,92 megapixels--Miguel Bugallo 06:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree with the nominator, thanks for critically evaluating your own work. "Former featured picture" is worthy credit to preserve our history. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice picture, keep it, pls. --Karelj (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The digital artefacts are a bit scary, and I think "we" may have been somewhat lenient in promoting this in the first place. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Quality is rubbish. Maedin\^talk 06:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 6 keep, 2 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RhB ABe 4-4 III mit Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2010 at 17:42:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Bernina Express following the shoreline of Lago Bianco, the highest section of the Bernina line (2240 m above sea level). Both multiple units carry special liveries: The first one promotes the World Heritage Albula/Bernina line, the second one was created for the 100 years Bernina line jubilee.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--McIntosh Natura (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really dislike those kitsch painted locomotives but the landscape and composition are nice. --Elekhh (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For us railfans it makes the pictures way more interesting - Kitsch or not, we don't care :) --Kabelleger (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well composed image. --Cayambe (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe annotations are a bit aggressive and confusing, but we don't judge this here... This image could be a FP IMO--Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried to improve it a bit. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. Better too much annotation than too little. --Avenue (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and colours. --Relic38 (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very good composition, typical postcard picture. But where is the detail? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Ecotourism Svalbard.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 19:15:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Woodwalker - nominated by IdLoveOne -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Miguel Bugallo 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any. Lycaon (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitively better --McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the fans :-). Lycaon (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --The Photographer (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Chmee2 (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted (and so is Alt version). --Avenue (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, scroll down (Lycaon made me re-upload it in spite of the fact that it has a cc-by-sa-3.0 license which allows for remixing). Didn't bother with the alt since Lycoan seems to be the only other person interested (although I can if requested). --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I have to Oppose the original due to the tilt. --Avenue (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Bright. Stellarkid (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --High Contrast (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info White balanced. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little but unnecessary overexposure--Miguel Bugallo 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposure, blown highlights. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 2[edit]

Info Rotated and cropped slightly to the left. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question and why not Alt 56, or Alt 453 ? Funny...--Jebulon (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because my first grade teacher told me I was good at counting. Blame Lycaon. =) --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good action shot. --Avenue (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Ecotourism Svalbard.JPG

File:George Curzon and Mary Curzon on the elephant Lakshman Prasad 1902-12-29 in Delhi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 15:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by an unknown photographer 29 December 1902 - scanned by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sorry, the image is cropped by the photographer and by the publisher. But it is an important image with high historical and educational value. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the sepia tone. I would support in gray tone. Yann (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I changed the color into the gray tone. Do you like it? --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Black need to be improved..Silver or Zero valued whites need to have some shades (Original)..Look's like a re-created HDR--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 17:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I've seen older pictures in better quality and with good restoration, there are some users here who might do it as a courtesy. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me it's not QI, never FP. Too tight crop and low quality. --Miguel Bugallo 20:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The rocky outcrop of the Upper Cretaceous.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 18:55:54 (UTC)

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Brizhnichenko -- IdLoveOne (not the nominator) (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support sky seems unrealistic dark, it's a bit off-putting. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hronov - morový sloup 2010 (part).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 17:32:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Athyllis (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient technical quality. bamse (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry and, to me, tilted--Miguel Bugallo 20:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bamse and Bugallo: I think that's just the reflection of the sun in the gold structure which gives it a special glare; I don't think that's tilted or blurry, it's just matt paint. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be photographed on a not-sunny day in this case!? To me it appears as if focus is not on the main subject but on the small head at Maria's feet. bamse (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the dark zones (and the illuminated zones) are out of focus: it's not the sun: to me, blurry--Miguel Bugallo 21:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose average quality--MASHAUNIX 19:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice statue, but visible pixels. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although playing with light and shadow could work out, this image does not benefit from doing so. trying different light situations on the scene could improve the image's quality. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 07:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colpophyllia natans (Boulder Brain Coral) entire colony.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 16:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great and valuable image. --Cayambe (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A bit tight crop at top and bottom, but besides that very fine picture. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too tight crop. Let the poor thing br* -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely. Jonathunder (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose, nice subject, shouldn't be caged in such a tight frame. --Elekhh (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wider take woulf be out of focus anyway, probably distracting. This way attention focuses solely on subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't like it; it doesn't look nice.--MASHAUNIX 19:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the shadows. --Citron (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Neutral--MASHAUNIX 20:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's very difficult to get good underwater shots. I'm sufficiently impressed by this one. 99of9 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Framing yes, but image quality and rare subject (on Commons at least). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar--Miguel Bugallo 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3-D! --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality and interesting. I think the framing is acceptable in this instance—as Tomas and 99. Maedin\^talk 07:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Allosaurus fragilis moulage MNHN paleontologie 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 00:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me - -- Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WoW! Giant lizard! Perfect object for FP and nice quality photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Cayambe (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hurray! Rama (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support--Miguel Bugallo 17:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image in difficult conditions. Good caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I have a good teacher...--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nothing suggests "fragility" in these bones, really! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support congratulations to this great shot - wow! --J. Lunau (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice. Jonathunder (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Furnace ventilator.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 22:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/c

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- both pictures are nice, but I don't like the way they're put together; couldn't it be done differently?--MASHAUNIX 18:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment the only other way is to invert the position, which would be the same thing. The problem is that one of them in horizontal and the other vertical, but that is unavoidable due to the point of view and nature of the subject. From the outside, the subject is long and narrow (horizontally) and the same subject, from the inside it is tall and narrow (vetically). In case someone wants a different arrangement, the image could be split in two. I did this in order to avoid two pictures of the same subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As far as it can't be done in a better way I consider it good enough.--MASHAUNIX 22:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unconvincing montage. --Elekhh (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Elekhh. Lycaon (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Montage format does not work for me. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - confusing montage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girl August 2008-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 11:10:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of a girl. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty average snapshot of an average object with an average quality. Masur (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- People aren't objects. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masur--MASHAUNIX 20:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not good enough imo. Athyllis (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What can I say? She's charming. ~~Not high res~~ but there is real quality here. (my error, good res) Stellarkid (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in general a nice portrait. But I don't like the centered composition so much. Maybe also a upright photo might have been better in this case. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a good quality photo of some random little girl, basically. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Random ? I suspect that this (very pretty) young girl is well known in pictures by some "Commons users" (not her first appearance), and very well known especially but one of us here, if I'm not wrong... And the shirt is already (a bit) overexposed, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this image of a minor should be kept as a private family snapshot unless permission has been given by herself and her parents. Apparently anonymous girl according to image description. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There doesn't seem to be anything special about this picture, other than a plain portrait of an anonymous girl that (from what I know) is not a public figure. LeavXC (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 20:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good portrait of a beautiful girl, but for the next portrait I would have tried to put her directly against the sun because now half of her face seems to be in a shadow.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castelo de Guimaraes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 19:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by [Filipe Fortes http://www.flickr.com/people/fortes/] - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Mashaunix -- --MASHAUNIX 19:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --MASHAUNIX 19:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Guimarães Castle as seen from the São Mamede field--MASHAUNIX 19:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some barrel effect, lens distorsion. --Vomirencostard (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor angle and light. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- poor lighting. --Elekhh (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Angle should be corrected. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Poor lighting. --Avenue (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting's not too bad, I love the composition. Some chromatic abberation on the left battlements. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distortion, poor lightning --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inuit man demonstrates traditional kayaking technique used for hunting on narwhals.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 16:55:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Kooritza -- Kooritza (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Inuit man demonstrates traditional kayaking technique used for hunting on narwhal in Qaanaaq
Support -- Kooritza (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but Question; can you see the visible difference in colour of the sea in the picture situated right bottom when compared to the other ones? why is that?--MASHAUNIX 19:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it OK now? Kooritza (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure.--MASHAUNIX 20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support educational. Stellarkid (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--McIntosh Natura (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educational, nice quality --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small so no details. Each pic is only 1500×900px! Lycaon (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lycaon--Miguel Bugallo 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As above but this is an excellent candidate for a VI set. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not educational - we don't even get an explanation of what is going on here. In the first image, he is not wearing gloves and holding a harpoon. In all other photos the harpoon is gone and his gloves are on. The small rectangle of wood of unknown purpose is sometimes strapped on the deck, in his hands, possible floating free in the water, why or when I can't quite tell. Whatever he is doing is not an "eskimo roll"; in the last image he is paddling the kayak forward while upside-down, why? Rmhermen (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all others. And now, let the poor thing breathe, but I'm afraid he is dead now...--Jebulon (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photo montage shows traditional kayaking technique used in Greenland. To read more about the technique used please read this book (for example page 21 and beyond) --Kooritza (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support--Kooritza (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer a border (may-be a black line) between the images.. In the first version (without borders images) it is not so bad.. because there are only 4 images. Ggia (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support may-be also an animated gif image can also demonstrate this technique.. Ggia (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support both are good. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per comment above. Rmhermen (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photo montage shows traditional kayaking technique used in Greenland. To read more about the technique used please read this book (for example page 21 and beyond) Kooritza (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- According to the present rules this picture should be shown as a new nomination, not an alternative. However User:Kooritza has already two active nominations. I suppose this alternative will have to be withdrawn or closed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this version can considered as the same image.. it contains the same images + some more.. it is a similar issue with an image and the same cropped image as alternative. the cropped image has less info rather the non-cropped image. Ggia (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you opinion is absolutely right,Ggia --Mbz1 (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no. Ggia's opinion is Ggia's opinion. Not good, not wrong. You may agree, but you cannot say it is an " absolutely right opinion". For me, as a free man living without ulterior motives or mental reservations, I agree and follow Alvesgaspar's opinion in this case. Dura lex...--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... sed lex. Jebulon, please register your opinion in the FPC talk page, where a discussion was started. Thanks. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No my friend, I won't. I've said here all what I wanted to say. The discussion in the FPC talk page concerns something else (like a personal conflict ?), and I want to stay free, as I said.--Jebulon (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But thank you for invitation !--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected this file due to the edit-war whether this shall be closed through the use of {{FPD}} or kept open. Please discuss this at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. I unprotect this page when a consensus is found there. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected, sorry AFBorchert. I understand your position, but since protection blocks further voting, it seems problematic to protect for the final hours of the nomination. I think we should let it run out. The "rule-breaking" image (alternative) could be removed if anyone feels strongly about it, but I think Alvesgaspar is too involved with the Mbz1 issue to make an objective call. --99of9 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- That wasn't a wise thing to do, unless the intention is to enforce the agreed rules, especially coming from a user whose opposition about this specific rule has alerdy been clearly expressed). Please see my comments in the FPC talk page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SchafherdeInKoeln.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 17:25:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Túrelio - uploaded by Túrelio - nominated by Mashaunix -- Mashaunix (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mashaunix (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is under 2 MP... :-( --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As it says that all rules may be broken, I believe that this is special enough to get my support. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor quality, pixelated (look at the shepherd). Was the image upsampled? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Out of curiosity: what is a herd of sheep doing in a street in Cologne? MartinD (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amusing, unique. I once saw a herd of pigs that escaped on the Champs Elysees. How I wished I had had my camera then! Stellarkid (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of course it's amusing and unique and perhaps not a bad picture. But with that quality and lighting (and some disturbing elements) it should never be a FP--McIntosh Natura (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should've stayed FPX. Lycaon (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support would probably have no problems passing if it were bigger. It's only slightly under 2MP, but it's not as sharp as it could be also. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the rules. Under 2MP. No strong mitigating reasons IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Thunder Chimp (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1,92 MP--Miguel Bugallo 21:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Great work, --Hastdutoene (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is one of the images I wish I took--Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! Really great image. Super composition, so I turn two blind eyes to the quality. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset with Cirrus clouds at Land's End in San Francisco .jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 16:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Kooritza -- Kooritza (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The lit rock was facing the setting, low sun. That's why it is illuminated much more than the smaller rocks. No HDR processing, no filters were used.
Support -- Kooritza (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vomirencostard (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice, and, moreover, multiuseful--MASHAUNIX 23:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support truly a FP --McIntosh Natura (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose –strong oppose~~: usually I don't vote, but as I see that several persons already supported the picture (seems without taking a look at it...) I decided to point out a very obvious stitching error. There are also some weird behaviors in other areas imo I indicate as notes in the image. In addition, there is also a strange behavior of the lens which shows a pretty soft center with well sharp corners while it should be the opposite. I think this comes from the post-processing... Sting (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. Kooritza (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Foreground stitching problem fixed, still the other points that are strange imo. Sting (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fix to the foreground stitching problem changed the image's dimensions, so that Sting's annotations are no longer visible to reviewers. The fixed version should have instead been added as an alternative, as in the current Svalbard nom for instance. --Avenue (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Sting. --Relic38 (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture show rare illumination --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely Stellarkid (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rocks underexposed. Very unnatural.--Miguel Bugallo 21:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I hesitated a lot before voting because the atmosphere of the picture is nice but, at the same time, there was something beyond the quality flaws mentioned above that I didn't like. That is the unbalanced composition, due to the almost-square aspect ratio and the too imposing dark foreground. Maybe with a smart crop, I'm not sure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info One of the original images was uploaded. This image is to be used as an example to justify the colors of this image. This image is not the one that was used to create the panorama.--Kooritza (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange sky, rigth and left corner are not in balance with nice middle - otherwise common result of using C-PL in wide angle. --Mile (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. There is a spot along the cliff edge, lower right, that goes fuzzy for no apparent reason; I've indicated where with a note. A patch of sea to its right also looks brighter than it should. --Avenue (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Kooritza (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, now I'm Neutral (and I've removed my note). It's quite a striking image, and it's grown on me over the last couple of days, but I still share some of the concerns expressed above about the composition and the odd hazy patches, so can't support. --Avenue (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural, not very nice composition. Athyllis (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better version of an already great picture. This landscape is made of dreams, the picture is so inviting and inspiring. Coastside2 (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moving seascapes are not fit for panoramas. Stitching problems are unavoidable. Lycaon (talk)

lycaon:"I looked hard, but I could not find any stitching errors but because they are apparently "unavoidable" I'd better oppose." Is that so? D= DX--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Lycaon, could you annotate the stitching errors that you found? I couldn't find any. If you can't, then I don't believe your reason for opposition is justified. LeavXC (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the image. This version is better than the old one (dark area in the middle removed). Stitching is difficult for a moving image like this but I think the result is quite good. --BennyJ (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

07:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as Lycaon--Jebulon (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support considering the info "No HDR processing, no filters were used" this picture captures an unique mood of light and very nice cuirrus clouds, to me a great shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Lunau (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really special. --Luckymelon (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Luckymelon--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Something strange is going here, with a significant number of supporting users having created their accounts a short time ago and coming here for the first time. If this is what it looks like, I don't think Mbz1 needs such kind of help. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I just emailed user:Herbythyme and asked him to run CU on me and three "new" users, who supported the nomination. I explained to him that I have no idea how Jiujitsuguy and Luckymelon got to the nomination, and that I emailed to BennyJ and asked them to take a look at a better version of FP nomination after they supported a similar (worse) one on QI. I've done absolutely nothing wrong, and, if I used email, it was only because I was blocked at the time. Here's for example here's user:Yann

asked me to look at his FP nomination. There were other examples like this one too. BTW I am absolutely fine and insist on running CU on me and any user alvesgaspar wants to check, if for nothing else just to shot him up.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment -- I didn't accuse Mbz1 of anything and it never crossed my mind that she was involved in any kind of less ethical behaviour. Please read again what I wrote. As we all know there are other possibilities and the one I was thinking of was canvassing. Please let me clarify something else: the friends I have, or don't have, in Commons are my own business and I don't authorize anyone to comment on my personal relationships, whether they are real or just imagined. Please remove the comment above!-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the grafiti spoils the scene. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral If the graffiti was well cloned out well, and if the strangely-shaped haze in the upper right was corrected, I would love to vote for this. It is nicely shot with great lighting.LeavXC (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not a problem to clone out the graffiti, but then the image would get opposed for "improper digital manipulation". This image was really hard to take and even harder to post-process because I wanted to show the sky, the ocean and the rocks the way I saw them in real life, that beautiful and rare light and clouds, and I got it no matter that some users claim it is unnatural. It is natural and I could upload original images just from the camera to prove it by request. BTW could you please add a note for the haze you're talking about? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I annotated the top and bottoms of the haze I observed. Starting from the annotation point, The edge of the haze tapers steeply down the right, and starting from the left side of the note, the edge waves down to the surface of the below rock.LeavXC (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll see, if it could be improved.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unbalanced brightness. Left side is too much darker than right side. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is how it was in a real life. Of course the sky has not even brightness all over, but thanks for your interesting input

--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karelj (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kjetil_r 15:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not real --Hetpaardindegang (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Miguel Bugallo, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 11 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alhambra - Estanque de El Partal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 21:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dodo -- Dodo (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain as author and nominator --Dodo (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distorted, bad light, disturbing tourists. This wonderful place deserves a better representation. Sorry--Jebulon (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Jebulon.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much shade and reflections. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Idea leuconoe qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 14:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Paper Kite feeding on Mexican Butterfly Weed. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Looks a bit soft, but pretty good still. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 17:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support It's very sharp and perfectly bright. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support agree with IdLoveOne --Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support sehr schön --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yes! Nice composition and very good quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations --Llez (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... and nice colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you all for your support and praise, I am truly honored. --Quartl (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nagasakibomb.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 03:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Atomic bomb hitting Nagasaki. Very historical as only two atomic bomb attacks in history

Info The picture was taken from one of the B-29 Superfortresses used in the attack. - uploaded by Mormegil - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I very informative and lovely historic photo, but the quality is so poor. If someone can do a mega repair job, I will support this. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apparently this has already been done File:NagasakibombEdit.jpeg. the source of this nomination seems not working. the link leads to the archives.gov mainpage - a link to the image's page would be more useful in this context. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hastdutoene (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As The High Fin Sperm Whale. Sorry--Miguel Bugallo 19:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the edit is clearly superior -- Gorgo (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neolithic talc necklace - PRE.2009.0.237.1.IMG 1833-black.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 07:54:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Neolithic necklace, calibrated discoid talc pearls. Found, in Aveyron, former collection of Émile Cartailhac (1845 - 1921). Muséum of Toulouse

Info created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator. Rama (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support much better than last time. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Per above. Technically perfect to me. A great one. Alors là, chapeau. Tu y es ! Rien à redire, et tu as du en baver !!--Jebulon (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Il manque le profil colorimétrique ; dans le cas présent on ne sais pas quelle est la couleur des pierres : plutôt brun clair (AdobeRGB) ou plutôt gris (sRGB) ? Sting (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
C'est du sRGB. Rama (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ce serait bien de recharger l'image avec son profil car elle a actuellement une tonalité brune, même dans Firefox, puisque considérée comme "sans profil", donc plus proche d'un Adobe RGB (au-moins pour ceux qui ont un écran correct). Sting (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--McIntosh Natura (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Per above.--Miguel Bugallo 21:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Spinosaurus Crane.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2010 at 18:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mask could be improved. lacks overall sharpness. it sure has high ev - try doing a reshot if possible. and please provide meta data if available. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hetpaardindegang (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It is impossible to do this picture with this resolution without the nose is out of focus. I'll pay for a facial image that you know this particular anatomy. Just to be clear is through a Focus stackink. I feel like you're going to ask me to do it: so ... I will.

To all how to keep the metadata in Photoshop, they systematically disappear if you crop photos? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there you go. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a bit complicated but I'll try, thank you for your helpful comments. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other workarounds: Upload one of the original images first. The original metadata may be retrieved by downloading that image. Extract key metadata yourself and add it to the image description. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rock formation at Pescadero State Beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2010 at 19:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the tourist spoils it for me. --Avenue (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tourist provides good scale. Stellarkid (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Lycaon (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! An unusual lighting conditions, beautiful stormy ocean. Overall very very good image. The tourist adds to the authenticity. Kooritza (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon and Avenue Athyllis (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Stellarkid. It is a good photograph indeed. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks rather ordinary. Snowmanradio (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is the kind of pictures I like to shoot and to watch (the sea). The mood and quality are both very good but not the composition. For me the foreground is too imposing and uninteresting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The more I look at this photograph the more I like it. It is an image that has the power to evoke feelings, reflections, thoughts, memories. It pulls me onto the scene, I hear the waves, feel the humidity of the breeze, and wonder what is over there, beyond the fog... It is the end of one world and the beginning of another... and the sole human... almost a Henri Cartier-Bresson moment... There is a tranquil sensibility in this photograph. Thanks... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the case if the sole human would have a meditative posture. --Elekhh (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:The thing is that alves's review as well as him closing my image nominated below has absolutely nothing to do with the images and/or the rules. The user is so dishonest that it makes me literally sick to my stomach. I am not sure how much lower one could fall.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is entitled to his opinion regarding this image, and you are the one mixing up things. I perceive your above comment extremely provocative and I don't think it belongs here. --Elekhh (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice landscape, but as Avenue I find the tourist too distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was turned off by that guy being there in the thumbnail, but full size he's not so bad. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liocarcinus vernalis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2010 at 23:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by -- ~~The High Fin Sperm Whale~~ 23:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC) IdLoveOne (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lighting is not the best. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please state why? Comments like, "bad crop" or "lighting not the best" don't give any indication on how to fix it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Sorry, in this case I thought that the glares from the flash (or whatever light source) would be obvious. Someting I forgot: let the poor thing etc. :) Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you should make a template, something like Let the poor thing breathe. But you think this crop is too tight? It should be easy to fix, since it's on a black background. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol! Yes, I think that the crop is too tight and agree that is easy to fix. But poor lighting is a much worse sin to redeem... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - One more point: if you consider the lighting so bad here, Alvesgaspar, why did you promote it on QIC? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nah. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs white balancing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{withdraw}}~~

Aww, I was gonna support a white balanced version. =( --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really like it you can always nominate yourself (just slash out my name in the 'nominated by' part and replace it with yours). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, ok, it'll lump some of my noms together, but w/e. Thanks! --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Expanded the background. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 2[edit]

Info Expanded BG and white balanced. The WB I think raises the brightness and makes the flash less harsh. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An improvement to an already excellent image. Well done! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just hope it has enough "breathing room" --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Wrong WB. Lycaon (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Can you do that when I'm the one "nominating" this? --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Przełęcz Karkonoska - panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2010 at 20:49:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Pjahr - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wpedzich (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor details --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas888b (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bee on Yellow Flower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2010 at 19:32:41 (UTC)

Info created by Thomas888b - uploaded by Thomas888b - nominated by Thomas888b -- Thomas888b (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger Support than everybody else has -- Thomas888b (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Thank you for identification, although I'm not quite sure this is FP quality. I think you should try geocoding it and look into VIC. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Due to popular demand, geocoding has been added.Thomas888b (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but not up to the current macro standards. The subject is dark, unsharp and undetailed. Please check the present insect FPs. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So what? Why do we critically judge a picture by the digital quality (E.G. it's missing a pixel) as oppose the the image quality (E.G. This picture looks nice)? Thomas888b (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -- Shooting good quality photographs of bees is a difficult business because they are usually fast, nervous and dark. It takes time, patience and technical skill. I'm afraid that "looking nice" is not good enough for reaching FP status. We have a good set of quality criteria and they should be used by all reviewers just before applying the subjective 'wow' or 'no wow' factor. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong support~~ I like this photo, it is nice. Posted by a visitor at 21:24 (UTC) Sorry, no anon votes. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --same idea with AlvesgasparMulazimoglu (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo but the bee is really not good, unfortunately. mgeo talk 11:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh well, You guys obviously don't appreciate it. I could always take it somewhere where people will apreciate it for it image quality, not critisize it for being a tad too dark. everybody who I have asked say that they think it's really good.Thomas888b 12:51 11 November 2010 (GMT)
- Comment -- Please try to understand. It is not "a tad too dark" or just "missing a pixel", it is underexposed and blurry, and almost no detail can be seen in the body and legs of the insect. Yes, composition is nice but a good composition is just one of the important components of a FP. Here are some nice examples taken from or FP galley of Himnoptera: File:Apinae Bombus pascuorum.jpg, File:European honey bee extracts nectar.jpg, File:Osmia rufa couple (aka).jpg, File:Bumblebee October 2007-3.jpg, File:Bombus hypnorum male - side (aka).jpg and File:Apis mellifera carnica worker hive entrance 3.jpg. If you really want to participate in this forum and nominate your pictures you must be prepared to accept the opinion of the reviewers, some of them very good photographers. Yes, you can take your pictures to your friends and family, and be praised for them, but you will learn nothing from it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the darkness and blurriness are Thomas' fault. There isn't much you can do with a point and shoot camera. Even some of my first macro shots with my SLR turned out badly: File:Syrphus sp.jpg, File:Mating Bee Flies.jpg, and File:Archytas fly.jpg. And my point-and-shoot macros were even worse, much more so than this. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the bee is dark (per Alvesgaspar). Ggia (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- The use of "Strong support" and "Weak support" templates, which are not considered in our voting system, is making the FP bot to close this nomination before time, as if it didn't have any supports. Plese keep to the normal templates. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then someone should fix the bot, and so it can count weak votes as only half. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- In Commons FPC all votes have the same value -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ -- Bu fotoğrafın arka planı ve kesilme biçimi oldukça kötü. Odaktaki arı da çok net değil. Kompozisyon ise oldukça başarısız. Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restoring votes and closing. Please do not delete votes, or change the closing date (which was the 19th). I advise against renomination, because this is a very compelling vote, but if you insist, you will have to start a fresh nomination at a new nomination page. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mostar Old Town Panorama 2007.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 08:03:37

Info The image has a fake sky, see File:Mostar Old Town Panorama.jpg. (Original nomination)
Delist Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't understand: Isn't it allowed for FPs to have fake skies?? Else I think it's not a bad picture and would be careful with delisting it.--McIntosh Natura (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines state:
  - Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    - For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.

Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nice and interesting picture Cathy Richards (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{Delist}} Us Cordless Larry~~--Miguel Bugallo 20:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it silly to delist a picture because of a fake sky. As Cordless Larry said, "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." This is not meant to deceive. It is meant to fix a blown-out sky. Maybe this should be written in the description, but I don't see how either the educational or photographic value is destroyed by a fake sky. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful image. Technically well done. The sky is not the subject. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice image, no reason for delisting. --Karelj (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how does this deceive me? Don't they have skies above Mostar? Multichill (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just have to say, I love multichill's comment :) Thomas888b (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't notice the sky was a fake one...--Jebulon (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So what if the sky is fake? the majority agree that it doen't matter, and has ony been done to correct a flaw.Thomas888b (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Fake sky, ok, but it was only revealed last week ([10]) and the reflections in the water don't match the sky. Lycaon (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is necessary to know certainly that the sky is incorrect?--Miguel Bugallo 02:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By your words (especialy Licaon), I think that it's necessary, and I don't vote--Miguel Bugallo 02:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure that the sky was falsified--Miguel Bugallo 02:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 delist, 7 keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Kennedy CORE rally speech2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 01:59:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leffler, Warren K. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is not good enough. Athyllis (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support historical significance and technical circumstances qualify for fp. if compared original .tif and edited .jpg in photoshop or else differences can be made out. although only subtle improvements, they pay out well. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High historical value.--Jebulon (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image.... the faces, the cameras, the times... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support High historical value, beautiful image, the quality is only acceptable--Miguel Bugallo 21:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 72.54.200.169 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Lycaon (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice historical document --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Athyllis. Lycaon (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality -- Gorgo (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality. --Karelj (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great historic value great quality as well. GerardM (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course!--Mbz1 (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:The Water Planet.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 11:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Robert Simmon and Marit Jentoft-Nilsen (NASA) - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Photo-like view of Earth based largely on observations from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is meant with 'photo-like'? The file description doesn't tell much. Lycaon (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Photomosaic? --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Addax (Addax nasomaculatus).JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 22:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- The picture is good, but not quite FP quality. If you posted a version with a wider aspect ratio (not a square) and use of rule-of-thirds, I would support it. However, it does seem better than pictures of similar subjects in Category:Addax nasomaculatus-- LeavXC (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but it is a little noisy due to unnecessary high iso I think. And the cropping isn't perfect. Athyllis (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could have been sharper, but still great composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like a lot the funny face ;-) Ggia (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo 21:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A desert animal with superb camouflage in a meadow ? GerardM (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per GerardM, just another zoo photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is it a bad photo only because it is (or it could be) a zoo photo ? No zoo photo can be good ? No zoo photo can be featured ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A photo of this animal in a meadow is not illustrative of the habitat and it is not up to encyclopedic standards. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can agree with this, said by GerardM. But you didn't answer to my question(s) about zoo photos...--Jebulon (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - OpposeI oppose because I agree with the reason above. Thomas888b (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not the best angle. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a zoo photo I find the defensive posture and closed eye less than ideal. The intensive green of the background is also distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too noisy in my view. --High Contrast (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Sig Sauer boîte outils chargeur .jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 22:42:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Par curiosité, pourquoi peut-on y lire "propriété de l'état"? -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Puis-je répondre en anglais pour le bénéfice des autres "reviewers" ? May I answer in english for other reviewers ? Please have a look on the file description page. This weapon is used (as less as possible !) by all the homeland security forces in France (National Police, Gendarmerie, Custom Department, Correction Department). The specimen here is used by a member of these forces (notice that the engraved identification numbers were masked by me for evident security reasons), and then "belongs to the State" ("Propriété de l'Etat"). Thanks for support.--Jebulon (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot, and would support outside the case. Takes too much space. And nice gun btw! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for support. What is shown is not only the gun itself, but all concerning it, even the "packaging". I made this choice for an encyclopedical use, and I agree it probably mays take too much space. But it is so... Maybe, if possible, I'll took soon another closer shot (funny word in this case !) with the weapon only.--Jebulon (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Something weird with the "yellows". Why do they look all fuzzy? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Yes, that is my problem and I don't know how to solve it. The orange-yellow parts are very harsh in real, and there is a reflection on the grey plastic foam (good english word ?), in real too. I tried to reduce the "fuzz", as you say, but there is nothing I can do against reflection. Improvements ideas (I use GIMP) are welcome. Thanks for review anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very sharp and has some nasty glare on it (al, flash, etc. ???). a second try would be nice if possible. has high ev though. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't use flash, Where do you see "nasty glare" ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "nasty glare" is referring to the red reflections which can be seen in the foam. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor composition, the orange part draws most of the attention if you look at the picture, while the main object of this picture is/should be the gun. Gorgo (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMO, the composition cannot be poor, because there is no composition. It is as it is. (OK for nasty orange glare noticed by Peter Weis)--Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Hetpaardindegang (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would you please explain why, dear horse ? I should be happy to do better in your opinion next time, but I need your opinion for this...Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aren't images ment to be educational? I don't see how this has any educational quality. Thomas888b (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Welcome and thanks for review. You should surely find FPC project more interesting if you read the FPC guidelines (only few minutes) (after reading the welcome page of "Commons", useful too).--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - On reflection (wow, please notice the nice english "pun" ! Lol), I think I could surely make a better photo of this kind of object. Thanks to all reviewers, especially to supporters, but I withdraw my nomination --Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cityscape Frankfurt 2010 panorama crop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 01:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 01:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 01:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work! --Relic38 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--McIntosh Natura (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A quality image, maybe (it looks overexposed and washed out). But not special enough for being featured (please check Diliff's panos). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a lot of the Diliff's panos photos seems oversaturated imo. I understand that you like them.. but I find it is not polite/fruitful to make comparison of a user work with another user. Ggia (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I respectfully disagree, as Diliff pictures are an example of excellence. Please remember that in FPC we aim to choose the best Commons has to offer -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for your personal point of view all Diliff's panos photos are example of excellence. You can believe this.. Is this a general view of all the community (Diliff's panos photos are example of execelence)? The point for me is that is non-polite to compare other images with the nominations of the users.. Ggia (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff's panos shown in his userpage have been promoted to WP:FP and so, they are examples of excellence for the community (not just for me). Also, this is a forum where candidates for FP are evaluated, not an exibition or a social event. In this perspective, I find perfectly adequate to compare the candidates with other images, particularly better ones. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many users show their showcase with featured pictures.. general you can say that all the featured pictures are example of excellence.. IMO when you make comments to other user image.. you have to focus to comments concerning the aesthetics, technical details (advices to make it better) etc. As easy is to find a example of "excellence" it is easy to find a FP that is really bad. Each one has different point of view - you can see it in the nominations.. both opposes and support votes exists.. Art - aesthetics do not have limitations. Here the only limitation is the rules. Ggia (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of comments a reviewer makes when evaluating a picture in FPC is his/her own business, as long as they remain within scope and address the picture, not the author. Drawing the attention to high quality images of the same kind is a valid and constructive type of comment, used often in this forum. In this particular case, Diliff's works are very instructive examples of good lighting, colouring and composition of panoramic images, and I really fail to understand why showing them to the nominator may be considered unpolite. Neither I understand the suggestion that my comments may not comply with the present rules. But if that is what you really think, maybe it is better to start a discussion in the FPC talk page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* All the FP are considered the finest images in commons. If you like open a discussion in FPC talk page if you believe that only some of the FP commons are example of excellence.. And these FP pictures (that are example of excelence) should be used as an comparison example in the nominations. Ggia (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support probably a increase of saturation make image colors more vidid. The composition and the details make this image education enough and it is aethetically good to be featured. Ggia (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't understand. This image is now FP. What happens? To me it's FP, but I don't know if I must vote.--Miguel Bugallo 20:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry--Miguel Bugallo 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Ggia--Miguel Bugallo 20:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Please notice that a "Week support" or a "Strong support" have exactly the same value as a "Support" vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Alvesgaspar. I know it, but it's different. A {{neutral}} vote have exactly the same value as a "Oppose" vote and I don't like it, but... nobody protest--Miguel Bugallo 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, a "Neutral" vote is not taken into account in the final result... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, you're right. pt: Creio que nesse caso não tenho razão e, se você o diz, eu acredito. Acaso noutro tempo, quando eu andava algo por aqui, fosse assim--Miguel Bugallo 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Also looks somewhat oversharpened, while missing details in part. Lycaon (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good resolution and informative skyline. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As long as there are no stitching errors. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar -- Gorgo (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Oversharpening)artifacts, blurry at the right, background just grey and indistinct. Qualitatively not featured --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jesuit smelter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 02:12:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are quite a number of dust spots in the sky, on both sides. --Cayambe (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks fine to me (a bit tight crop, however) --McIntosh Natura (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very high quality, but crop too tight. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{neutral}}~~ Per The High Fin Sperm Whale--Miguel Bugallo 21:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate lighting conditions. Lycaon (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Lycaon, would you be kind enough as to give us a dissertation as to what constitutes "unfortunate lighting conditions?." I chose that particular angle just because of the lighting conditions. You see, a fully lit subject generally is flat, which would have been the case had I taken the picture from the other side, so from this perspective, the lighting creates what in photography is called "volume", thus creating the visual illusion of 3d.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, maybe you can try again. It is a stationary object isn't it? Lycaon (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That´s no explanation as to what constitutes "unfortunate lighting conditions." That statement si so vague... Please enlighten us. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think his problem is that the front of the building is entirely in shadow. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice picture with a great encyclopedic value. I agree with you about the flatness of fully lit subjects. But when the major part (including the whole front!) of the subject remains in a rather dark shadow, that's far too much: on that point Lycaon is right when he is talking about "unfortunate lighting conditions". -- MJJR (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues here: 1) The object itself. An interesting smelter built by the Jesuits 400 years ago in a rich mining area in the state of Guanajuato, source of huge amounts of gold and silver during the colony. 2) Photographic technique. a) Exposure renders all areas in acceptable dynamic and texture ranges. b) DoF enough to give acceptable focus across the frame. c) Composition. I framed it tightly in order to depict just the subject matter. Here people are free to like it or not. d) Point of view. I chose this point of view deliveratley in order to have a diagonal perspective, and take advantage of graphic elements of photography such as countour, perspective, volume and texture. Interesting subject? For some, yes. Pretty subject? If you are a mining or structural engineer, historian, or academic, perhaps. If you are into video games, perhaps not. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now, if you really want to compare: [[11]] (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your other version look much more better [12]. May-be applying some masks to the dark (shadow) area and adding more light can enhance your image. Or if you travel-visit again this place.. try more images stitched together to panorama.. the dry landscape around seems to be interesting. Ggia (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to make some enhancements and I uploaded as an alternative version. Ggia (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support overexposed here, underexposed there.. =\ --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate lighting conditions. The shade covers the front of the object--Miguel Bugallo 20:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support more sky to the top (regarding comments by McIntosh Natura & The High Fin Sperm Whale), more light to the dark areas, several correction masks has been applied to the image. I hope that also the nominator likes these enhancements. Ggia (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Ggia! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The contrast is better, but some DOF issues, like the cacti to the left. Both are pretty eye-catching though and the angle's ok. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate lighting conditions. The shade covers the front of the object--Miguel Bugallo 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely better! -- MJJR (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very good lighting. --Karelj (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose better than the original, but lighting is still not the best -- Gorgo (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I think the crop is still too tight. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate lighting per Miguel; the front of the subject should be lit instead of the back. It would also look nice to have more of the smelter's surroundings composed into the shot. LeavXC (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20100728 Corfu island old town panoramic Greece.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 21:56:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots of good info...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Relic38 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some more sky would be even better. --Mile (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The framing doesn't convince me and I don't like the strong geometric distortion of the building in the foreground. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stitching error as annotated; also the street right of the building in the foreground seems to be distorted (or better: the line of the houses along the street). --Llez (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for noticing this error.. I will try to stitch the images again and fix it. Ggia (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stitching errors corrected. Ggia (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question no freedom of panorama in Greec ??? --Böhringer (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but this is old town of Corfu.. Ggia (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that most of the buildings are really old (70 years from the birth of the architect - Corfu is in Greece not in Italy). But if I am wrong let me know. Ggia (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that is Corfu in Greece - it not only has the likn fit - the issue still remains (new link:freedom of panorama --Böhringer (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that this image violates freedom of panorama.. this and all images from corfu (old town) has to be deleted. Ggia (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Underexposed trees (left) and little areas overexposed. Unfortunate crop--Miguel Bugallo 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inconsistent exposure and I'm not too fond of the prominent 'curved' building. Lycaon (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion is a fatal flaw. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ggia (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:52nd Street, New York, by Gottlieb, 1948.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 05:54:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Paul Gottlieb - uploaded by Scewing - nominated by Scewing -- Scewing (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fantastic 1948 kodachrome photonegative of the legendary jazz nightclub scene on 52nd street in NYC. See annotations for headlining acts. Scewing (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is much too dark--Berthold Werner (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a night shot. the guideline does not say images have to be taken in daylight. supreme picture, showing how the city looked way back at night. PETER WEIS TALK 07:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is a film photo from 1948.. it is not a photo where the quality has to compare with new high-tech digital image sensors.. Ggia (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also 1948 had been made good night shots. This one is none of that or it is a really bad scan. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a bit blurry and noisy (even for 1948). --McIntosh Natura (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special as far as I can see. --99of9 (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athyllis (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per 99of9. Blurry and noisy. I judge the image, I do not judge the origin or source. --Miguel Bugallo 21:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As an overexposed night image, a little blur, neon glow and diffuse light is understandable. It is illustrative for New York's nightlife. --Alex:D (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Miguel. Lycaon (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Encyclopedically valuable, quality OK.--MASHAUNIX 20:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should be sharper for a FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. --Karelj (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose encyclopedic value is probably good, but commons should be more about the picture itself and quality + lighting is rather bad. -- Gorgo (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cityscape Frankfurt 2010 panorama crop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 01:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 01:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 01:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work! --Relic38 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--McIntosh Natura (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A quality image, maybe (it looks overexposed and washed out). But not special enough for being featured (please check Diliff's panos). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a lot of the Diliff's panos photos seems oversaturated imo. I understand that you like them.. but I find it is not polite/fruitful to make comparison of a user work with another user. Ggia (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I respectfully disagree, as Diliff pictures are an example of excellence. Please remember that in FPC we aim to choose the best Commons has to offer -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for your personal point of view all Diliff's panos photos are example of excellence. You can believe this.. Is this a general view of all the community (Diliff's panos photos are example of execelence)? The point for me is that is non-polite to compare other images with the nominations of the users.. Ggia (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff's panos shown in his userpage have been promoted to WP:FP and so, they are examples of excellence for the community (not just for me). Also, this is a forum where candidates for FP are evaluated, not an exibition or a social event. In this perspective, I find perfectly adequate to compare the candidates with other images, particularly better ones. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many users show their showcase with featured pictures.. general you can say that all the featured pictures are example of excellence.. IMO when you make comments to other user image.. you have to focus to comments concerning the aesthetics, technical details (advices to make it better) etc. As easy is to find a example of "excellence" it is easy to find a FP that is really bad. Each one has different point of view - you can see it in the nominations.. both opposes and support votes exists.. Art - aesthetics do not have limitations. Here the only limitation is the rules. Ggia (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of comments a reviewer makes when evaluating a picture in FPC is his/her own business, as long as they remain within scope and address the picture, not the author. Drawing the attention to high quality images of the same kind is a valid and constructive type of comment, used often in this forum. In this particular case, Diliff's works are very instructive examples of good lighting, colouring and composition of panoramic images, and I really fail to understand why showing them to the nominator may be considered unpolite. Neither I understand the suggestion that my comments may not comply with the present rules. But if that is what you really think, maybe it is better to start a discussion in the FPC talk page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* All the FP are considered the finest images in commons. If you like open a discussion in FPC talk page if you believe that only some of the FP commons are example of excellence.. And these FP pictures (that are example of excelence) should be used as an comparison example in the nominations. Ggia (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support probably a increase of saturation make image colors more vidid. The composition and the details make this image education enough and it is aethetically good to be featured. Ggia (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't understand. This image is now FP. What happens? To me it's FP, but I don't know if I must vote.--Miguel Bugallo 20:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry--Miguel Bugallo 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Ggia--Miguel Bugallo 20:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Please notice that a "Week support" or a "Strong support" have exactly the same value as a "Support" vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Alvesgaspar. I know it, but it's different. A {{neutral}} vote have exactly the same value as a "Oppose" vote and I don't like it, but... nobody protest--Miguel Bugallo 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, a "Neutral" vote is not taken into account in the final result... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, you're right. pt: Creio que nesse caso não tenho razão e, se você o diz, eu acredito. Acaso noutro tempo, quando eu andava algo por aqui, fosse assim--Miguel Bugallo 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Also looks somewhat oversharpened, while missing details in part. Lycaon (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good resolution and informative skyline. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As long as there are no stitching errors. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar -- Gorgo (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Oversharpening)artifacts, blurry at the right, background just grey and indistinct. Qualitatively not featured --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Condylactis gigantea (Giant Anemone) red base.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2010 at 17:27:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a scale would be nice. from 1mm to 1m this could be pretty much anything. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another excellent underwater shot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 21:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The image is underexposed and contrast can be slightly increased. Yes, I tried and it worked! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LeavXC (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support downsampled would be better in quality. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Steven Walling 01:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 09:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrey Legayev (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- This needs light. Grinatyou (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Citron (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- It is alive!! :) Grinatyou (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Flor-Murraya manipulata.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 23:20:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Androz - uploaded by Androz - nominated by Androz -- Androz (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Androz (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality. Low contrast, not sharp or poor DOF--Miguel Bugallo 23:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems to be wrong DOF. Athyllis (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not bad, but yeah, unsharp around the edges due to too shallow a DOF. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much too dark –hover Fly | chat? 19:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luxemb Pafendall Béinchen 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 16:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Two bridges in Luxembourg City. The stone bridge was erected in 1685 by Vauban as part of the fortified walls of the ancient fortress. The Red Bridge was inaugurated in 1965. The old bridge and the fortified tower at right are part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral To me it's unsharp and washed out, with a strong geometric distortion on both edges. Sorry. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Maurilbert, but, to me, poor quality: not enough sharp...--Miguel Bugallo 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome.--MASHAUNIX 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info New version uploaded, contrast slightly enhanced, colours less 'washed out'. --Cayambe (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nothing special, I think. Athyllis (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Light issues, but ok. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like composition. Quality doesn't look so good at the full res, but reduced to required minimum looks good, thus support. --Lošmi (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Athyllis. --Karelj (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do like the composition and the contrast between the two bridges, but unfortunately overall quality is poor. -- Gorgo (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC
Oppose Overall quality is insufficient. Lycaon (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zion Virgin River EF.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 06:11:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by LeavXC - uploaded by LeavXC - nominated by LeavXC -- LeavXC (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LeavXC (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hastdutoene (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC); phantastic[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I like the image, but to me it's not FP: Nothing realy in focus. With lightroom 3.0, dark areas underexposed. When I have tried to illuminate those areas, I have not been able to do a good work, and I have seen a little vignetting--Miguel Bugallo 14:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Miquel Bugallo--MASHAUNIX 20:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not look special to me. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

InfoWithout vignette LeavXC (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support LeavXC (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athyllis (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does not look special to me. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- What isn't special? Is it the subject matter? Technical details? Could you please elaborate? I figure it is valuable because it captures a neat section of the North Fork of the Virgin River, which carved out Zion National Park. LeavXC (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice photo --Pudelek (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ploceus cucullatus nigriceps (male hanging).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 13:25:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

InfoLayard's Weaver in Lusaka, Zambia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As an old friend would say "unfortunate lighting conditions" with unfortunate pose added. Unnatural pose, and I suspect, unnatural behaviour. What does it illustrate, if the pose illustrates something, it is missing in the description? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question (Sorry, perhaps I can not understand english). Why "unnatural pose", Tomascastelazo? Unfortunate lighting conditions, why? What you do not like? Do you speak of the position of the bird or of the user? I do not understand. What you suspect?: The image is the image. I can't understand. Have you a problem with Lycaon?: There are pages "User talk:...". This one is not the place. Sorry, probably I can't understand--Miguel Bugallo 16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow! This is one of the most mind blowing picture I have seen. What is the bird doing, pull ups? --Muhammad (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically blury, not nice background. Ggia (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Interesting, good, but improvable--Miguel Bugallo 20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here, it is FP, not QI. The technical quality of the image is maybe not absolutely perfect (I wrote "maybe"), but I've never seen such a behavior or pose, which only deserves the FP status IMO, even if it needs a short description or explanation. Furthermore I agree with Lmbuga...--Jebulon (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - gymnastics! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support IQ is doubtfull, but this pittys performance is funny. --Mile (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Schnobby (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual pose, which seems to be adequately explained by the image description, nevertheless a reference for it would help. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the very nature of the nests they construct, Ploceus spp. often perform acrobatics while building or destroying their nests ([13], [14], [15]). Lycaon (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Funny, I did extensive search of internet and I did not find any references to this "typical" behaviour of these species. Lycaon, could you please shed a little light on this please?--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Typical" in the image description is really puzzling, and might need to be corrected, nevertheless the image is IMO in scope as it demonstrates the range of positions this bird can take. It's really bizarre and striking, and if not useful for Wikipedia for being uncharacteristic, could appear one day in Wikinews or other sister projects. --Elekhh (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athyllis (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is irrelevant whether this extraordinary behaviour is typical of the species or not, it is amazing anyway (and probably rare to capture)! But I still hesitate because of the less-than-optimal lighting. Why didn't you ask the critter to turn to the other side? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- What the hell... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Napoleon once said "From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one step." In this case, the picture is funny as it is, typical behaviour or not. But one thing is to be funny and another is to be a rare photograph of a typical behaviour, which if were truly typical, there would be more pictures of this typical behaviour, at least statistically. If this is typical behavior, and considering the rarity of photograps of this typical behaviour, then this would indeed be an extraordinary picture. Almost as rare, or more rare, than a picture of the Monster of Lock Ness. But if not, it is just a funny picture.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm always keen to support a fleeting moment of action captured forever. --99of9 (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Lycaon (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why? --99of9 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same question from me. What was reason for withdraw? --Karelj (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the storm is now going away... Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every nominator is absolutely free with his nominations, yes. But I think it is not very well "brought up" to despise so the reviewers, especially the supporters (I was happy to be one of them...). By the way, what kind of storm ? --Jebulon (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kecskemet 2010 Türk Yıldızları photo 64.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 12:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Wolf (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, to me is good, QI, but not FP: Rule of thirds possible (composition), not sharp enough: I don't like the crop--Miguel Bugallo 19:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks difficult to photograph. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einstein2 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition and lighting not spectacular. --99of9 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also with 99of9. Looks more like a snapshot than a high-quality photograph for the great subject material presented. LeavXC (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicrophorus vespilloides in dead rodent flash reduced.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 14:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by V-wolf -- V-wolf (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- V-wolf (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad flash. Definition. I don't like it. To me, bad quality--Miguel Bugallo 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yuck! So this was the end of Mickey Mouse? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Agreed =P --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Great! I love this one! Keep it up. -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per LMBS, and not sure it could be a QI.--Jebulon (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Bugallo. --Karelj (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silicon Graphics Ball-IMG 4190.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 16:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Silicon Graphics SpaceBall model 1003 (1988), allowing manipulation of objects with 6 degrees of freedom. On display at the Musée Bolo, EPFL, Lausanne.
Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support whatever that thing is --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support another great one from the series. keep on rollin'. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'm impressed with the quality, though the subject is not the most attractive... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esel-Pilatus Kulm.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 17:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Athyllis (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neat. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A magic view! A pity that a little more of the foreground is not shown. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful, magic of the moment captured. It's enormously wonderful. Coastside2 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not "enormously wonderful", because of the bad crop of the mirador, in the corner left below. And IMO this object does not add.--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20100524 Kardamos beach Imbros Gökçeada Turkey.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 23:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment beside the color of the sea, general interesting landscape, I added this image to get the feeling of the area when you see this image. This image is also tagged on the image. Ggia (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support LeavXC (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Very good quality (I want a D700) but a bit boring, imo. What about increasing the constrast and saturation a little? I don't like the almost square aspect ratio either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though it's a little bit boring, the red building in the lower right corner gives it a nice touch. -- Gorgo (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Am I the seventh ? Really ? Wow...:)--Jebulon (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:20100524 Kardamos beach Imbros Gökçeada Turkey.jpg

File:Image of an African Songye Power Figure in the collection of the Indianapolis Museum of Art (2005.21).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 22:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown, photo by Mike Rippy - uploaded by RichardMcCoy - nominated by IdLoveOne -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight near the top. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I worked on the BG, but before I add it as an alt, please have a look at it and tell me if you'd vote for it or if it needs more headroom. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good educational value and setup (background, lighting, etc.). LeavXC (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV and setup per LeavXC and good presentation (on the file page). like it --McIntosh Natura (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent studio shot. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too tight crop -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop (I'd support the alt). Lycaon (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above--Miguel Bugallo 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info slightly longer and cropped to frame it a little nicer. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Lycaon (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There seems to be a dead pixel at the left of the top of the head. --Cayambe (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 19:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed per High Fin ; Much better! LeavXC (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request Are you (or anybody) able to use it on Wikimedia projets? Przykuta → [edit] 17:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done in French Wikipedia--Jebulon (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original uploader (Richard McCoy) removed this picture from the French WP and changed it with the other one (radiographic). I corrected the caption in (better) French.--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Professional quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Image of an African Songye Power Figure in the collection of the Indianapolis Museum of Art (2005.21)-EDIT.jpg

File:Psittacus erithacus qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 05:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info African Grey Parrot in the Herborn Bird Park, Germany. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in this image I don't like the flash light.. you can see it in the eye (this can be corrected) and the shadows of the legs. Ggia (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have exactly the same opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done photo! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral To me the image it's not sharp enough (File:Psittacus erithacus -upper body-8c.jpg)--Miguel Bugallo 18:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not a question of sharpness but of detail, which is affected by noise. Yes, I have the same problem with my D80, even with a relatively small ISO of 250. I want a D700! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't look natural with the flash -- Gorgo (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I removed the flash spot in the eye and slightly decreased overall brightness, but I am unable to remove the shadows behind the claws. --Quartl (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gorgo. Athyllis (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was close to decline (see my comment above), but I think your work now is very good, and the picture looks very much better to me. By the way, Thanks for all so nice pictures, Quartl. --Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the praise, the same to your work. --Quartl (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors spoiled with flash. --Mile (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the flash! –hover Fly | chat? 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Mühlengebäude im Winter.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 14:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Hastdutoene -- Hastdutoene (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hastdutoene (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great texture shown from the snow, leading lines from tree shadows. LeavXC (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately a tree obscures part of the building. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is it? Przykuta → [edit] 17:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I have been valuing the image several days. I do not feel able to do it. The image has defects, but the image has more merits than defects. It is very difficult--Miguel Bugallo 21:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After thinking it, it seems very good to me--Miguel Bugallo 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice image, good composition and lighting. Some overexposed parts, but this is inevitable in such conditions (direct sun, reflections on the snow). The tree that "obscures part of the building" doesn't bother me. Please complete the description, preferably also in English: name of the mill, location. And please add geocoding too. -- MJJR (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition, like Snowmanradio. --Karelj (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition, lighting -- Gorgo (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice but the colors seem unnatural, big difference from the first version. Athyllis (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Strong CA in the trees--Jebulon (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack. Snowmanradio. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inveraray Castle, Argyll and Bute, Scotland-31May2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 19:20:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Son of Groucho - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately a tower obscures part of the building. --Hastdutoene (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't understand your meaning. Do you mean that the shadow obscures part of the building? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the tower on your right. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support might like it more w/o the tourists.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like less sky to the top (this is possible with a new crop) and more creative position of the tourists inside the image.. or the image without tourists. Ggia (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps us Ggia, but I support--Miguel Bugallo 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. Please don't crop the sky! -- MJJR (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure, perhaps us MJJR--Miguel Bugallo 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice looking picture though not special enough for promotion. The sky is posterized. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its good. --Mile (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –hover Fly | chat? 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tonna galea 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 14:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez
Tonna galea, Tonnidae, Giant Tun, length 14 cm.
From left to right: Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view. -- Llez (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support there must be some kind of cornucopia with those pictures in it. very good illustrations + composition. is there any "making of" documentation for this kind of shots? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 14:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great one.--Jebulon (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: all the images in this series are great! –hover Fly | chat? 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a few like this, but it is so beautifully done, how can I not Support. Jonathunder (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too unsharp and too sharp to me (edges)--Miguel Bugallo 01:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 09:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects