Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2009

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

File:Catedral de Segovia.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 13:31:27

Info Much below size requirements, building is nearly cut off by the tight crop, and poor lighting/quality. (Original nomination)
Delist —Maedin\^talk 13:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not even close to good enough. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Keep them coming. Delisting inferior pictures is a much a contribution to the FP library as nominating new ones! -- JovanCormac 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --ianaré (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Claus (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral =>  delisted. --Karel (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barack Obama speaks at Camp Lejeune 2-27-09 3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 11:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lance Cpl. Michael J. Ayotte, USMC - uploaded by BrokenSphere - nominated by JovanCormac 11:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info An excellent shot of Obama giving a speech. Iconic, of very high quality, and more dynamic than the official portrait that has been nominated before. -- JovanCormac 11:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 11:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support agreed --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 11:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree, also the shallow depth of field here gives a beautiful result. →Diti the penguin — 13:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality problem: too small DOF, bad foreground (very distraction) --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally think it is not a quality problem: the main subject is Barack Obama, not the microphone. The creative use of a small depth of field enabled the photographer to get rid of worse quality problems. →Diti the penguin — 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mouth and a chin look it is washed away. It is low DOF problem. Part of head really not sharp. I understand that the photographer had no chance to change a composition, however microphones and clothes is very unhappy. It is a pity to me, I'm sorry, but this my fair opinion. I do not wish anybody to offend --George Chernilevsky (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distracting foreground --Avala (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. --Karel (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that the microphone is annoying. /Daniel78 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, distracting angle and technical equipment in foreground. Does not contribute. No anonymous vote, please. →Diti the penguin — 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black kitten July August 2009-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 22:45:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of a black kitten at full sunshine against a white backgroud (yes, it is blown white). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have hundreds of photos like this, quality isn't extraordinary. —kallerna™ 11:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Burned highlights -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Burned highlights. →Diti the penguin — 10:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QP but not FP --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 12:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 16:09:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Mexican flameknee birdeater (Brachypelma auratum). Photo with more soft lighting.
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs geocoding, just as your pics below, so that I know which beach/desert to stay the hell away from! --Dschwen (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was looking at this about a week ago, and thought it was stunning. It's great to see it here. Julielangford (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition isn't FP. —kallerna™ 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Support --Ліонкінг (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition on the shot below is better --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 07:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC) - nominated by --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Mexican flameknee birdeater (Brachypelma auratum). Big female. Rare, large and poisonous spider. The first scientific description is created in 1993 only.
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice picture. Unfortunately the light comes from the wrong direction. Also the dark areas look a bit grainy. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 08:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh lighting, too much lost in the shadows. --Dschwen (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks both for comment. I nominate other variant --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Regretful Oppose~~ DOF is too shallow (see near legs). Amazing (and I mean it) composition, though. The footprints in the sand are fantastic. Composition-wise, this is one of the best spider shots on Commons. -- JovanCormac 17:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, the composition, especially the intimidating footprints, is simply too amazing to oppose. So I change my vote to a weak Support. If such a great composition isn't a mitigating reason, I don't know what is. -- JovanCormac 17:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is not as good as the one above, but still good. Julielangford (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the footprints and the warmer colours of this one. --Korall (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This composition is better (imho) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 12:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting is ok for me, e.g. the majority of the back is exposed to light. The only minor drawbacks for me are the camera limitations (noise at base ISO, sharpness fall-off towards border) but especially subject and composition are good enough for FP. In the long run your contributions would technically benefit from a DSLR. --Iotatau (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 12:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not featured, instead File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G03.jpg is featured which has the better support/oppose ratio. See Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#How_far_does_the_rule_of_.22two_versions.22_go.3F for details. -- JovanCormac 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chichen Itza 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 07:34:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by JovanCormac 07:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Highly detailed (80 Mpx!) panorama of Chichen Itza. Flawless quality. We need this in our library! -- JovanCormac 07:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great find, amazing quality. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very big support --ka ʁs tn 09:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This really is excellence! Bravo Julielangford (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know all the ancient structures don't follow our modern construction standards, but most of the verticals on the picture seems to be leaning to the right. The entire scene seems to be tilted CW as well, although it can be the because the temple is build on a slope. Unless you can confirm me that the scene is at the proper level (e.g. if you used a level for your camera, and those verticals are tilted in reality), I think it should be rotated CCW. --S23678 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- MJJR (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. But it can be a bit more on the right side. — Jagro (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing work! --Relic38 (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 17:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – very good. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. Wish no people were in it but that just isn't realistic. Nezzadar (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Cinabar on Dolomite.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 09:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice crystal. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is it from? Please add this info to the image description. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely detail and great colour. Julielangford (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite good despite the smallish size. Lycaon (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support And a surefire VI candidate as well. -- JovanCormac 16:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you add some info about the origin of the mineral, I am ready to support. I like the recent addition of a CC-BY-SA license to the image .--Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ask the owner if he knows any more. Expect a few days turnaround. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be great, thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 16:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Delicate Arch sunset.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 09:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ymaup -- Ymaup (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ymaup (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At full size, this lacks the clarity we've come to expect from this type of shots. -- JovanCormac 11:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jovan. There's also quite a lot of chromatic aberration. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not as crisp and with as good composition as other FPs from Arches National Park, i.e. File:Double-O-Arch Arches National Park 2.jpg. --Slaunger (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues --S23678 (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and the shadows in the front look bad --ka ʁs tn 10:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadows. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per others. By the way, the shadow on the left rock looks like a monster of some kind. Of course, that hos nothing to do with me opposing. --Ernie (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fort Baker on San Francisco Bay.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 14:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely tilted. --Dschwen (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. If you believe it is still tilted please tell me which way and how many degrees?--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still see a very minor tilt. 1.15 degree CCW adjustment should fix that right up though. Great pano work. Julielangford (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but are you sure. I rotated the original one 1 degree CW. If I am to rotate as you're saying I will be rotating it back.--Two+two=4 (talk)

That will probably depend on which part of the image the eye goes to when judging the horizon. For me, the horizon is that of the sea, in the upper right. That line is about 1.15 degrees out in a clockwise orientation. Julielangford (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also look really close at the vertical posts visible at the mid left [around the buildlings]. It really is tiny, when you look there, but it's there, and makes more of a difference up on the sea horizon. Julielangford (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would benefit from a slight histogram adjustment - it looks underexposed and too contrasty at the moment. Time3000 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will work on the image. --Two+two=4 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I created a new panorama from a different set of the images. I hope the colors are better. Is it still tilted?--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. --Dschwen (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dschwen, please do not keep suspense going on :) Do tell me what side and how many degrees to rotate it to, or beeter yet rotate it yourself please. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colours are great on this one, but tilt is worse. 1.5 CCW adjustment should sort it. Julielangford (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Julie. I did as you said. I hope it is fixed now. --Two+two=4 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just a panorama. —kallerna™ 20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now it's very cool indeed. Great image. Julielangford (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geocode please. Nice pic. --Dschwen (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did. The image was taken from Golden Gate Bridge as you could see from the image: File:Fort Baker with shadow of Goden Gate Bridge.jpg.--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which incidentally is tilted like crazy as well :-) --Dschwen (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let go on it. I would not like to cut off the shadow :)--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You actually shouldn't lose too much of the bridge shadow as it needs a CWW rotation [quite a big rotation though]. The loss would mainly be the upper right and bottom left areas [sky and rock], with some loss on each side. If you make it more panoramic with the crop after rotatstion, it should be great. Julielangford (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie, thank you. How many degrees I should rotate it to?--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you already rotated it by the time I read this, but still needs a further 1.15 degrees. Careful not to lose too much of the sky :) Julielangford (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, 2+2 you should really go see a chiropractic ;-). Get that neck straight. Or put some coasters under your monitor (on the left). --Dschwen (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dschwen, I hurt my neck when I tried to figure out what's going on in your image that is nominated just below

--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! :-D --Dschwen (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Karel (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scenery is nice, but the light conditions (mid-day) are pretty dull. Morning or evening shots probably present a more pleasant atmosphere. --S23678 (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken less than 3 hours before sunset. The sun sets behind the hills so let's take one more hour out. The image was taken from the bridge looking down to the Bay. The sun was positioned about right. --Two+two=4 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This version's much better. I agree that midday isn't the ideal time, but it's not enough for an oppose imo. Time3000 (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality --ka ʁs tn 10:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 09:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gavia immer1 BS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 10:42:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual bird, interesting colors & composition. A quick denoise wouldn't hurt, though. -- JovanCormac 11:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC) The version above is better. -- JovanCormac 14:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support I like this one better. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. --Jcart1534 (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 10:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gavia immer4 BS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 14:36:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO this is almost a second version of the same picture. I don't think both should be featured. -- JovanCormac 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the better one, I have withdrawn my vote from the other picture. -- JovanCormac 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info You are right, it is the same individual. But I thought that the pictures being quite different, they deserved to be submitted to the judgement of the community for FP (I actually have a third one coming). --Cephas (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like all variants --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting eye --Muhammad (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the crop. The one down below is better in my opinion.--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per 2+2. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Two+two=4. —kallerna™ 10:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden Gate Bridge and fog.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 00:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of the many Golden Gates. Nothing special. Lycaon (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not so much about Golden Gate. This image illustrates fog as a visibility hazard. There two road signs there that one hardly could see. In my opinion this image is the best to illustrate the subject and that's why it is special.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose At first, I was impressed by the scene, where it seems a cloud is crossing the Golden Gate (more than general fog). However, I realized the fog was digitally added (original version)

I reverted to the original but the only thing I tried to do was to reduce noise in some places, where it was hard to reduce using other ways because of the cables. So I made the image lighter in some places.Here's one of the first images I took on that day File:Fog over Golden Gate Bridge 2.jpg. It is an original image. Then I decided to take shots for panorama. The fog over the bridge is ever moving and ever changing. While I was taken the images of a lower part the fog moved in, while I was taken images of the middle part the fog moved out, while I was taken images of the upper part... and so on, and so on. I like to take images of the moving subjects for my panoramas

Hugin blended images together and actually reduced the fog in some places I guess. When I made my edit I brought the image back to the way it looked in the reality. --Two+two=4 (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alterations are still there (the version you reverted back to still contains the added fog). I think (I might be mistaken) you are fairly new to FPC process, so I will direct you towards the digital manipulations guidelines, especially to the {{RetouchedPicture}} template. --S23678 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than mistaking (about the fog I mean)! Here's one more image I took this very day (also an original one) File:Fog over GGB.jpg. The fog over Golden Gate Bridge is a well known phenomenon.I really wish I could add the fog digitally

. I guess I will direct you to learning more about the subject before making such a serious accusations as "adding fog digitally" or you could look over other images that were uploaded to Commons like this one for instance File:Morning Fog at GGB.JPG}{{smile} --Two+two=4 (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remove my "Oppose", since it no longer applies to the current FPC (although I would suggest you nominate edits as alternatives). I think there has been some misunderstandings, so I will try to rectify some things: My first comment about the "added fog" referred to a note I made on the image, which got erased when you changed the version of the image. It was about a spot of fog a lot more bright than the fog in the rest of the picture, which is no longer present on the current version. I thought that spot was simply brighten by photoshop (that's where the "digitally added" comes from), but is was actually from images blending. This is still a digital manipulation, hence my suggestion of adding the retouched picture template (since a viewer can be easily mistaken in thinking it's a genuine scene). About my second comment, I added it because the new version of the file was then appearing as being the exact same as the version I opposed (no longer the case now, I don't know why). BTW, I've been on the bridge myself when there was fog, I do not think it's an impossible phenomenon.

--S23678 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad we cleared the fog up.

--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I do the bad puns around here! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning fast

. --Two+two=4 (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A similar photograph of the same subject has already been featured: File:Morning Fog at GGB.JPG. →Diti the penguin — 20:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I found this image after I nominated mine, yet I believe mine is different because it really illustrates how hard it is to see road signs in the fog.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It looks a bit tiled, and imo it's not a special photo --ka ʁs tn 10:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kodiak Harbor after the storm, Alaska 2009 disk 2 129 (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 18:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:NancyHeise - uploaded by User:NancyHeise - nominated by User:NancyHeise -- User:NancyHeise (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- User:NancyHeise (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but it does not have outstanding value and it lacks the necessary technical quality. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 10:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick! Let's get a shot of the rainbow!!1! ;-) Sorry, but the foreground clutter spoils the pic for me (and the way everything is thightly cropped). Oppose --Dschwen (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snapshot feeling --S23678 (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Night Light.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 02:37:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by lvm15 - uploaded by Lê - nominated by Lê -- Lê (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lê (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Night Light" - from where? Uncategorized. —kallerna™ 09:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy. What ist it? Where is it (camera lacation) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It from County Durham , England--Lê (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the added info, whitch bridge?. Nice and atmospheric photo but still simple to noisy for FI. Please add the camara location too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise (in the sky), and sharpness is problematic as well. Beautiful bridge, though. -- JovanCormac 10:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unappealing foreground, too little room at the sides. --Dschwen (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Umnik (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PLEASE add a better description. Derham County is large, names of bridge, town and river are a must, a geocode would be perfect. -- H005 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, chaotic composition. --Karel (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues (noise, CA) --S23678 (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Umnik --ka ʁs tn 10:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Tower night winter 2009 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 12:08:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The former water tower in the centre of Vinnitsia, Ukraine. View in the winter evening. Celebratory illumination for Christmas holidays.
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise and blown whites (lamps). -- JovanCormac 16:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise ok (almost inevitable for those low illumination photos), but overexposed. Otherwise a nice scenary but a quite uninteresting composition. Is the Ukrainian flag motion blurred due to a long exposure? Hard to tell from the photo as there is no EXIF information (why?) --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise and general low quality --S23678 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So a nice motive and so nice photo, but so a bad quality, too --ka ʁs tn 10:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ordesa National Park Northwest face of Cirque of Soaso.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 11:53:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by diacritica - uploaded by diacritica - nominated by diacritica -- Diacritica (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diacritica (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is a little dull and noisy, but those rock formations are truly something else. Love this. Julielangford (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, chromatic aberration, overprocessed. —kallerna™ 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp in my opinion.--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sharpen it just a bit in a new version. -- diacritica (talk) 09:09, 26 August (UTC)
Support Well aesthetically --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark for my eyes and nothing special. --Karel (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the cliffs are presented in an exceptional way. --S23678 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, not the best quality --ka ʁs tn 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Preparation for schooner race.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 20:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, you are a sucker for punishment! ;-) I'm anticipating opposes based on the inward tilt, so can I ask you: is there anything that can be done about that? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it

! When I created panorama Hugin select a cylindrical setting. I believe it is the way it should be counting that the image includes both towers of Golden Gate Bridge on the left and Alcatraz Island on the right. I believe this tilt is kind of natural. This image was incredibly hard to stitch. Everything was moving from frame to frame. The weather was also bad. In my opinion this image is interesting because it shows the preparations for the race in the different stages. You could see boats from USA, Germany, Australia, Sweden and Great Britain. BTW thanks for the comment versus opposing right away

.--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another look, and maybe I will try to correct it. ~~for now~~The images was fixed to the best of my ability. So let's go on with the nomination.--Two+two=4 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always prefer discussing an image before opposing it, especially considering the immense amount of effort out into the last panorama you nominated. Being a photographically challenged person, I'm generally reluctant to oppose works where I'm out of my depth tech-wise; I don't have the knowledge to tell whether the tilt could, or indeed should, be fixed, so I thought I'd do the gentlemanly thing, and wait until those more informed than myself had comented. I do agree with you regarding the value and quality of the image, and I'll be happy to support it, pending the inevitable barrage of questions and stitchings. Thank you, though, for taking the time to take such wonderful images, and taking criticism in your stride. I don't think that gets said enough around here. Best of luck! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! It is very kind of you. BTW the image is withdrawn only for oppose votes. Everybody, who would like to support it please proceed.

--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal control points should allow you to straighten things out. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ~~Could you please give me a link me to tutorials?~~Found it.--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic job on getting it straightened out. I think this is quite remarkable :) Julielangford (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light & colours. Bad crop on bottom right. —kallerna™ 09:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a bad weather, a normal weather for San Francisco summers, but the scene was quite unique. About the crop. So much was going on that no matter what something should have been off, and actually nothing is.--Two+two=4 (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I was on the verge of voting both ways already, but simply can't make up my mind. Quality is good, but not stellar; subject is interesting, but colors are dull. So neutral it is. -- JovanCormac 11:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I like it. But there's one stitching error between the second and third boat on the right side. I'll support fixed version. (no need to restich. you can use clone tool for that) --Lošmi (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean between boats 8558 and 8842? If so there's no error. I could upload the original. If you mean something different could you please add a note to the image or the nomination? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fixed now. --Lošmi (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S23678 (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I see no wow ;-) --ka ʁs tn 10:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes its wow by lack of the usual "wow" elements for sailboat pictures: no sunlight, blue sky or whitecaps. Yet there's activity and a mood here, plus crisp detail. Excellent. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your initial comment! I believe only a very kind and a very nice person would make a comment as you did versus opposing the image right away for a fixable problem! I was very lucky you were the first one, who saw the image

--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac) 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment FYI regarding a cleanup of all misplaced FPs and their nominations: "During the nomination the nominated File:Preparation for schooner race.jpg was replaced by File:Preparation for schooner race 2.jpg, so the elected FP is the latter; but inadvertently the original image was promoted. Let’s fix this and transfer FP template, categories etc. to File:Preparation for schooner race 2.jpg where they belong." --Cart (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quartz, Tibet.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 09:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alchemist's shots are quite popular, so thought I'd throw in something. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just be careful where you throw it; you might break something (or someone!). :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. Crystal clear. -- JovanCormac 16:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! Maedin\^talk 09:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Support --ka ʁs tn 10:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. — Jagro (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Thomas Bresson - Aeshna cyanea-1 (by).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:11:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you clone out the bright spot at the top? I just noticed it and now it is very distracting. --Relic38 (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A dragonfly hovering in the air with a blue sky backgroud is a lot of wow for me with or without the bright spot.--Korall (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree Relic38. But it is excellent shot. I never saw earlier so good a flying dragonfly with folded landing gears ;-). --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive picture, though it would be even more impressive if that spot was removed. Tiptoety ^talk 22:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ta dah. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The most interesting shot in line --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support That was easy. Excellent! --Relic38 (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Julielangford (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thomas Bresson - Aeshna cyanea-2 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:09:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one is very close, composition is OK. The only problem for me is the bright lower-left corner distraction. Also, like the one above better. --Relic38 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Now that I think about it more... If you clone out the bottom-left corner, this may be better than the one above. --Relic38 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Blurry even at the small size. Why even nominate this if you also nominate similar better candidates? --Dschwen (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Aeshna cyanea (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one has a lot of character, but it is too small and seems out of focus for that size. One of the other two may have a better chance though. --Relic38 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Argiope-3 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light due to flash. Also, if the shot had bee taken slightly lower the composition would be better and, the head may have had a better focus. --Relic38 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Episyrphus balteatus (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing much in focus, and the target didn't pose well at all. --Relic38 (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pretty much per Relic38. The focus is not great. Tiptoety ^talk 21:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad focus. —Jagro (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Sympetrum striolatum (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very informative shooting angle --Korall (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the flash reflections on the twig. Lycaon (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lycaon. Unfortunately the illuminated twig is very distracting. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Tachina fera (by).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, sharp, excellent colour. Good work! --Relic38 (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but composition isn't perfect. Should be more like this, althought it isn't possible with that lens. —kallerna™ 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this kind of image gives more information about the insect than the comosition of the one kallerna suggested.--Korall (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also think this is an excellent picture, but I would prefer if it was cropped a little on the left. -- JovanCormac 19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI like the compsition as it is and think cropping on the left would make the fly too centered and the image less interesting.--Korall (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't like is the flare/dust spot area on the left side. If this can be photoshopped away, there's no need to crop. -- JovanCormac 07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Composition seems fine to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice portrait --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This was a hard decision. What bothers me most are the bright areas in the fore- and background. Altogether IMO this picture can't keep up with the other already featured pictures of the same category. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tripe seller.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 18:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by sNappy - uploaded by sNappy - nominated by sNappy -- sNappy 18:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- sNappy 18:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop on top edge. -- JovanCormac 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problems with white balance, crop unfortunate. Lycaon (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hook covering his face, the white balance and the crop. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The white balance was quite natural because there was a red light in the shop that lightened everything with red colors, it's quite common in these shops that sell meat.--sNappy 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walter Johnson and Calvin Coolidge shake hands FINAL.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 02:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by National Photo Company Collection - uploaded by Staxringold (heavy work done by Durova and Adam Cuerden) - nominated by Staxringold -- Staxringold (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Staxringold (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historic document. -- JovanCormac 06:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Certainly. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-creator. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as dirt-zapping drudge. Durova (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 16:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 08:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Waves July 2009-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 22:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Playing in the waves. Beach of Cerca Nova, Porto Covo, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF, composition and resolution Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:White shark.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 11:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pterantula - uploaded by Althepal - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Julielangford (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is far too small Lycaon (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I nominated this photo for delisting, people wrote that the underwater setting acted as a strong mitigating reason. This shark picture is far better than the Canthigaster one. Ergo FPX contested and support. -- JovanCormac 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mitigation for quality (difficult shooting circumstances regarding colours and light diffraction), not size! Lycaon (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The one I mentioned has about the same resolution as the shark picture, though. -- JovanCormac 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution. —kallerna™ 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is really really wow to me. Much better than the delist candidate fish below. Also the delist candidate tick is kind of small, and this one is a lot sharper. --Korall (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't think that the resolution should be an off putting factor with this image. It is under the size suggested, but it's not tiny, or by any means a useless size. It is large enough to be used, and used well, in some very valuable projects. Also, the lighting is natural, and quite dim [although excellent for an underwater shot]. I could take this into Photoshop right now and increase the file size no problem at all, without changing the size of it - just be upping the exposure a little. But why? just to make it bigger in size? No need, I think it's perfect, just as it is. Julielangford (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The resolution of this image is only a mere 50% of the 2 Mpx that the guidelines require! There is no mitigation for promoting a 'half-sized' image. The image is good (could be a VI for instance) but does NOT meet requirements for FP. This 2 Mpx limit was installed more than two years ago [1] when it was deemed that under 3 Mpx cameras were becoming an extinct species. Two years on and 8 Mpx being the entry-level res for point-n-shooters, you want to start promoting small images? Are you serious? Lycaon (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Normally, I would be one of the first to oppose an image that is way too small, but I think this one is smaller than suggested - not by any means, way to small. I really think in the case of this image, the line above - Happy judging, and remember, all rules can be broken - is appropriate. I could make this 2 mb in the blink of an eye, without changing the resolution at all, and probably get a good result. But, I wasn't the one in the water with Great White sharks, the orignal artist was, and they deserve all the credit. And incidentally, this image was taken three years ago, long before the fight for pixels began. Julielangford (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The size is too low IMO to be FP. --S23678 (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per others. --Ernie (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the light spots on shark body. --Karel (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, IMO.--Claus (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I liked it, but per Karel --ka ʁs tn 10:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose size --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Too late. -- JovanCormac 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willis Tower.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 14:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

InfoRecently renamed Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) in Chicago. Establishing shot for the re-branded entrance while showing the distinct three tiered building silhouette - by Dschwen (talk)
Support -- Dschwen (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good point of look --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. Still can't believe that it's not called "Sears Tower" anymore. -- JovanCormac 17:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose the main tower is great, but there is a definate perspective issue on the left tower and also on the posts at the front of the building for me. Julielangford (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question How was this made (EXIF-data missing)? Canon 5D + fisheye-lens? I like this one, but it seems to bee curvy only on left hand side. —kallerna™ 21:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 5D, 24mm lens, vertical pano (transverse mercator projection, keeps the main subject mostly straight), exposure blended. --Dschwen (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, then it makes sense, Support, althought the colours are bit dull (cloudy weather, but it isn't your fault). —kallerna™ 21:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahh, so it's is meant to look that way! sorry, I didnt realise and thought it was a verical stitching problem. I change my vote to * Support after the explanation. Apologies again, but I do not know how to strike out my previous opposing vote. Julielangford (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - With <s></s> tags around your old votr. --Dschwen (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you :) Julielangford (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice! --Leviathan (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Interesting perspective. However, filled with small stitching errors (see notes). --S23678 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing those out. I'd ask voters to hold off on further opposes based on these, as I'll try to fix them today. --Dschwen (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed. None of these was more than a one pixel displacement though. There are some areas in the image which are not pixel perfectly sharp. But overall I think the quality compares well with other candidates here. --Dschwen (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good job. --S23678 (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It shows not the real (Verzerrungen) --ka ʁs tn 10:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Though distortion is always going to be a problem when shooting these types of images. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 09:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Esemplare di un riccio.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 13:20:55 (UTC)

Info created by Cemg - uploaded by Cemg - nominated by Cemg -- Cemg (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's good (but i don't speek a good english :))-- Cemg (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute, but not sharp enough in my opinion.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF too low. Also it would be nice to see more details of that cute hedgehog ;-). --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it, but bad crop und quality not the best --ka ʁs tn 09:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Media needing categories as of 28 August 2009. —kallerna™ 12:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna. Lycaon (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:S.Bartolomeo statua.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 17:38:17 (UTC)

Info created by Cemg - uploaded by Cemg - nominated by Cemg -- ≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The head of the statue is out of focus and the image lacks a background. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:15:36

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Just 1 Mpx resolution. ~~HDR also seems a little overdone.~~ Not HDR, as pointed out by Maedin. As beautiful as it is, there's no way this would get featured today. -- JovanCormac 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beautiful, I am thinking of it as a 2006 FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's because it is a 2006 FP. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the beauty of the image as a strong mitigating reason. If a reasonably similar alternative was presented I would change to delist. --ianaré (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Brackenheim (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jovan, this is not an HDR image; stunning sunsets can sometimes be just that. I can appreciate why you would have assumed it was HDR (or otherwise enhanced), but you should have stated it as an assumption instead of misleading other users. No harm done, of course, just keep it in mind, ;-) Maedin\^talk 07:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing that out, I corrected in the description. -- JovanCormac 14:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Size, tilt, (lack of) sharpness. Lycaon (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep // tsca (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Voting period has ended. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bodie ghost town.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:03:50

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution is less than 1 Mpx. Not amazing enough to mitigate, as this can be taken any time. -- JovanCormac 18:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 18:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I was all ready to stick up for this one...until I saw it a 'full size'. The tag says it's suitable for use as a widescreen desktop background, but trust me, don't try it on a 24' monitor. Also, it seems to have some perspective issues. That said, the composition is great, and I hope we get another, larger shot like this soon. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as nom --ianaré (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canthigaster valentini 1.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 16:03:43

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution is only a little above 1 Mpx. Sharpness leaves a lot to be desired, too. -- JovanCormac 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Underwater photography is a lot more complicated than phoptography on land. It takes special eqiupment and the light conditions are usually a lot worse. I Don't think it would be fair to judge it by the same standards that we apply to other images, though I am not experienced enough to tell exactly how much we can expect. -- Korall (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully agree, but the main problem here is not the quality but the resolution, which is far too low IMO. -- JovanCormac 10:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a good image, I would not like to see it go away just due to the resolution. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Korall (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detailaufnahme Weihnachtsstern - groß.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:06:22

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution too low, also noisy. -- JovanCormac 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Claus (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Folio from a Koran (8th-9th century).jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:09:19

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Just an ordinary folio, but dirty and smeared in many places, plus the writing on the back shines through. This doesn't to the Koran justice. -- JovanCormac 18:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 18:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe not the prettiest, but of great historical value (8th-9th century !)
Keep the extreme age and archaic form of writing is VERY valuable. As the Koran was written in about the 7th century, this very early edition is extremely valuable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Claus (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good enough to stay. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I talked to a representative of the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin a few days ago (which is considered to be the finest collection of Qurans outside of the Islamic World) and he told me that they were currently in the process of digitizing their entire collection, for making it available to the entire world. Once this is done, we will import literally tens of thousands of beautiful Quran pages into Commons which (I can tell you, as I have had the privilege of seeing the collection with my own eyes) make the candidate look like a piece of scrap paper. -- JovanCormac 15:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the tens of thousands of beautiful Quran pages reach Commons. Lycaon (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lycaon --Muhammad (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Voting period was over. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muybridge race horse animated 184px.gif, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 10:26:44

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): This has been replaced by the identical but higher-resolution version File:Muybridge race horse animated.gif which I nominated for Featured Picture above. -- JovanCormac 10:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 10:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed. Yann (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Aye. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As author. --wau > 18:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grant of arms2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 18:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by anonymous - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Grant of arms.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Illustration from a sixteenth century grant of arms signed by Philip II of Spain. Digitized directly from the original manuscript.
Support -- Durova (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I think this is a highly valuable historic illustration, and fascinating to look at. I have been looking carefully at the original scan and also your partially restored version where you have not yet brightened it up as much in the colors. The change in colors seems dramatic in your last step. The red colors are really red, and the somewhat blue-grey steel? swordsarm in the original is more clearly blue (further from the original?). I realize that the pigments in the original has fainted during all those years, but how do you "dose" the color correction? Is it by-eye or via a more systematic approach? I guess your objective is to get as close as possible to how it was when the manuscript was written? For me it seems like you have been very bold in putting your own interpretation in the last color step. So bold that I get the impression that there is a risk of adding too much of your own guess at the original colors. Personally, I think I have a greater affection for the colors in the partially restored version. They may not be as colorful as in the nominated image, but perhaps more true? I am aware though that I am not terribly knowledgeable about the area, and I would be interested in hearing what your comments are to those observations--Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the difference comes not from the color adjustment but from the curves adjustment. The brightest data point on the original is at 211; data is minimal between 23 and 202. In context it makes historic sense that the colors would be brilliant: this was a royal grant signed by a king which used the most expensive pigments of its era. Durova (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thank you for the explanation. I suppose it is well sourced that the king used the most expensive pigments in its era? Very nice image and very professional restoration. --Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Durova's explanation - colours certainly seem right compared to other things I've seen. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great restoration. -- JovanCormac 06:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good result -George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Lynx lynx (Linnaeus, 1758).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 22:42:32 (UTC)

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are a few minor details which strike me as not quite right, like a lightness in the animals left eye over the right, and the distracting glared areas on the background. But overall, the quality is just too good to pass this off with oposition. Excellent detail. Julielangford (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice portrait --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - quality is very good indeed, but the composition is pretty ordinary - no wow. No shadows also. Is it made using flash? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh flash light prevents support. Please add location (Zoo?) in description. Lycaon (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the camera location.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The perspective is not clear and the flash-effect with dark background make the seen too much flat. --sNappy 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, but I don't like the crop --ka ʁs tn 10:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:North carolina fireworks.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 06:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2ND Class Roadell Hickman - uploaded by Beloch05 - nominated by the_ed17. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While I think could be a FP, I don't know what an image has to be like to be a FP here. As such, I will not !vote. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but I think this is too noisy and unsharp for FP. I don't know what settings the camera was on, but it looks to me like a longer exposure wouldn't have harmed the fireworks (much) but would have reduced the noise quite a bit. Time3000 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --ka ʁs tn 12:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pasterze panoramic view 01 9930px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 11:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Matthias Kabel - uploaded by Matthias Kabel - nominated by Matthias Kabel
Full 360° panoramic view over the Pasterze showing the valley of the glacier which is vanishing to warmer climate. Sharp from the closest to the farest, no stitching errors, no blown highlights in the snow, no real black shadows, tourist to compare sizes. Geo location is there. A full resolution is also available File:Pasterze_panoramic_view_01.jpg. -- MatthiasKabel (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality. -- JovanCormac 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. There's just a little spot in the sky above the rightmost cloud that could be smoothened a bit. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems most natural for me, if it the version of the largest resolution, which is nominated. From there, there is a link to this one - for convenience. Would anyone mind if we changed the nom to the largest resolution version? --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The full resolution may cause problems to display on some computers. MatthiasKabel (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, and the full resolution image also exhausts resources on my not so new nor resourceful laptop. Nevertheless, this is a problem with a significant fraction of browsers/viewers now, but in five years time, it would probably not be a problem for most users, and I think FPs should be long-lasting... --Slaunger (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I see it in full res in my browser, there is a 1 pixel height grey line in the lower right side of the image - see annotation - can only be seen in full res. Besides that, a very impressive stitch.--Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

corrected, at least in this version. The upload of the full version ends in an error right now. Will be uploaded later. MatthiasKabel (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

- I have removed the annotation again. --Slaunger (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very visible posterization in the sky. I'm sure it can be corrected. Will support if done. --S23678 (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also some improvements with the new version. MatthiasKabel (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... better, but still not smooth as it should be. If this is not from your out-of-camera pictures (which I doubt, since vigneting is not visible in the posterization), I guess at one point in your workflow you sacrificed quality, probably for size. I would suggest you rebuild your panorama directly at the shown size here (preferably in TIFF format). If it's not working, maybe your stitching program is flawed (I never had posterization problems in Hugin, if you're using another program) --S23678 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with S23678 (and on his proposals for improving it) that posterization in the sky is a problem. Strange what the origin of that is? Could you add some technical detail in the file description as to how the stitch has been done? Otherwise a very impressive detail level - there is so much information in that image. I would be very happy to support if the posterization issue is solved. --Slaunger (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posterization doesn't seem to be getting resolved. Lycaon (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm on vacation right now, my laptop is not able to handle the original file and it makes no sense to resolve the issue only on the smaller version. MatthiasKabel (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhipidura fuliginosa Silhouette.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 09:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bird is not very well focused and the background is very distracting, hard to tell whats the bird and whats the background. --Korall (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Korall. Too artsy. -- JovanCormac 16:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI liked --Econt (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, agree with Korall. Focus and background issues.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per Korall --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kerguelen topographic map-fr.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 18:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Topographic map of the Kerguelen island, with French toponyms. SVG file with an embedded PNG image for shadows only (otherwise everything is SVG). PNG version available for easier viewing. All data sources indicated. Created by Korrigan - uploaded by Korrigan - nominated by Korrigan 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- le Korrigan →bla 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent in every way. -- JovanCormac 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree - JovanCormac. Julielangford (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work --George Chernilevsky (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Support -- A good vector map, rich in labels which is something I like. The linear scale might have been a little more discreet (font size compared to the one of the map itself), additional legend, even if basic, would have been appreciated too, but that's not a big issue. Sting (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laptop processor(FG) plus Laptop fan (BG).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 06:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by diacritica - uploaded by diacritica - nominated by diacritica -- Diacritica (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I strongly believe that this photo combines the awesomeness of the integrated circuits and high-end technology with the good old brass/copper instruments meant to support the former. Thermodynamics in it's various forms, BTW.-- Diacritica (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nearly no post-processing, just erased some dust particles from the laptop lid. --Diacritica (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fan and the inner part of the laptop are out of focus and noisy, the processor that seems to be the thing that is supposed to be in focus is blurry. Did you use a tripod? With the camera you used, and the static nature of the subject I think you should be able to get much better results with a tripod and proper light.--Korall (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Korall. I can understand the "out of focus" comment (it was intended that way) but not the "noisy" claim. I used a very low ISO speed just to avoid that (see exif metadate). I would appreciate if you pointed me to noisy regions (other than the always difficult pure-black). I did used a tripod. If you find the processor to be too blurry, then I find your opposition legitimate :-)

Comment I pointed out the region where I see the most noise. I do not think 400 is a very low ISO number. That is what I use for freehand macros of living animals sitting on flowers on windy days. For photos of dead subjects with a tripod I think you should be able to use ISO 200or lower. Please look here to see previous sucessful nominations of dead things.

Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as Korall. Lycaon (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out of focus, or was that intentional? No anonymous votes please. Lycaon (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- One of the subject, the CPU, uses a very small part of the image, and the other one, the fan, is so much blurred that it's practically not possible to understand well the purpose of this object (looking only at the picture). A greater DOF would have shown better the whole. Sting (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lasertests.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 12:27:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Directed Energy Directorate - uploaded by Cody.pope - nominated by JovanCormac 12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info A cool photo showing a scientist conducting a laser experiment. This picture contains the "essence" of what modern science looks like in the eyes of many people, and is therefore both highly educational and attractive. -- JovanCormac 12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's blurry. Even at that small size it looks upscaled. Lycaon (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't this to be expected from a picture that was taken under such extreme lighting conditions (low lighting contrasted with the extremely bright lasers)? Compare to the FP File:Vitrification1.jpg which was shot in similar conditions and is about as blurry as the candidate. -- JovanCormac 18:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly, but if the quality is inferior, why do you nominate it for FP?? Lycaon (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all IMO the blur isn't half as bad as you make it sound. Second, I think that the sheer visual appeal of the candidate (as well as the vitrification picture) easily mitigates the slight quality issues. -- JovanCormac 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Does not look like lens blur to me. Quite possibly extreme noise reduction. --Ernie (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Cool composition, illumination and intetersting subject. Brings back some good memories of working in a laser lab as a summer student. Not quite convinced about the technical quality though. --Slaunger (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lycaon. IMO the blurriness is definitely worse than with File:Vitrification1.jpg. Plus there are artefacts, e.g. if you look at the red beams on top. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Curnen (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC) It's a difficult light situation and a appealing motif. Furthermore I think demanding quality for its own sake doesn't help FP in general. The quality should be as high as necessary to show what is to be shown with the image and I think this is the case here.[reply]

In general I have read a couple of FP discussions recently, where people seemed to search a little too desperately for any technical flaw in a picture, which to me is ludicrous. 99% of the people will anyway look at the picture in the context of a Wikipedia article and not in full size. Not everybody can afford high-end cameras with super noise performance nor knows how to photoshop the maximum out of a picture, but some of them might instead have the opportunity to take images at special places. I rather like to encourage these people to take nevertheless photos and upload them here, than scaring them off with too harsh criticism.

Please keep in mind that we are reviewing the candidates for featured pictures here. They are supposed to be some of the finest on Commons. Quoting from the guidelines above they should be of "high technical quality". If a nominated picture here is subjected to harsh criticism, that doesn't mean that it's not a good picture and it shouldn't be used. It just means that it doesn't meet the very high standards applied for featured pictures, which are necessary to maintain the high level of quality among them. Of course you don't have to be a professional photographer and possess a high-end camera to contribute to Commons (I myself never shot a photo I would nominate here). There are thousands of technically average pictures out there made by common people with standard cameras (I don't mean this one), which are a great benefit for Commons and the Wikimedia projects. Commons could not exist without them, but they still don't belong here. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Not every image uploaded to commons has to end up on this page. There is also thousands of pictures taken with high-end cameras that won't stand a chance here (I regularly upload some of those myself) but are still valuable. There are also several FP's taken with point-n-shooters (I have some myself too). But in the end, as NEUROtiker said, we are here to select the finest on Commons. And it is the end result that counts, whatever the hardware, as long as it is very good. Lycaon (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting, but bad quality --ka ʁs tn 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't think the quality is too bad. --Aqwis (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wiki ian 04:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fabulous, interesting, and well thought out. No anonymous votes please. Lycaon (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Difficult to take this kind of image and I think the result is good enogh for me.--Korall (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Jklamo (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Re 482 mit Containerzug bei Oberrüti.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 21:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A Swiss Federal Railways Re 482 (Bombardier TRAXX family) with an intermodal freight train on the "Aargauische Südbahn" between Oberrüti and Rotkreuz, crossing the river Reuss. -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see what's so extraordinary about this photograph justifying the candidacy. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In contrast to most of the train pictures here on commons it was taken in good light conditions, the train is fully visible, there are no disturbing objects, the scenery is very nice and the photographic quality is fine (obviously, this alone does not make a featured picture, but it was enough reason for me to put it here). Of course, it does not have the fancy blurred background, the nice fur where every hair is visible or the cool lighting of a picture made by night, but that's kinda hard to achieve with this kind of subject :) --Kabelleger (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is really a nice picture and I like it very much. Definitely QI! And we need certainly more good train pictures indeed, as a counterbalance for all those flowers, insects and butterflies. But this is perhaps just not special enough for FP... Btw: as creator and nominator, you should support your own nomination! -- MJJR (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm still trying to figure out what exactly makes some pictures more special than others... Anyway. About supporting one's own pictures: In the German wikipedia, it is considered sort of rude to support your own pictures, so I thought I'll leave it with a neutral here as well. But since this picture is not going to be featured it won't matter anyway. --Kabelleger (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this picture. —Jagro (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow for me. -- Klaus with K (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent composition. --Dschwen (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Karel (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Araneus diadematus (Clerck 1757).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 17:41:13 (UTC)

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Overall technical quality IMO not sufficient for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per NEUROtiker --ka ʁs tn 09:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but quality could be better--Tired time (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 07:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 20:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- S23678 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture is 97 mpx. It has been assembled from 3 different exposures, 12 pictures per exposure. It has been downsampled a little in the center (to get under the 100 mpx limit), but it's upsampled on the outside because of the projection choosen (rectilinear), which explain the softer sides. There's some defects I could not get rid of from the method used to assemble the pictures (this is something like my 10th try at stitching it), like 1 pixel shifts between exposures, because of the displacement of the stitching line from one exposure to another (I hope I'm clear), which is happening on less than 1% of the image, and would disappear immediately on downsampling. A drastic 25 to 1 downsampling would still be 2 times larger than the minimum required, and show none of the defects I am talking about. Still, I chose to nominate this picture at it's original size, hoping people will see the size as a strong mitigating factor for quality issues.
Support -- S23678 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost one Mb per MP seems a bit much. Looks like you went overboard with the JPG quality setting. Nah well, better than overcompressing I guess. --Dschwen (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now always saving my JPEGs at the highest quality. It's maybe an overkill, but given the huge size of the TIFF files (more than a Gb for this one), the JPEG is the only thing I keep once my workflow is completed. As you said, I think it's better to push it on this side than on the overcompressing side --S23678 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That looks really impressive. But IMO the defects you are talking about are quite serious to me and unfortunately very visible. If this can be resolved by downsampling, I would really like to see a downsampled version. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, downsampling resolves nothing (if you must, do it yourself)! User:Stefan_Vladuck/Downsampling --Dschwen (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A small version will be useful for many people who don't have the bandwith to download this file in a reasonable time. Yann (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a more bandwith-friendly version --S23678 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think you should nominate a smaller version (say, 30-40 mpx), and link to this version from the file page. This may be a local occurrence, but Firefox 3.5 refuses to load the picture no matter how long I wait (and the Windows XP picture viewer is unable to zoom in the picture). Additionally, the picture isn't really detailed enough for the 97 mpx - at this size, it is rather unsharp (somewhat similar to how pictures a compact digital camera with 12 mpx don't have enough details for the high resolution to be useful). I appreciate that the full resolution version is useful for certain purposes, such as making huge prints, but even if we feature a smaller version of the picture and link to this version from the file page, anyone who needs the full version of the picture can use the non-FP version. --Aqwis (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that is a sensible suggestion. I can second that. It probably is not worth the trouble convincing that a downsampled version doesn't actually offer better quality, when it will still be huge and suddenly appear immaculate at 100%. --Dschwen (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True... given the vast amount of comments I've received (within 1 hour of nomination), I'll withdraw my nomination, try to correct it with all of your comments (which are all very good BTW), and submit a better version later. Thank you all --S23678 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, it takes time to open the image, but I could open it with only DSL 700, Windows XP and T-Online Browser. I saw the enlarged image in the resolution 1600x1200, it is mostly very sharp. It shows the town in warm colors and in many details. Yes, there is also a problem with unsharp and twin-lined small parts or strips of the image, above all on the left and lower margin and on some other places. But all together: it is a very interesting image from Machu Picchu to get a general idea of this old town. I hope you will find a way to repair the image in great detail. Later on it will be easy and quick to enlarge such an image with DSL 5000, 10000.... --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tree example IR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 08:47:39 (UTC)

Info created by User:Dschwen - uploaded by User:Dschwen - nominated by User:Jacopo Werther Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tried IR photography once, it is quite hard to get good results. By lack of other nominations, I support this one! →Diti the penguin — 09:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy and unsharp --Muhammad (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Its a little bit unsharp - Huib talk 11:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it's obviously hard to judge IR photography as there is so little of it on Commons, searching the web for IR pictures it appears that the candidate cannot measure up to at least some of them. -- JovanCormac 11:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for nominating. Please note that I made this image in 2004 with a PowershotG3, that should explain the quality... --Dschwen (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicago sunrise 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 18:28:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Chicago skyline at dawn. shot across the harbor from Adler Planetarium. All by Dschwen (talk)
Support -- Dschwen (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. 100% professional quality. -- JovanCormac 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I'm impressed by your panos. --Relic38 (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 04:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the colours and composition! --Leviathan (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- MartinD (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S23678 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RudkhanCastle.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 13:20:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Navid.k - uploaded by Navid.k - nominated by Ladsgroup -- Amir (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall technical quality not sufficient. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overburnt sky. --Aktron (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Aktron -- H005 (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per NEUROtiker and Aktron --ka ʁs tn 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thassos 8- Koningspage Iphiclides podalirius (6).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 17:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jacky (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacky (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 11:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is far below FP standards. When nominating on FPC for the first time, it is a good idea to nominate a single picture at first (rather than seven simultaneously) to see how it will be judged by the community. I hope you won't take this personally, but from my experience I can pretty much predict that none of your current nominations will be promoted. -- JovanCormac 12:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, not a bad composition, however contrast and sharpness are the main issues. --Relic38 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take this personally, take pictures only for 3 month now. Do it for myself and who knows learn something from your comments.I should opload beter quality Jacky (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your pictures are actually pretty good, it's just that the standard for insect macros here on Commons is extremely high, as can be seen from their Featured Pictures category page, so it's quite hard to get one Featured these days. This picture is an example of the great butterfly pictures we have already, and any new nomination will inevitably have to measure up to pictures like it. -- JovanCormac 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:World Trade Center - Girder 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 19:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by J.smith - uploaded by J.smith - nominated by J.smith -- J.smith (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. -- J.smith (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Just shows some concrete and rusty iron. Lycaon (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Minor point, but that's fire protection and not concrete. --J.smith (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image does not tell its own story. You have to read the caption to understand that it is an I-profile from the WTC. When you just see the image it just looks like rusty construction metal, in a composition which is not particularly compelling/interesting. I prefer more self-explanatory photos. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon.--Claus (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not "some concrete and rusty iron" but The World Trade Center fire protection.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might be from the WTC, but it doesn't represent it at all. It's an unimportant structural piece presented in an uninspiring way. --S23678 (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I nominated this one because I enjoyed the texture and I was hoping others would as well. I'm bias, of course, but I though people would enjoy something outside of the normal landscapes, bugs and flowers. I've nominated another one from the same set. I can honestly say without any sarcasm that I look forward to the same blunt and honest criticism that this one received. --J.smith (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Slaunger. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:World Trade Center - Girder 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 00:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by J.smith - uploaded by J.smith - nominated by J.smith -- J.smith (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. -- J.smith (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image Info This is a girder from the World Trade Center disaster on display at the California Expo - the site of the CA State Fair. J.smith (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot better than the previous nomination IMO, it's a good picture of the subject, presented in an interesting perspective. However, I do not see the exceptional character of this image (the famous "no wow" factor) compared to FPs in general. --S23678 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is one powerful image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per S23678, also the crop at the top edge spoils it. -- JovanCormac 07:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, as I'm all for nominations that are a little outside the square. However, the crop spoils an otherwise interesting composition. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are looking at nominating pictures of 9/11, here are some I like. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong focus, no main object, cut flags. — Jagro (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMAGE:Kleiner Fuchs bmn1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 14:39:57 (UTC)

Info created by Maximilian Narr - uploaded by Maximilian Narr - nominated by Maximilian Narr -- Maximilian Narr (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maximilian Narr (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately some parts of the butterfly are not in focus. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below current insect macro standard. (centred composition, sharpness, size of main topic). Lycaon (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good enough. —kallerna™ 11:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, not sharp enough and no good composition. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Focus problems. You might want to try a longer exposure time and higer F number to increase the depth of field next try. I have been getting OK pictures or butterflies with something around 1/200 sec. --Korall (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Тигрята-альбиносы edit01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 06 Sept 2009 at 18:07:34

Info created by Kor!An - uploaded by Kor!An - nominated by Kor!An -- Kor!An (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kor!An (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this nomination. It seems, the uploader didn't post it correctly on October 2008. So I did it. Support - great shot! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A problem for the FPCBot though as it thinks this candidates voting period was over for almost a year ago, it wont help to correct the date string either as the bot base the check on the timestamp of the first revision (as parsing that timestamp is consistant). This is an unusual situation though so maybe we should just let the bot close this one, and not review the result until the real period is over (the bot will not move it away until it is properly reviewed) ? Alternatively withdraw this one and create a new candidate with the same image. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 18:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Nice shot in general, but the whites are blown and there is a red dot between the tiger's ears (visible in full size) that appears to be an artifact created by the camera. -- JovanCormac 18:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- May we remove this dot? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly ;-) -- JovanCormac 18:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- TonyBallioni (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Considerably blown highlights. Lycaon (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support also I removed FPCbots closing and changed the close date, hopefully it won't be prematurely closed again. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It will (unless I manually stop it each time), but see my previous comment. I changed the counts to '?' such that a reviewer can correctly fill it in when the voting period is really over. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see your comment, just saw the closing and tried to fix it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because the quality is not good enough for FP (especially the blown whites). --Estrilda (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Delicatearch.png, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 20:44:41

Info Image has a low resolution. It is nice, but its composition and quality is not on par with current FPs from Arches National Park, such as File:Double-O-Arch Arches National Park 2.jpg. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This would get FPXed instantly if it was nominated today. Some people seem to think that older FPs somehow deserve to be kept simply for their age even though they have shortcomings that would get them an FPX nowadays ("2006 Featured Pictures") which is a really dangerous development IMO. It shows that nostalgia truly is everywhere, and everywhere equally irrational (or what other "justification" save nostalgia could be given for an argument like "2006 FP"?). I say delist all FPs that wouldn't make FP today! -- JovanCormac 12:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess I am "some people" :) , I do not see any "real danger" with keeping old FPs though and this one is really nice. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No strong mitigating reasons for this low resolution --S23678 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 14:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 12:50:53

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 700 × 472 pixels??? That's less than one fifth of the guideline 2 Mpx! Incredible that this was ever featured. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed. Yann (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Keep Despite its inferior resolution it is a unique and outstanding image from the war in Sarajevo in 1992. It cannot be reproduced, an attempt has been made previously to get original material in higher resolution. It is not possible. It deals with matters much more important to humanity than YAAI (Yet Another Anthropod Image) and every single (OK, thats only five) FP I have created. The image is used on +200 pages on +30 wiki projects and is a perfect example of exceptional value being a strong mitigating reasons for allowing < 2MPx. The image has been nominated for delisting in 2007 and again in 2008 and I very much agree with the detailed arguments for keeping it put forth by especially BenAveling in 2007. --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an interesting picture, and I haven't nominated it for deletion - merely for removal from the list of Featured Pictures, whose standards it clearly doesn't fulfill. Were this nominated today, it would receive an FPX, and be closed after 24 hours. -- JovanCormac 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you that it would probably be FPXed by a user seeing the 2 MPx guideline as a strict rule which cannot be mitigated. However, I also think it is likely that it would be contested by another user within 24 h using an argument about a strong mitigating reason. It is close to the lower resolution limit of what I can accept, but for me it would still pass. I am unsure whether it would actually pass if renominated today. --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, when you think about it a little, it becomes clear that this photo is most likely not a "war snapshot", but staged to some degree. The image description talks about the musician playing at funerals during war time. That's interesting, and I do not doubt that, but the picture obviously does not show him playing at one of those funerals. He is sitting on a pile of rubble in a destroyed building, and the only one around to watch or listen appears to have been the photographer, who probably asked him to pose for that very photo. Shots like this, showing people doing unusual things in war-torn regions of the world, are a dime a dozen, and, I dare say, almost a cliché of modern war photography. Just look through the archives of the World Press Photo Awards. You will find many more examples there. -- JovanCormac 22:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am very much aware that it is probably partly staged (I consider the rubble for real but the pose of the musician staged) and that it has been generated partly for propagandistic purposes. However, I perceive it as way more inventive and refined in its composition than, e.g., the recent File:I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.jpg, and it has an interesting peaceful micro-story about a musician playing at funerals under great danger. Thus, within its genre of war-photography it is very well made - except for the resolution. This micro-story could of course be propaganda in itself. My decision to vote keep is based on an assumption that this part of the story is actually true. --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My vote has not changed since the last time it was tried to be delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've asked the author to provide us a higher resolution of his image. Since his last contribution was more than 2 months ago, I suggest we wait for his response, and possibly his actions before pursuing with the delisting. While doing that, I'm thinking that we could add a step in the delisting process, where the author/uploader/original nominator would be informed about the delisting proposal, so they could take actions for correcting the apparent flaws --S23678 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The author was asked in August 2008 already and declined. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--2+2=4 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Delisting doesn't mean deleting, you know... Lycaon (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite my opposition in the original nomination, I consider it bad form trying to delist pictures yearly until it finally succeeds. -- Gorgo (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all respect, that is a pretty stupid reason for voting "keep", as it has nothing to do with the picture itself. It actually makes me consider re-nominating it for delisting immediately after this nomination is closed, should it not succeed. The quality of this picture is inferior, and we all know it. There is no chance in hell this would make FP today. Keeping it anyway means granting special privileges to older pictures by saying they do not have to measure up to today's standards, which is insulting and discouraging for anyone working today. It's the stuff feudalism and fiefdomism are made of, the stuff nobility thrives on. When they do it, they are being criticised for it nowadays, even though some may still consider it stylish. But for a project like Commons, which is barely 5 years old, even talking about "old stuff", much less "tradition", is just plain ridiculous; and pseudo-tradition is the only reason people vote to keep pictures like this. -- JovanCormac 18:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extremly strong picture --Jklamo (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Slaunger. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ireland cliffs of moher3 Pumbaa80.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 12:54:21

Info Reason to delist: 730 × 1,102 pixels. It would have to be very, very special to mitigate this, and it isn't. -- JovanCormac 12:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 12:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed. Yann (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It is good, but not among the finest we have today. --Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per Jovan Cormac --S23678 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 14:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jiuzhaigou Pearl Waterfall 2005-08-21.jpeg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 12:52:46

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 1,280 × 960 pixels resolution is far too low for a subject we must have thousands of. -- JovanCormac 12:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 12:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. --Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too low resolution --S23678 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polygonia c-album DePanne.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 16:11:41

Info Reason to delist 1.92MP, not very sharp This and this are better images imho, although I do not think even the better images meet todays standard for FP. --Korall (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC) (Original nomination)[reply]
Delist -- Korall (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 21:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 14:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here colours is much better, than an alternative --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Although the two other photos have larger resolution, they are also unsharp. But even if this photo if the best one, I still do not think it meets current butterfly macro standards at FP. Its detail level is not good enough and the composition in rather uninteresting. --Slaunger (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Innsbrucklarge.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 16:27:28

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Noisy, unsharp, next to no detail, shaky camera. Totally disappointing for a Featured Picture. This can be retaken any time, ergo no mitigation. -- JovanCormac 16:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 16:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree. --Lošmi (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noise is not that bad. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Nice photo, but betail level, composition and atmosphere not on par with current cityscape standards for FP. --Slaunger (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not so bad, used in 18 projects --Jklamo (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When will people realize that delisting does not mean deleting? -- JovanCormac 18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And for a Featured Picture, "not so bad" shouldn't be a reason to keep. It needs to be exceptional to be Featured, which it obviously isn't. -- JovanCormac 08:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Yann (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Karel (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SalzburgerAltstadt01.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 16:24:53

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution too low, bad tilt, noise, color balance (blue!). All in all way too many flaws for a common city shot. This can be retaken any time, ergo no mitigation. -- JovanCormac 16:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 16:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Detail level not on par with current city FP standards. --Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed. Maedin\^talk 08:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toda Hut.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 16:22:41

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution too low, crop too tight. This can be retaken any time, ergo no mitigation. -- JovanCormac 16:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 16:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delist Crop and detail level. Unfortunately we do not see that much image material from India at FPC, which is a pity, because the subject is interesting. It may be easy to retake (if you are there), but unfortunately we do not have that many Commons contributors from that area. --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kudrinskaya Square Building in Moscow2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 17:54:41 (UTC)

Info created by Dmitry Rozhkov - uploaded by Dmitry Rozhkov - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support During the previous discussion we decided the crop question. What about the image itself? -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice view but some noise and not sharp enough IMO. I am not sure what camera you are using but I believe the image might benefit if you will make a panorama. --Two+two=4 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has an extensive level of noise for a daylight picture --S23678 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose poor quality --ka ʁs tn 09:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mike Simons, Director of the National Electronic Museum in Baltimore assembles an Apollo TV camera for display.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 08:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/Bill Ingalls - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info One of the cameras used on the moon in Apollo 11 being re-assembled prior to the Apollo 11 40th anniversary events.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is not so good for an image taken in 2009.--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Poor composition, in my opinion. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose focus issues, distracting background. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has a very distracting background. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

That said, it is an interesting device he is assembling. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosa del deserto2.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 09:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Yiyi - uploaded by Yiyi - nominated by Yiyi -- Yiyi (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yiyi (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lycaon (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is possible to do better. I should be able to photograph some myself at some stage. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info now the file has a bigger size -- Yiyi (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like this picture very much, but neither do I feel it should be axed by means of FPX. There is no clear violation of the guidelines, and we've seen far worse here. I'd contest the FPX, but that would require me to support it according to the rules, and I don't want to do that. -- JovanCormac 13:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salina, KS Tornado ICT-SRM June 11, 2008.png[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 00:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the National Weather Service - uploaded by Ks0stm - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C) 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Although I know it falls short on the Mpx guidelines, it was as good as I could do with the program that displays the data, and I think it is an informative image. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It may be informative but the quality falls far short of what is needed to be a FP. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see the featured --ka ʁs tn 10:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lycaon (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently this one isn't going to succeed, but I challenge everyone to find pictures of severe weather that might be worthy of FP status. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image:Garmisch-Partenkirchen high resolution.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 06:29:37 (UTC)

Info created by Octagon - uploaded by Octagon - nominated by Octagon -- Octagon (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Octagon (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: lightning is not consistent from frame to frame throughout the panorama --S23678 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

As well, other qualities issues, such as visible stitching boundaries, noise, stitching misalignments. The camera's automatic mode isn't an option for such panoramas. The qualities issues are overwhelming, BUT, I must praise the resolution (136 mpx!), and the great beauty of the scene (especially in the parts of the picture where the colors are bright and saturated). --S23678 (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Armillaria sp Marriott.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 12:53:08

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sorry, but the famous "wow" is simply missing here. The composition seems quite trivial. Would make a great VI though. -- JovanCormac 13:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can it be id'ed more specifically than Armillaria sp. based on its visual appearance alone? I think it would be relevant for you to specify your source of identification on the file page. Is it your own id, did you use a book, which, if you asked at some website, provide a link, etc. --Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See: [2] also independently arrived at Armillaria at WP:Fungi too. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Please add it this important reference information to the file page (includign a specific link to the query at WP:FUNGi as well), as this is the obvious place to register such information. Nobody will be looking at this FPC page later if they wonder how the id was established. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's that white, slightly tilted object (fence?) in the background. I find it mildly distracting. Otherwise a very nice photo.--Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what it is. File:Marriott Falls Vegetation.jpg is quite close to where the photo was taken. Probably a branch. I don't remember a fence. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is a pity that it is licensed with GFDL 1.2 only, as it means it cannot be used in all Wikimedia projects, such as the German Wikipedia. I think, it lowers its value. --Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that is not quite true at the moment. In a recent vote [3] the decision was made to allow inclusion of 1.2-only from commons and/or to let commonists decide whether to keep allowing this license. Somewhat of a flip-flopping IMO, but we'll have to accept a majority vote. --Dschwen (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I was not aware of that the de bit had flipped, thanks for telling me. Let me rephrase then into saying that I think it is a pity that it is licensed with only a GFDL license, as this makes its future useability in Wikimedia projects and elsewhere uncertain. The current trend at Commons talk:Licensing is that a GFDL only license for Commons users own work should be "strongly discouraged", and there is apparently a proposal under way to completely prohibit GFDL only licensing of new uploads of users own original works. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm aware of such proposals. I do wish COM:FPC wasn't so politicised however. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm also reluctant to politicise in this way (as you call it). I would like to emphasize that license part considerations have very minor weight in my review here, but it does slightly affect the perceived value I have of the photo, which I think is a fair consideration. Especially, as long as it is not Commons policy to explicitly prohibit GFDL only licensing of original work from Commons users. --Slaunger (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice photo, but adding the slightly distracting background feature with a discouraged license it does not make it over my bar. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Julielangford (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI  Richard  [®]  20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please explain. That an image has good qulity is in my opinion not something that can be a reasonable reason to oppose. --Korall (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Richard is saying here that while it may be of sufficient quality, it lacks that something extra to make it to FP. --ianaré (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not artistically or compositionally remarkable. As Richard. --Dschwen (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It ain't all about the "wow". Great quality compared to other fungi I've seen. ZooFari 07:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fungi-wow to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose white line in background is distracting --ianaré (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ianare -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - would support without that distracting white bar. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, featured[edit]

Info - Removed bar. --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Noodle snacks (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as promised above. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot ! --Ymaup (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chaka Demus and Pliers Stockholm 4th august 2009.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 12:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Korall - uploaded by Korall - nominated by Korall -- Korall (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Snapshotty, tight crop, cut off mike, and hand in bottom left spoil composition, flash lighting and unappealing background. --Dschwen (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hand on the bottom left is a show stopper. -- JovanCormac 14:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom left hand spoils this for me, other than that, I like it. Julielangford (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Comment I croppped it so the hand in the bottom left is gone now. To get a 3x4 ratio i also cropped a very small part of the top of the image. --Korall (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is better variant --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to Support this one.--Korall (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is too tight (it was on the above one as well) and also, it is just a guy rapping, no wow here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shoot but not very interesting, no interesting position or facial expression. --sNappy 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vozes Almodovar August 2009-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 22:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info "Vozes de Almodovar" (voices from Almodovar), a traditional folkloric group performing at Porto Covo, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish the crop was different but still a very good image--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop cuts arms, and part of a head off, which I find too distracting. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop, flash lighting not good. --Muhammad (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop (the visage of the first man is cut) and composition could be better for FP -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose snapshotty look due to: flat lighting, odd crop (hands, right edge of frame), black hats in front of black background, undecided composition (neither an overview nor a portrait shot, but somewhere half-way in between). --Dschwen (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad crop --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Info - OK, what about this alternative? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting use of DOF but I liked the original better mostly because of the young boy.--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Straight flash. Blackpoint. --Ernie (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Light dispersion conceptual waves.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 18:47:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Kieff - nominated by Diti →Diti the penguin — 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support If someone succeeds in creating a bigger version of this animation… Nevertheless, I see the smoothness and usefulness of this animation (remember that the 2 Mpx limit is because of prints, and we cannot print animations) as a strong mitigating reason. →Diti the penguin — 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose While the animation itself is beautiful, and definitely big enough, I don't like the way waves are used here with the intention of illustrating the wave nature of light. The illustration gives the impression that light waves are much like water waves, and somehow "run along the ray of light", which is false (and because the truth is very complex indeed, the wavyness should probably be left out entirely). As this is a scientific illustration, IMO this misrepresentation is reason enough for opposing. -- JovanCormac 11:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the wwaves are being used to show that it's the different frequencies that cause the split - which is important information. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but imagine a still frame from the animation. It contains the very same information. The only info the animation adds to that still frame is the way the waves move - and it is precisely there where it goes wrong. -- JovanCormac 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Agree with JovanCormac that the animation transmits a wrong interpretation of the refraction of the different wavelengths and of the nature of light -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think the opposers arguing that the animation conveys a wrong interpretation of how refraction works is somewhat missing the point in the purpose/scope of this animation. An animation displaying the full wave-particle duality, the detailed processes leading to dispersion in a reactive medium illustrating is not the scope here, but to portray the wave nature of light in a refractive medium. The file page description also explains this quite thoroughly. So the ambition here is more aimed at primary/high-school level and not a high level quantum-electrodynamic explanation. In fact it is such that in a macroscopic view of the problem it can be considered as a raytracing problem. However, there are certain aspects of the animation, which I think should be clarified to make it clearer. First of all there are six colors shown and the refractive index and dispersion of the prism is relatively low meaning that the separation between the colors is not so large. This means that the animation gets rather busy when the colors split out. This also means that only a careful observer will notice that the wavelength inside the prism for a given color is actually shorter than in the surrounding vacuum. The shorter wavelength is an important aspect of understanding the origin of the refraction (that light travels slower in the prism leading to a shorter wavelength). If the refractive index of the prism was set to a larger value with higher dispersion, the waves would split more out and the wavelength inside the prism would get even shorter. Also reducing the number of colors from six to, say four or five would also reduce the "clutter" in the animation and make it more illustrative. --Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why not replace the waves with particles of different colours? That would make the whole thing more clear --Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JC and Alvesgaspar. --Dschwen (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ks0stm ^(T•C) 20:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Lycaon (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Dark Side of the Moon animated. I like it. --Lošmi (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, late vote. Lycaon (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Light dispersion conceptual.gif, not featured[edit]

Here we go (by Alvesgaspar's request). But the animation is not smooth any more. →Diti the penguin — 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It also has another problem: Inside the prism, the red dots are spaced further apart than the violet ones (different wavelengths). But outside, spacing is the same for all colors. If the spacing of the dots is interpreted as an indicator of the wavelength (which is implied by the varying spacing inside the prism), this means that the picture once again promotes a view that is simply false. -- JovanCormac 19:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much added value by animating this in any case. --Dschwen (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imo is the first one better --ka ʁs tn 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canada Geese and morning fog.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 15:52:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I think the image has a great mood, and it must have been a nice view. However, I do not think it quite reaches the level of another FP from Golden Gate Park, File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg. I think the latter also have larger value in clearly showing crepuscular rays. Your photo certainly has some very good aesthetic qualities, and it is something you can be proud of, but I do not think its educational and informational value is exceptional. The image quality is also a little dissapointing when I have closer look with quite some noise in the darker areas. I know it is hard to avoid, but anyway, this is FPC. Could you add a geolocation please? Its odd how your and the now self-excluded photographer, mbz1 creations deal with quite similar subjects. Do you know her? (You do not have to reply on the last question). --Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit disappointed with your oppose reason.

First you compare the nominated image to the image that got fourth place in the picture of the year competition. Then you say that you "do not think its educational and informational value is exceptional." The images add to each other. They were taken in about the same place at about the same time and show how different the fog could be. The fog is different, the light is different, the sky condition is different. One image has the rays, the other has flying geese. One image has the sun behind the tree the other has the sun behind the fog. One image has a clear sky, the other has a foggy sky. In my opinion they both have educational and informational value, but where it is written in FPC criteria, that the value should be exceptional? I added location. Just copied from Mila's image. I know her. I reduced noise in some areas.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point taken. Maybe I was coming down a little too hard on your image. I was not aware that milas image came in fourth so I agree it is a little unfair to compare the two. Albeit there is an informational and educational element in showing the fog, I feel we are pretty well covered with fog images on Commons. Almost as well covered as with sunsets. Pleasing to look at from an artistical side, but actually obscuring otherwise informational and educational elements such as the ducks (we have plenty of those here as well) and geese. You are right that it does not say anywhere in the guidelines that the value should be exceptional. It says "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others" and it also say "beautiful does not always mean valuable". It would be more precise to point at those sentences for my reasoning. Interesting that you know mila. Did you borrow her camera as well? You use the same camera model - a Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi!?! OK, let me just pop a more blunt question, just to avoid any further speculations: Is Two+Two=mila?--Slaunger (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What made you to believe that I cannot afford my own camera? Two+two=4 or as you explained to me "2+2=10 in the Ternary numeral system". In my opinion the nominated image is at least as valuable as quite a few current FP images. Of course if you decided to fight for the value of FPC even using my own image as a scapegoat, I wish you good luck

. I hope to see more oppose/neutral votes from you for the same reason and with the same detail description of your opinion in the feature.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when two users know each other, shoot the same kinds of subjects from the same locations, with the exact same camera model it could have been the same camera and even the same person... But you have stated now that it not the case, so case closed. Concerning "scapegoat" I want you to know that I try to the best of my ability to review any image as objectively as I can against how I perceive the criteria and not let my review be influenced by who the creator is and the topic. I am not a robot though, nor flawless. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to check if we're using the very same camera is to check for dust spots. If you find one in the very same place on both images then your quest will be solved, my dear Sherlock Holmes

. On a more serious note I would like you to know that I have stated nothing except that I am using my own camera and that 2+2=4 that is a well known fact :). With my statement I tried to make you to realize that I consider your questions and statements that have nothing to do with the nomination a little bit intrusive and strange. I am glad you closed the case. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dust spots can be cleaned, both off the sensor and off the images, and given that the photos you shot and the photos that Mbz1 shot are a couple of months apart, there's no proof either way to be gleaned from looking at spots... For the record, I noticed that you also used the same version of Photoshop CS3, and both saved with progressive JPEG... Just saying... Diliff (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now I'm also being accused in destroying the most important evidences - dust spots:) Diliff, how interesting you mentioned progressive JPEG. As a matter of fact I've tried to use different saving options (I assume you have not looked over all of my uploads :)), and was about to ask you what is the best way to save the files after editing with CS3. I've noticed that every time I do a minor edit and save a file, the quality of the sky is getting worse. So as long as you commented here anyway could you please give me a professional advise what saving options I should use? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well I think it's beautiful. It really gives off a special kind of mood and shows those rays up wonderfully. Julielangford (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, what a striking image. --J.smith (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull, no wow. Not something I'd consider as the best of the best we have on commons. Sorry. Lycaon (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it a lot! /Daniel78 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, something I'd put on a wall of a room to relax people, but not an eye-popper. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, man, you came here, voted only on two nominations out of 60+ nominations , and you want me to believe to you that the image is not an "eye-popper"?

--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it. --Calibas (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image says: "Morning is broken". It remembers me to this song.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody. In case you have not yet heard I am not 2+2=4. I am a notorious Mbz1 with an absolutely horrible block record. All I wanted was a fresh start, but I guess I cannot have one. I should have been threaded differently like infamous Mbz1 and not as an innocent new user I pretended to be. Please feel free to revoke your "support" votes for this nomination as well as for my other nominations. Please feel free to change you "support" votes to "oppose" votes. BLOCKLOG1 + BLOCKLOG2 + BLOCKLOG3 and --2+2=4

CommentSigh, well you certainly do your utmost to stir up as much drama as possible instead of pursuing the less dramatic and sensible path which would simply be to link to your previous account and then continue with your fresh start:-( --Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow, no educational value. Silimar picture already featured. --Jklamo (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of educational value in the image: irridesent fog, reduced visibility due to the fog, the flying geese, the reflection, the visibility of the sun behind the fog. Your mention about so called "similar image" shows that you yourself could have learned a lot from the nominated image. The only semilarity between the images are that they were taken at about the same place, but of course "no wow" cannot be helped

.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank everybody, who supported the image. This nomination was practically killed from the very beginning first by highly unfair oppose reason, and then for even more unfair interrogation. When the nomination has started, the image's creator was happy 2+2=4, who just got out of the cage and was flying free. Now the nomination is about to end, and the image's creator was put back to the cage with the broken wings. I've done nothing wrong to deserve it. According to Commons's policies I had all the rights in the world for a fresh start, but... I would also like to thank lycaon for two reasons. The first one is that he said "sorry" in the end of his oppose reason. That "sorry" meant a lot to me. The second reason I'd like to thank lycaon for is that kindly he has never taken a part in the interrogation himself. My special thanks is going to diliff. I laughed out loud at his way too serious response to my joke about dust spots. Sometimes it gets really funny to deal with people who're lacking sense of humor, or at least whose sense of humor is very different from mine own. Thanks, diliff, you made me laugh. The nomination still has 3+ hours to go, but no matter if the image is promoted or not, I will always remember your supports for that very special for me nomination . --Mbz1 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. Korall (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or[edit]

Support OK. Did not like the geese, how about the ducks?--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one too. --Calibas (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow, no educational value. Silimar picture already featured. --Jklamo (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A fire helicopter with helicopter bucket.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 04:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 09:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think too dark, no diferent between background and foreground (heli). — Jagro (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This just isn't special enough, and there are plenty of opportunities to take photos of these choppers, especially for the users in California right now. Nezzadar (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, althought crop isn't ideal. —kallerna™ 12:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am already glad I've nominated the image. To get "support" from you most of all now means a lot to me! The crop could have been better, but imagine, we were driving highway, when I saw the fire. I asked my husband to stop, but he said: "Why, have you never seen a fire yet or what?" He was right. Living in California we have seen quite a few wildfires. Besides with wildfires one never knows when highway you're driving at would get closed. So we kept going, and then I saw the helicopter, which we have never seen before. I had a very little time to grab my camera and to take few fast shots.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this image is very good, the only thing that bothers me is that small bit of electrical transmission tower. —kallerna™ 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or[edit]

Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --ka ʁs tn 12:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly Same as above, not special. This time though, the background of clear sky makes the image even less worthy. Sorry. Nezzadar (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caracalla profile.JPG, not featured[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Urban - nominated by Urban (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Bust of Carcalla
Support As nominator. Urban (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Contast and crispness are too low, and the shot is taken from just the wrong angle - we can see the bust's profile, but little of the face. -- JovanCormac 14:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too grainy. Are those yellow spots on the bust or is this due to technical issues? --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance looks too red to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cukrowicz nachbaur Kapelle 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 06:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I gave a shot at translating the description; if anyone can improve it, please do.
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Excellent, however what spoils the perfect atmosphere and composition is that the stool is out of centre. -- H005 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Funny, I've just looked it up in Google Earth - I passed this place last year in July, and I can't recall seeing a chapel there - it must have been built shortly thereafter. A pity I missed it. -- H005 (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The flaw in the bottom right corner (which I missed before) plus the above mentioned issue amkes me change my mind to Oppose, sorry. A pity for such a great image. H005 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Back to Neutral after cropping. -- H005 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --ka ʁs tn 12:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Econt (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great use of lighting! --Calibas (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great shot, but IMO the technical quality is not sufficient. There's some noise in the darker parts and a very obvious flaw in the bottom right corner. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ After long deliberation, I'll have to go with NEUROtiker on this one. The flaw in the bottom right corner is simply unacceptable for an FP. Also, the camera appears to have been a little overworked with the dynamic range here. The bright parts on the left side are overexposed, while the table is dark, dull, and unsharp as well. All of those shortcomings together sadly nullify the high aesthetic appeal of the picture. -- JovanCormac 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After edits by Sarcastic SL, I change my vote to Neutral. The flaw in bottom right is gone which makes the image a lot better, but the dynamic range and sharpness problems are still to large for me to support. -- JovanCormac 13:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Karel (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deformation at bottom right corner. Alvaro qc (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose per Alvaro. Will support if its cropped away or fixed in some other way because i like this image.

Support--Korall (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info I've cropped 36 pixels of either side to remove the distortion, and rebalance the image. Might I ask that you re-examine it? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvaro qc (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support surreal --ianaré (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks for supports and kritics --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gottfried Franz - Munchhausen Underwater.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 18:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gottfried Franz (1846-1905) - uploaded by Dmitry Rozhkov - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scan from Russian edition (1896) Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Do you have more scans from that edition? -- JovanCormac 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do. But this one is the most impressive, IMO --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could bundle them together and nominate them as a Valued Image Set. It would be a great service to Commons. This nomination would not be affected. -- JovanCormac 21:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful. --Calibas (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gottfried Franz - Munchhausen with a half-horse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 04:33:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gottfried Franz (1846-1905) - uploaded by Dmitry Rozhkov - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Another interesting picture from the same edition-- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I remember that story. His horse was cut in half by a gate and could still walk on its two front legs, but when it drank, the water flowed right through it. Those scans are fantastic! -- JovanCormac 06:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Andrei S. _Talk 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isola di Pag panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 13:14:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zuffe - uploaded by Zuffe - nominated by Zuffe -- Zuffe (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zuffe (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very pleasnt place, but I do not think the foreground is sharp enough.--2+2=4 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness, also dull colors. -- JovanCormac 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 2+2=4 --ka ʁs tn 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither do I find the colours dull nor the foreground sharpness an issue. But it's very tilted / distorted to the right. Can you fix that? Also, I'd crop off more of the foreground (this could also address 1+1's concern). Otherwise a good image of a pleasant looking place. -- H005 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milky Way Galaxy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 11:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nrisinger - nominated by JovanCormac 11:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Beautiful artist's impression of our own galaxy, the Milky Way. Unlike many similar pictures (see e.g. File:Milky Way galaxy.jpg) this was made from photographs of another galaxy, giving it the look of an actual photo, rather than a drawing. -- JovanCormac 11:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 11:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful? Yes. Encyclopedic? I am not so sure.--2+2=4 (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Wikipedia. -- JovanCormac 14:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, however I am not sure what is the purpose of this artist's conception of the Milky Way galaxy. IMO the artist's conception looks strikingly similar to any spiral galaxy like this one for example File:Messier51 sRGB.jpg. BTW looks like this particular image was used to make the artist's conception of the Milky Way galaxy.--2+2=4 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I want to know how Nrisinger made this before I support. --Aqwis (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvaro qc (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nude stretching.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 22:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Robert Swier - uploaded by Max Rebo Band - nominated by Econt (talk) -- Econt (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Econt (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Vignetting and too tight crop. →Diti the penguin — 23:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diti comments.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Diti also. Wiki ian 04:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop may be acceptable, vignetting is not. Lycaon (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is a show stopper. I don't have any problem with vignetting, though. This is an artistic shot (desaturated as well). With those, vignetting is normal. -- JovanCormac 07:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Vignetting is a technical lens flaw, they should be corrected. Even if it was added for the purpose of being creative, it is also unnecessary retouching, which is against our current FP guidelines. →Diti the penguin — 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is it unnecessary retouching to leave the vignetting in? There are more justifications to keep vignetting than just being creative. One being to highlight the center of the frame. against our current FP guidelines is nonsense. --Dschwen (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Vignetting as such is no sin of course. I find it rather poorly done here however: it merely touches the corners of the image as if the author was afraid of using it. Lycaon (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On no, nudity!!!1!!eleven! Must make up reason for opposing! What could it be.. ..right Vignetting is always bad (I red that somewhere online, so it must be true!!!).. and crop.. ZOMG something of the main subject is cut off!! I mean that guy, didn't he look through the viewfinder?! Some advice: ALWAYS show the entire subject! If you take a step back or two I'm sure you can fit the whole girl in!!! --Dschwen (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. --Dschwen (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diti --ka ʁs tn 17:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Dschwen. --Lošmi (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the crop and the vignnetting!!! A fine nude. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vignetting is no problem at all, and could even be considered as a quality here. -- MJJR (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. —kallerna™ 11:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Muhammad (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lycaon --Muhammad (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the crop (it's suggestive), the vignetting is ok (I have nothing against it apart from where it shouldn't be), the pose and the model are not too exaggerated, overly sexed up, or touched up. Seems just right. Maedin\^talk 09:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see the crop as this picture's biggest advantage. Airwolf (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii - Feodor Chaliapin as Mephisto.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 20:11:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii - uploaded by Dmitry Rozhkov - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Famous Russian bass Feodor Chaliapin as Mephisto. Color (not colorized!) photo by Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii from 1915. Only once published in large album, deals with Feodor Chaliapins creative work. Negatives have been lost, so this scan perfoms the best quality we can get. -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP. JukoFF (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seeing as how it's almost 100 years old, I wont complain about the quality. --Calibas (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Calibas --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Korall (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are tons of great pictures from gorskii on commons and I don't think this is one of his best work. It's not sharp and the crop is rather bad as well. -- Gorgo (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Рictures from Gorskii on commons are from United States Library of Congress. They printed from negatives from their archive - so those images have really great quality. But there are only two colour photoes of Chaliapin exist (both by Gorskii), and negatives of both of them have been lost. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Jklamo (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Venus globe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 08:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by JovanCormac 08:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info High-quality synthetic aperture radar image of venus, made with data from the Magellan probe. Already featured on EN. -- JovanCormac 08:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 08:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 09:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing picture. — Jagro (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Jagro said, amazing. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly Wow!, but the lines and dots all over the image are so dominating that I can't see this as FP. I appreciate the excellent work and it's probably hardly possible to make this better, but the issue remains. Sorry to ruin the party. -- H005 (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per H005 plus t the top and bottom there are areas that are not "mapped".--Korall (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those must be regions for which the probe did not take any pictures (or it did and they showed alien colonies, which led to the regions being censored by NASA). -- JovanCormac 11:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one important thing, whoever did it: Please don't use the Image Annotation feature on the description page to comment on a FP candidate! Use the IA on the candidate page instead, or you are confusing and potentially scaring users who arrived at the description page from another page, e.g. from Wikipedia. -- JovanCormac 11:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the difficulty of acquiring such an image, I think we can overlook a few quality issues. Time3000 (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for supporting, but those aren't quality issues. The dots and lines represent missing information. The quality of the picture is arguably quite perfect. -- JovanCormac 13:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Korall. —kallerna™ 11:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Korall. Lycaon (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jklamo (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Ed Walsh, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 03:04:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Ed Walsh

Info created by Paul Thompson - uploaded by Staxringold - nominated by Staxringold and Durova -- Staxringold (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Restored version of File:Ed Walsh portrait 1911 ORIGINAL.jpg. See Ed Walsh.
Support -- Staxringold (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic. -- JovanCormac 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this portrait --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent portrait. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support This was a hard decision. I absolutely agree this is a great portrait and you did a great job retouching. The only point that bothers me with this picture, is that the reflexions you can see in the original picture are still too apparent IMO. Is there any chance you can get rid of them? --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a pretty obvious depth of field decision by the original photographer. Note how only the face is in sharp focus; Walsh's uniform is already soft focus. To my eye the background composition goes well with the knitted brow and intense expression to suggest this was taken on a game day. The location and score are not important, but the competitive spirit matters. Durova (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what I meant. What I meant are the faint reflections above the right shoulder and beneath the left shoulder, respectively. They are more clearly visible in the original picture. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 05:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting point. If you would like to perform an edit on that feel free; you seem to see them more clearly (might be a monitor calibration issue?). Durova (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could be, at least it's less obvious on the screen of my laptop. I would give it a try and fix it, but unfortunately I'm not very skilled at retouching. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The overall impression is great, but a lot of noise particularly in the background that probably could easily be removed. Also sharpness is not ideal, but that's something that can hardly be resolved and alone not an issue enough to decline FP. -- H005 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not noise - this is a pre-digital photograph. What you are talking about is likely grain, and for authenticity reasons shouldn't be removed/reduced. -- JovanCormac 07:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether you call it noise or grain - it's certainly not an effect intended by the original photographer, but a technical flaw of those times that can be overcome with today's technology. If you want authenticity, you shouldn't edit it at all and rather go with the original image. -- H005 (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not necessarily. During the pre-digital era photographers were known to select film grain in accordance with lighting conditions and subject matter. Low light conditions required high speed (grainier) film as a technical matter; when there was room for discretion photographers sometimes selected grainy films for male subjects, since grain was associated with masculinity. Durova (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Manjel (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:458795704 usvi st. johns 115.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 17:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Desalvionjr - uploaded by Desalvionjr - nominated by Desalvionjr -- Desalvionjr (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Desalvionjr (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where is it from? Geolocation? Nothing special, ordinary tecnically, ordinary composition. —kallerna™ 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snapshop feel. --S23678 (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I dont see anything really special with this image, maybe a good QI candidate - Huib talk 11:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ant Walk.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 13:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lajpat Dhingra - uploaded by Lajpatdhingra - nominated by Patafisik -- Patafisik (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patafisik (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but not sharp enough. -- JovanCormac 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per JovanCormac. —kallerna™ 16:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Colias croceus (by) (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry. Lycaon (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Papilionidae sp. (by) (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 17:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Name : Papilio cresphontes. Created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Phyrexian (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do you keep reverting the bots closing of this ? (according to the log this candidate failed already on the 7 of September due to the rule of the fifth day ) /Daniel78 (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably shud be renominated. I think the nom got messed up somehow and was not displayed during its run --Muhammad (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corey Taylor of Slipknot in 2005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 13:51:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gene Smirnov - uploaded by Rezter - nominated by Rezter -- Rezter (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rezter (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work, looks intresting and funny --ka ʁs tn 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Little noisiness doesn't bother me. As far as I can see, it's normal thing for concert pictures. --Lošmi (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the crop is a bit too tight on the right edge. Also the image lacks a background, which makes it not enough for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree about the crop. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per NEUROtiker. Also noise is on the high side, and resolution on the low (where do those 2.5 Mpx shots come from still? Any $60 camera you buy at Wal-Mart will give you at least 6 Mpx!) -- JovanCormac 20:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per FP guidelines it needs to be above 2 Mpx, which it is. Rezter (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, but it still could be higher, and combined with the other shortcomings the picture simply doesn't measure up IMO. The guidelines are not laws, as people rightfully like to point out. -- JovanCormac 07:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution does not have to be downsampling, can be due to cropping also. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's due to cropping, I want to see the full image, because the crop is quite bad! -- JovanCormac 07:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. —kallerna™ 11:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with NEUROtiker, too tight on the right edge. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one rocks --Aktron (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dont mind the crop, i like it. --Korall (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gavia immer2 BS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 00:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another pic of this bird? --Dschwen (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also a little skeptical here. We are currently testing the boundaries of our rules at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#How_far_does_the_rule_of_.22two_versions.22_go.3F. The discussion is still going on. -- JovanCormac 07:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is the same individual as this one. I just don’t how much different or similar pictures have to be to say they are identical or not. To me, this picture is quit different from the other, but if the general agreement is that it is the same, I withdraw it no problem. --Cephas (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What general agreement is we are trying to find out by discussing . -- JovanCormac 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that if we agree to say that this pic and this other one are too similar to be presented as FP, the consequence is that – giving that all Common Loons look alike and that they are always (nearly) in the water – it will be very difficult for anyone to submit another pic of that species for FP. Same for these spiders – if one of them is FP, forget about any other pic of that species for FP (on sand at least). I don’t think that's a good thing. I think the question to ask to solve the question is: Is there a real problem for two similar pictures to be FP? --Cephas (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info I have added my opinion, Please, add Your opinion here --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thassos 8- Koningspage Iphiclides podalirius (5).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 17:46:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jacky (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacky (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supportvery nice picture!!--User: Brugman J20:28, 2 september 2009 (UTC)
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Poor quality. --kallerna 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add FPXes when there are already support votes. --Aqwis (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good composition, however not as sharp as I would like, and has low contrast (almost hazy, like it is shot through a dirty window). --Relic38 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO, a finger should only be shown in rare cases for scale (see the Atlas photo below). Here it clashes with the beauty of the butterfly. -- JovanCormac 16:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also find the hand a bit distracting along with the lighting issue. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No, I don't think the hand is distracting. -- MartinD (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Patafisik (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – No. Per others. --Ernie (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helgoland Sonnenuntergang bmn1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 17:29:23 (UTC)

Info created by Maximlian Narr - uploaded by Maximilian Narr - nominated by Jule N. -- Jule N. (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jule N. (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per NEUROtiker. This type of image needs to be sharp to be FP, or even QI. --Relic38 (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Relic38 --ka ʁs tn 13:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others + tilted. Lycaon (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michael Phelps in Beijing.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 12:35:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by markopako - uploaded by Whatnwas - nominated by Whatnwas -- Whatnwas (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Whatnwas (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TOO SMALL!!!
Oppose 660X440 is very small for a FP --Cesco77 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it exists at a ludicrous resolution.

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.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Too small. Tiptoety ^talk 18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deleted as copyright violation [4] Lycaon (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Caelifera sp. (by).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 07:13:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors are beautiful, and this somehow looks different (read: more interesting) than most other insect nominations. -- JovanCormac 07:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ID's missing. —kallerna™ 11:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only Subordinal level :-(. ID is completely missing (it is as if you take a person and say: it is a monkey or an ape or maybe a tarsier (Haplorrhini)). Lycaon (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this picture seriously getting voted down because of missing species ID? We all know that ID is not an FP requirement, that is what we have VI for. -- JovanCormac 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't get what the rush is in nominating this? Does this have to appear here two days after upload if there is still work to be done, namely getting a full ID. --Dschwen (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People, you don't need to get every of your pictures featured. If the species is lacking, it is simply not interesting enough for FP. →Diti the penguin — 23:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jörg Groß (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Come on guys. The genus name is given, what more do you want?~~ --Muhammad (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, clearly shows how little I know. The caption is deceiving and the id to order is very very broad. A minimum of genus should be obtained for easy species and maybe atleast family for the others. --Muhammad (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Impatiens scapiflora.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 17:32:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cj.samson - uploaded by Cj.samson - nominated by Cj.samson -- Cj.samson (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically perfect, but uninteresting. Would probably do better as a Valued or Quality Image. -- JovanCormac 07:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject is sharp and good colour, however the background is distracting, particularly the right side (could be cloned out, but may be neutral at that point as FP, maybe QI though). --Relic38 (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --ka ʁs tn 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically unconvincing (a bit oversharpened) but a nice botanical specimen and IMO a very pleasing composition. Lycaon (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Lycaon --Muhammad (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality and composition IMO not sufficient for FP. I would prefer a point of view so that the inner parts of the flower are visible. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

File:Italian surfer.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 18:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cesco77 - uploaded by Cesco77 - nominated by Korall -- Korall (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, but our FPs of this subject do have better composition (good, even better). This one is nice, but the colours are bit dull and the background is distracting. —kallerna™ 19:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like to have this a bit sharper. --Aktron (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good action, but composition, colours and sharpness are not quite what I expect from FP. -- H005 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've adjusted saturation and sharpness, I don't think is an FP now, but I appreciate your opinions so much (excuse for my poor english, but I'm italian)--Cesco77 (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, your English isn't bad at all; most of us here aren't native speakers of English. I've added a note for a possible crop that would make it FP in my opinion, but unfortunately the resolution would get too low if you applied this crop. -- H005 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's enough sharpness an it's a great moment, so I Support --ka ʁs tn 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see this as a featured picture. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nordkirchen-090806-9474-Akt-Venusinsel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 14:21:35 (UTC)

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbdortmund -- Mbdortmund (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Definitely a QI as it is technically very good. However, for some reason I must remain neutral on this one. --Relic38 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you must remain neutral? ;) MartinD (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble explaining that to myself... I just cannot figure out what is missing. Sorry I can't be of any help. --Relic38 (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support: It's technically really good, but I don't like brachycera and the dirt near the abdomen right. --ka ʁs tn 13:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- George proposed to remove the dirt, but I would like to keep it because the erosion of the baroque sculptures on the Venus-island is real. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot --Leviathan (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me, not interesting enough for FP. Technically very good, of course. Maedin\^talk 09:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some people travel many miles to see the baroque sculptures in Nordkirchen... --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:African Grey Parrot-macro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 00:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jörg_Groß - uploaded by Jörg_Groß - nominated by Jörg_Groß -- Jörg Groß (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jörg Groß (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both sharpness and noise are bad. -- JovanCormac 07:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per JovanCarmac, especially at that image size. --Relic38 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very bad quality, too noise --ka ʁs tn 14:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brugge Carmersbrug R01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 21:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Lycaon (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality --ka ʁs tn 14:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice picture of Brugge -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me this quality is good --Pudelek (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good picture, but IMO not good enough for FP. The light comes from an unfavorable direction so that the visible side of the bridge lies in shadows. Also the picture could be a little more "crispy". If you look at other FP, e.g. this or this, this one can't keep up. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't think the light comes from an "infavourable direction" at all. --Aqwis (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking at the top of the bell tower, one can clearly see the sharpness issues. -- JovanCormac 05:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject of this photo is kinda unclear. I can't focus on anything. —kallerna™ 11:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just normal good quality image. --Karel (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 21:56:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Pyramid of Kukulcán (el castillo) in Chichén Itzá, Mayan ruins World Heritage Site in Yucatan, Mexico. High resolution (48MP) panorama. All by Dschwen (talk)
Support -- Dschwen (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. Maybe an un-evenness in the sky color (from left to right, in the center), but overall very good --S23678 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we should continue on this New Seven Wonders thematic. Taj Mahal pictures anyone? --S23678 (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition mitigates minor sharpness issues. -- JovanCormac 08:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, I think it's perfect.--Cesco77 (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Relic38 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 04:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ComputerHotline - Danaus plexippus (by) (3).jpg, featured[edit]

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support We already have 3 FP:s of this species but I think this one is very good.--Korall (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is ordinary, but the quality is great and the butterfly beautiful. -- JovanCormac 17:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a real pity the proboscis is out of focus, but IMO good enough for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ComputerHotline - Lepidoptera sp. (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 14:59:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the organism is not identified, so the file is near to useless at the moment. Lycaon (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contested the FPX. This is not Valued Images. Think of this butterfly photo as an artwork, and a great one at that. Looking both at past successful candidates and the guidelines, it simply eludes me why species ID (or any other metadata) should matter at all on FPC, especially since, in the form of VI, we already have a different designation for images that are informative and well-described. -- JovanCormac 17:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it matters. Completely unidentified organisms are next to useless. Moreover, your artwork is noisy and has a blurry head. Lycaon (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The goal of a wiki is to collaborate. Anyway, the FPC page has way more visibility than any other for identifying a species. Should I mention an “exceptional picture” (rough translation of « Images remarquables ») is exceptional, whatever the moment. A featured picture, by its status—and hence its visibility— will end up fully identified in the future, won't it? Just my opinion, because I consider myself more a photographer than a biologist. →Diti the penguin — 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unsharp head (motion blur). --Aqwis (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess this picture was taken at some kind of butterfly zoo and to me (but I am no biologist) i looks like some kind of Heliconius (Because of the shape of the butterfly but also because I know they are bred in captivity) but to narrow it down further is kind of hard because there are many species and also hybrids between species. I think the best way to know for sure would be going to the butterfly zoo, be polite and ask some who works there which species they have. --Korall (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Lepidoptera sp. (by) (30).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 17:41:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is truly fantastic. Normally, I would object to a hand being shown in an animal photo, but here it serves as a scale, and shows how incredibly big the Atlas really is. This photo could be from Scientific American, so great is it. -- JovanCormac 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW for all the deserved praise, a very gentle denoise could make this picture (and the others) even better. -- JovanCormac 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When thinkg of the scale in this image, I get to question if it is an adult's of children's hand. I think it should be mentioned in description. --sfu (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another picture of the atlas, Image:Attacus_atlas-01_(xndr).jpg, clearly shows relatively prominent antennae. Do you know why the atlas in the candidate picture doesn't have them? Maybe they have broken off (the wings also show some damage, probably from "petting" since I assume that this was taken at a butterfly zoo). -- JovanCormac 19:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be a male/female difference?--Korall (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really good--Cesco77 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Korall (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Antennae missing, hand disturbing. Lycaon (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lactoria cornuta (DFdB).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 13:05:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dein Freund der Baum - uploaded by Dein Freund der Baum - nominated by Dein Freund der Baum -- Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and noisy --ka ʁs tn 14:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality: Unfortunate crop, inappropriate DOF, not sharp and a bit noisy. Lycaon (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could forgive som lack of sharpness and noise for an underwater picture but the missing part of the back fin makes it a no for me. --Korall (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Patafisik (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough (see mouth). Finns cut off. Sorry --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut-off --ianaré (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As other opponents. --Karel (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geastrum saccatum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 08:02:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Patafisik (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like candy... TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 18:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Passage - Nuits de Hautecombe 2008 - 7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 10:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Yann (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like the shadow :D - Huib talk 11:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition! --Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition; quite artistic. -- JovanCormac 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good, but crop isn't ideal. Could you recrop it? —kallerna™ 08:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since several people already supported because of composition, it would be nice to hear exactly what is wrong with the crop and what the new crop should look like.--Korall (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I imagine that kallerna would probably like to see a little more on the bottom. -- JovanCormac 11:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing more can be shown at the bottom. The image is as it was taken, no cropping. Yann (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would like to see less black area. —kallerna™ 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with JovanCormac --George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, please do not crop the black area, it would destroy the image in my eyes. --Aqwis (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fully agree with Aqwis, excellent composition --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition --ianaré (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral composition looks great at first, but then the blurry head in the foreground started to annoy me :-( --Dschwen (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this - it captures the moment very well indeed. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great composition. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The shadow really makes the composition great. That said, the crop could be a bit tighter. Tiptoety ^talk 02:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Ringling Bros. tremendous 1200 character spectacle Joan of Arc ppmsca12513u.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 09:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The Strobridge Litho. Co. - uploaded by Trialsanderrors - nominated by JovanCormac 09:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info High resolution (80 Mpx), high quality scan of a colorful announcement poster for a 1912 event. Found using the techniques described on User:JovanCormac/UsingDatabaseDumps. -- JovanCormac 09:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Andrei S. _Talk 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice document, excellent reproduction. High quality! -- MJJR (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thassos8 -Koninginnepage Papilio machaon(4).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 11:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jacky (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacky (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good enough. —kallerna™ 11:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is OK, however there are issues with sharpness, noise, and contrast. --Relic38 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sharpness is not there, sorry. --Korall (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per others. I think there are better pictures of Papilio machaon here. --Ernie (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Araneus diadematus -3 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imo are too many parts of the spider unsharp --ka ʁs tn 19:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF too low. Man, I feel like I'm opposing nothing but ComputerHotline pictures. Sorry, nothing personal, but you just nominate soooo many, and most of them are quite good, but not nearly as many are really great and FP material. --Dschwen (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Thomisidae sp.-1 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the fact that there are four others nominated of the same subject just at different angles, which really subtracts from the wow factor of the others (I supported the first one to be nominated.) TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ID's missing. —kallerna™ 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ID, redundant shotgun nomination tactics, not really up to the high macro standards. --Dschwen (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the fact that there are four others nominated of the same subject just at different angles, which really subtracts from the wow factor of the others (I supported the first one to be nominated.) TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ID's missing. —kallerna™ 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ID, redundant shotgun nomination tactics, not really up to the high macro standards. --Dschwen (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to repeat my comment from here: I think it's bad form to nominate more than one image of the same subject. FP is a selection of great pictures, and part of the FPC process should be the nominator selecting which picture out of a series to nominate, rather than throwing a bunch of similar images at the community and hoping that one of them will get enough votes to pass. -- JovanCormac 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Unrelated to comment above): See also the already Featured picture File:Spider and mites May 2008-1.jpg. -- JovanCormac 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the fact that there are four others nominated of the same subject just at different angles, which really subtracts from the wow factor of the others (I supported the first one to be nominated.) TonyBallioni (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ID's missing. —kallerna™ 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ID, redundant shotgun nomination tactics, not really up to the high macro standards. --Dschwen (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle of Antietam2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 09:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by an Unknown author - restored & uploaded by Mvuijlst - nominated by JovanCormac 09:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info High resolution (43 Mpx), high quality scan of an interesting painting, masterfully restored by Mvuijlst. The quality in full size is truly fantastic. Found using the techniques described on User:JovanCormac/UsingDatabaseDumps. -- JovanCormac 09:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect work--Cesco77 (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose. Please upload an unedited version of the image to Commons and cross-link between restored and unrestored work. For restored featured pictures, the original should always be available via local hosting. This is an issue that has caused museums to back away from prospective donations; please be conscientious. Durova (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ? A link to the original, unedited version (File:Battle of Antietam.jpg) is already present in the "Other versions" field, and that version in turn links back to the edited one... -- JovanCormac 16:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Durova (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 04:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Andrei S. _Talk 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heavy stuff... -- MJJR (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bibliotheque-musee-Guimet.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 04:39:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Athoune - uploaded by Athoune - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 05:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detailed and interesting. -- JovanCormac 06:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect, I love this, ~~but it need a geolocalization~~ --Olivier Jaulent (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Olivier Jaulent!--Paris 16 (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO the black frame should be in transparent color, not black. -- H005 (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. —kallerna™ 16:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is transparency even possible with JPG? --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No jpeg does not support it (disregarding jpeg 2000 which does). /Daniel78 (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I meant white. —kallerna™ 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Andrei S. _Talk 14:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great --S23678 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 18:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brachypelma boehmei 2009 G06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 07:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Walking Mexican fireleg birdeater Brachypelma boehmei. Adult female
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't like the setup of your spider shots too much. IMO the all suffer from too high contrast. The shadows are too dark, as is the spider, the contours of the spider are lost in the shadow. The perspective is probably useful, but nothing more (no artistic component). And the technical quality of this image is not particularly good (lacks sharpness). You should consider using a fill flash from a very low angle to bring some light below the spider. --Dschwen (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In general, I like to try to look at animals from the same level as they are at. I think a shot from ground level would make the spider more interesting because thats how I imagine that spiders look at other spiders. I prefer something like File:Oryctes_nasicornis_front.JPG (which I took without looking in the viewfinder and has too shallow DOF to be really good) to File:Oryctes_nasicornis_side.JPG beacuse the first one gives me the feeling of looking at something very small from the perspective of being someone/something very small. So, well, shortly, I find the perspective kind of boring and the quality less than outstanding. --Korall (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butterfly on yellow flower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 19:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gaetan Lee - uploaded and nominated by Marsa Lahminal -- Marsa Lahminal (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marsa Lahminal (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please put the file in a proper category and add the scientific name to the description? Is it Vanessa cardui or is it a different species only found in Australia? -Korall (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Marsa Lahminal (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Non-free license. --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The file's license is CC-by, which is a free license. →Diti the penguin — 11:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On Flickr the license IS all rights reserved. GerardM (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I uploaded the file, the license was CC-By, it certainly did pass the Flickr review. The license is now changed. I presume that disqualifies it for the nomination. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it doesn't. CC licenses are non-revocable. If it once was released under CC, the picture is free, and can be used and nominated here. -- JovanCormac 08:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness below par (head), also color balance (yellow!). -- JovanCormac 08:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good enough. —kallerna™ 10:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castell de Vernet.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 18:46:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lohen11 - uploaded by Lohen11 - nominated by Ssola -- Ssola (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ssola (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs more information: where is this place? Geocoding would be nice. Yann (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Added detailed description based on geolocalization. Nice image, but perspective should be corrected (the walls need to be vertical). Yann (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Geocode would be right there, I guess. --Ernie (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Location added, sorry, I'm a newbie here. I'll try to bring the featured pictures from Catalan wikipedia.--Ssola (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy sky, overburnt parts. —kallerna™ 11:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ettelsberg Panorama 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 17:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Carschten --ka ʁs tn 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 17:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ive pointed out a stiching error.--Korall (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the composition, and IMO the foreground could have been sharper. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't understand why you included the right 2/3s of the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Mbz1, the grass is very blurry. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stiching errors, dull colours. —kallerna™ 10:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, stitching errors are very noticeable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lebesby church 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 07:56:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rünno - uploaded by Rünno - nominated by Rünno -- Rünno (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Lebesby church, en:Lebesby municipality, Norway
Support -- Rünno (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but like your other nomination below, this one isn't nearly up to the quality standards expected here. -- JovanCormac 08:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, next time, don't use the flash. --Aqwis (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not impressive at all. Per Aqwis and JovanCormac. Tiptoety ^talk 23:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the others --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Otepää church 2007 9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 06:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by HendrixEesti - uploaded by HendrixEesti - nominated by Rünno -- Rünno (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rünno (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The angle of the image is a bit off, making it tilted. Also, the quality of the image is not all that great. Tiptoety ^talk 06:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image noise is terrible, and visible even in the thumbnail. -- JovanCormac 07:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per both the above. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blown whites, excessive noise and tilt. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peafowlhead.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 19:52:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tucayo - uploaded by Tucayo - nominated by Tucayo -- Tucayo (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tucayo (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not too fond of the centered eye composition. Too much room on top, head too small. --Dschwen (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Dschwen --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Project 1164 Moskva 2009 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 05:41:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC) nominated by -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Guided missile cruiser "Moskva", the largest warship of Russian Navy in the Black sea. "Moskva" was used in the 2008 Russia-Georgia War.
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Highly interesting and relevant subject, but quality is low and composition is bland. Try Valued Images. -- JovanCormac 08:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no now IMO (per JovanCormac). —kallerna™ 10:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, the technical quality is borderline but as the subject of this picture is stationary I'd expect a sharper picture. --Aqwis (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This photo has been made from a boat, as coast is too far for a good photo. Object are static, photographer - not. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nice subject (for me a wow), but per JovanCormac --ka ʁs tn 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rigidoporus laetus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 08:01:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmm, yummy. :-/ Maedin\^talk 09:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak support bit small size, but overall very nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but why for FP? There is nothing special on this snap. Good quality image of mushroom. --Karel (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)--Karel (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lighting for this photograph was composed with some care and it therefore does not meet the definition of a snapshot. I'll assume you mean "no wow" Noodle snacks (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be surprised if any of you photos were taken without care for light conditions. The quality is good but indeed, wow is lacking. Lycaon (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Karel. Lycaon (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Fungi

File:Whistlejacket by George Stubbs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 22:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info painted by George Stubbs - uploaded and nominated by User:AxelBoldt -- AxelBoldt (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AxelBoldt (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks like the tail is cropped off, which I find awfully distracting. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per TonyBallioni. -- JovanCormac 06:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, and featured?!? --ka ʁs tn 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not really sure what the make of the picture itself, but I do know that the tail has been cut off, which I do not like. Tiptoety ^talk 05:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zack Greinke on July 29, 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 23:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Keith Allison - uploaded by UCinternational - nominated by Staxringold -- Staxringold (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Staxringold (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! —kallerna™ 06:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. There are too few nominations of sports pictures here. -- JovanCormac 10:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not enough space on the right. Where is the ball going to go? →Diti the penguin — 11:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To home plate... He's a pitcher. He's the point of the image. Staxringold (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellently frozen. —Andrei S. _Talk 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Joke}} Maybe he wasn't moving, maybe he was just posing? :) Airwolf (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 18:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Thassos 8- Koningspage Iphiclides podalirius.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 17:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jacky (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacky (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Poor quality. --kallerna 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thassos 8- Koningspage Iphiclides podalirius (5).JPG --Aqwis (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thassos8 -Koninginnepage Papilio machaon (2).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 17:55:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jacky (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacky (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The best of the set, but quality is still insufficient, especially the washed-out colors and the bad image noise. -- JovanCormac 12:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kotschanowitz (Kiefernrode, Chocianowice) - main altar in new church.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 12:57:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place, but too much contrast between the wall and the benches. Try another time with less light and a longer exposure, or blending together several images with different exposures. Yann (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Does not have that "wow" factor. Tiptoety ^talk 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose General quality is too low (e.g. overexposed windows). -- JovanCormac 18:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bismuth-crystal.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 12:35:12

Info Because of File:Bi-crystal.jpg. (Original nomination)
Delist —kallerna™ 12:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This one especially because of the ugly ruler. -- JovanCormac 13:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Surely better than most images on Commons but no longer among the finest ones. --Slaunger (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Definitely superseded. Maedin\^talk 08:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist the other two are better, showing different aspects. Lycaon (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Yann (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

File:Bismuth crystal macro.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 12:36:30

Info Because of File:Bi-crystal.jpg. (Original nomination)
Delist —kallerna™ 12:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed. No use keeping inferior stuff when we have pictures that great. -- JovanCormac 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I don't think it is inferior stuff. It is still a fine and well-made photo of high value, but I agree it is not quite on par with several recent elements FPs. --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant inferior to the best we have - after all, quality is always relative. -- JovanCormac 11:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hoped that was what you meant . --Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It really was - I hope our expectations will never stand still, for that will be the moment FP dies. 25 years from now, taking 3D pictures of everything might be as common as digital photography is today. And as soon as someone takes a great 3D picture of a bismuth crystal, I will be the first to nominate File:Bi-crystal.jpg for delisting, beautiful as it is. With the exception of historical photos (which cannot simply be taken a second time), every FP should constantly be re-evaluated as to whether it still is in fact among the best we have. Incidentially, I believe that the runner-up in the 2007 Picture of the Year contest, File:New York City at night HDR.jpg, might conceivably be delisted within five years' time. Its atmosphere is great, but sharpness and image noise are second rate even from today's point of view and since better images with the same composition and idea will undoubtedly be uploaded in the future (especially as HDR matures), even a picture that was once ranked as "Featured among Featured Pictures" might face delisting sooner than most would consider possible today. That is, unless there will be people who say it shouldn't be delisted, simply because it won second place in 2007; something which would not surprise me given some users' attitude towards delisting older FPs today. -- JovanCormac 22:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Korall (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It shows the structure better IMO, the new one, though high quality, is confusing because of the multiple reflections. Lycaon (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Yann (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riverting team2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 10:44:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alfred T. Palmer - restored & uploaded by Mvuijlst - nominated by JovanCormac
Info Color photograph of a riveting team working on a cockpit. Very atmospheric and high quality for a photo from 1942! -- JovanCormac
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 10:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I love the light and the atmosphere. --Korall (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now -- A very prepared and nice propaganda photograph. The original scan is very good. The edit is nice too but not sufficient: the lower section of the frame should be cropped, the upper right one should be cloned, there's also a dead pixel in the lower left, and all of the very visible red CA should be corrected. On the other hand, the back of the man is too much processed and now too bright, loosing highlights details. The colours are a bit too much saturated compared to the original in my taste, turning the skin a bit unnatural. Sting (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ridiculously posed, low-light war propaganda. Bears little to no resemblance to actual war-time riveting. Maedin\^talk 09:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Sting and Maedin. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The quality is very good, the atmosphere is interesting, but it is so obviously staged that I can't support. I might support it with a real descriptive information: who are the actors? when and where was it used as propaganda? Yann (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wercollier Prisonnier politique Croix de Hinzert 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 19:44:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's a good QI, but for FP it's lacking that little extra that makes it stand out of the QI crowd. -- H005 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and overprocessed, imho. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per both of the comments above, plus there are some blurry spots. Tiptoety ^talk 06:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Maurilbert, also image noise. -- JovanCormac 18:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russell Falls Mt Field National Park.jpg, featured[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX^talk 18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ■ MMXX^talk 18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ordinary subject, but technical excellence as usual. -- JovanCormac 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be possible to do better. I've taken http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6937/russellfalls2.jpg. But it is blurry due to volumes of spray. I'm sort of waiting for a more moderate level of flow and a bit of free time at the moment. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question How was it stitched together? Because an area looks a bit awkward to me (see annotation). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Manually. That is not the seam-line though. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Anonymous votes are not allowed. -- JovanCormac 06:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose I don't love the composition. Plus there is some slight blurriness and chromatic aberration in the upper part. Overall IMO not enough for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Tiptoety ^talk 03:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AD2009Aug07 Natrix natrix 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 15:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wilder Kaiser - uploaded by Wilder Kaiser - nominated by Korall -- Korall (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Amazing. One of the coolest animal photos on Commons. -- JovanCormac 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Jovan.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is she saying cheese? ■ MMXX^talk 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great ! --ianaré (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 18:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as so often per JovanCormac --ka ʁs tn 19:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am surprised to see this picture showing up here. Never really liked it – probably because of the reflection of myself in the snake's eye making it look unnatural. --Ernie (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition and technical quality, reflection does not bother me, and certainly not to the point where it makes the picture unnatural. --Dschwen (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. Tiptoety ^talk 05:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The classic wow factor! --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vprisivko (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support !!!Wow!!!!--Luc Viatour (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Simonizer (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dschwen. Lycaon (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Auto wreck, Maryland, 1923.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 22:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by National Photo Company, uploaded, restored and nominated by Yann (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the smile of the man on the left... Yann (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support While restoration could have gone a little further yet for my taste (dust specks, scratches), this is still a nice historical snapshot, and can always be improved even after becoming Featured. -- JovanCormac 07:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I love it. --Ernie (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work on restoration!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work on this image. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice. Tiptoety ^talk 23:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vprisivko (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand correctly that this is a Chevrolet? If so, one might use this as an illustration of the problems now faced by General Motors.;) MartinD (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is a Chevrolet, I think it is the model 490 from 1923. Yann (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 17:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny :) --ka ʁs tn 18:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Belgian F-16 Radom 2009.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 21:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow and Maciek Hypś - uploaded by Łukasz Golowanow - nominated by Łukasz Golowanow -- Airwolf (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAs sharp as a jet plane in flight can be I think. Good pic. Wpedzich (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about that. This picture is definitely sharper. It also has less noise and better composition, which is why I Oppose the candidate. -- JovanCormac 07:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do take note, please, that the photo you are referring to was taken from another airplane, which means there was little or no difference in velocity (i.e. no real movement in relation to the photographer). Airwolf (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you took this picture from the ground? Given that, the quality is actually pretty impressive, but that doesn't change how it compares to the F-22 picture I mentioned. Fact is that most of the many in-flight pictures in the F-22_Raptor category have better sharpness than this one, and because of that I simply cannot support. I'm sorry for that and hope you are not discouraged, but when reviewing a nomination I tend to look at what we have already first, and this candidate just isn't among the best of them. -- JovanCormac 13:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand. Maybe you feel that there's another picture taken on that day (and yes, they were taken from the ground) which you feel is more suitable than this one? Airwolf (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What a gallery! I like both File:F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009.JPG and File:F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009 b.JPG better in terms of colors and technical quality, but the real treasure is File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 b.JPG, which has a truly fantastic composition and no quality problems at all. It would surprise the hell out of me if that one did not get featured, should you nominate it. -- JovanCormac 13:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I took the liberty of running a careful denoise on File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 b.JPG, which makes this great photo look a little better yet. I strongly suggest you nominate it. You have my support already. -- JovanCormac 13:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment That one's currently my desktop background. I was planning on nominating it myself at some stage; guess great minds think alike? :D Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The standards are definitely not the same. Between a Wikimedian's work, and an US employee's work, I support the first one. →Diti the penguin — 09:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect composition, and in my opinion, the slightly sub-optimal sharpness reminds you that what you are looking at is a machine built for speed, moving very fast. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - blurry. I know it is a fast moving object but still if you want the FP status it should be crystal clear.--Avala (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp, noisy. Lycaon (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support PMG (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coleridge2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 00:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Samuel Cousins (engraver) - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Coleridge.jpg by Durova. See also compressed courtesy copy for viewers with slow connection speed at File:Coleridge2 courtesy copy.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Portrait of Samuel Taylor Coleridge.
Support -- Durova (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a Somersetian, I can't say no! Maedin\^talk 09:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Corpus Christi Church in Rosenberg - side altar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2009 at 09:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much stuff, no wow, just ok quality. —kallerna™ 11:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Kallerna, plus the crop is not great. Tiptoety ^talk 00:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kallerna. -- JovanCormac 07:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jumping spider with prey.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 12:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. Do we even have any other pictures of arthropod camouflage on Commons? -- JovanCormac 13:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A previous FP attempt with a hires image miserably failed on the very issue of camouflage :-)). Lycaon (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are plenty others of course (e.g. this and this). Lycaon (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the info. The candidate shows the best camouflage, though. The spider is hardly visible in the thumbnail. -- JovanCormac 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like spiders. This showing well. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do my eyes deceive me, or is the spider missing a leg on the right hand side? -- JovanCormac 14:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Andrei S. _Talk 14:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 18:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Majestat Batlló.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2009 at 10:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by rofi (from flickr) - uploaded by KRLS - nominated by Ssola -- Ssola (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not distracting elements, no bad resolution, and very nice foto. -- Ssola (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several dust spots in this image. --Korall (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I tried to delete them but all I did has been uploading a new image with smaller resolution and still with dust spots. Can someone help me?--Ssola (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reuploaded a denoised and hopefully spot-free version. However, I suspect the basic technical quality of this photo may not be up to FP standards: the original was quite noisy and, worse yet, very heavily JPEG-compressed. I can't denoise it much more without starting to lose details. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness at full size. -- JovanCormac 07:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schwerin-Schloss-gp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 08:37:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

front aspect of Schwerin Castle, Germany

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kolossos -- Kolossos (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kolossos (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best architecture shot I've seen here in a long time. There aren't even any people in it. -- JovanCormac 09:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp, nice colors, lot of details. Yann (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply excellent --Cayambe (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. Tiptoety ^talk 23:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support yep, no comments. Lycaon (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 18:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shishkin, Ivan - Morning in a Pine Forest.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 07:13:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Shishkin, Ivan - uploaded by Platonides - nominated by JovanCormac
Info A beautiful and atmospheric painting, presented as a high resolution, high quality scan. -- JovanCormac
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A definite one. I love that painting. --Laveol (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:Pieris crop.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 15:00:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Korall -- Korall (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you rotate it? —kallerna™ 18:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course I could, but the butterfly was like that when I found it so I don´t see the point in rotating the picture. If I do it , it looks like there was a very strong lamp under the butterfly when I took the picture, but the light comes from the sun so to me it looks very strange when i rotate the picture.--Korall (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some kind of blueish aura around the flower and the butterfly. Is this a compression artifact or the result of processing or something totally different? --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt is because I reduced noise only in the background. I did not want to loose detail in the butterfly and flower. It seems like denoising algortim must have made it blue around ther for some reason. Well I guess ill withdraw and find some kind of solution to the blueness.

I withdraw my nomination

File:Earwax on swab.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 22:28:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created & uploaded by Gmaxwell - nominated by JovanCormac
Info A fascinating image that is both repulsive (subject) and beautiful (composition & quality) at the same time. I've pondered whether to nominate this image for a long time, but now I'm doing it as I really believe it should become a Featured Picture for that incredible contrast alone. -- JovanCormac
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 22:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As much as I would love to oppose this picture for its disgusting nature, I can't because of the stunning composition. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very non-aesthetic object --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the presentation is highly aesthetic, even artistic - and this contrast is what the picture is about. -- JovanCormac 09:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose object is cut, central composition.--Avala (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Central compositions are the usual for this kind of shots - it's kind of pointless left/right-aligning the object when the background is entirely black. --Aqwis (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Good quality and presentation --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yuck... Airwolf (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Airwolf. :D →Diti the penguin — 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good, but IMHO not interesting enough for FP. Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I foresaw many different oppose reasons when I nominated this, but not interesting enough was certainly not one of them. With dozens of butterfly pictures getting featured every month, and twice as many nondescript landscape shots, surely an artsy macro of a swab with earwax has to be among the more interesting nominations ever on FPC... -- JovanCormac 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well taken shot of very interesting subject. the ick adds interest - Peripitus (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special in this image --Umnik (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Since the interest of this image is almost purely aesthetic, the only reason I need to state is that I don't like it. Of course, doing it wit ear wax is provocative (why not honey?). But that is gratuitous provocation which doesn't add to the value of the picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is being “politically incorrect” a provocation? →Diti the penguin — 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info - Not at all, this is just common, vulgar. To be politically incorrect is to say the king is naked. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -fine contrast. Interesting object. --Kolossos (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high-quality image. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —kallerna™ 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Void according to the new rules. -- JovanCormac 11:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality, educational value (used in 26 projects), wow included. I think that scope of FP is to show the world, not only to show aesthetic world. --Jklamo (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a pretty subject but IMO the lighting techniques used make it look good --Muhammad (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=14|oppose=7|neutral=0|featured=no|category=|sig=[[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC))}}

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Others

File:Hamburg-090613-0286-DSC 8383.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 18:39:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by [[Mbdortmund (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)|]] -- Mbdortmund (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I'm afraid sharpness isn't quite what we've come to expect from architecture shots (look at the rooftops and the people to the right of the building). Also the crop on the bottom is a little close for my taste. -- JovanCormac 18:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with JovanCormac, sorry. —kallerna™ 08:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing impressive, plus the crop could be a bit better. Tiptoety ^talk 23:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Below the crop you could see a fence of a building site --Mbdortmund (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red billed gull 17.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 11:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really up to FP standards. Whites are blown, composition is rather trivial (centred) and the sharpness (e.g. head) is also not as it should. Lycaon (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the composition was quite nice :-). The whites are very bright, but surprisingly very little is over exposed, its a choice between bright whites and noisy greys. A tweak to the beak with an unsharp mask might be what you want. Oh well I thought FPC needs a few more bird nominations, as there aren't any others here ... I'll find some more :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Brugge Augustijnenbrug R01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 20:28:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spoiling the party, but sharpness leaves to be desired (look at the sign of the hotel) and composition is underwhelming (the cars cut off by the bridge are particularly distracting). -- JovanCormac 08:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I have to agree with JovanCormac here. Don't see why this picture is supposed to be one of Wikimedia's finest --Ernie (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 10:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with Cormac. --Aqwis (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JovanCormac --ka ʁs tn 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pier Blankenberge R01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 20:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - dull snapshot of unimpressive quality.--Avala (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Avala. -- JovanCormac 06:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: Great motiv but not the best quality --ka ʁs tn 19:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VespaFrance.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 18:54:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Didier Descouens/Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop, not sharp enough IMO. sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's sharp enough for a Makro with 14 (!) MP. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mbz1. -- JovanCormac 22:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be done better. —kallerna™ 10:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, fuzzy, bad crop, but very interesting --ka ʁs tn 18:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp due to f32. Use a wider aperture and focus stacking. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Early morning beach scene.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 04:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Juliancolton - uploaded by Juliancolton - nominated by Juliancolton -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well, let's see how badly I can do with this one... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This may be a better choice for a QI. Tiptoety ^talk 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beaches are in general pleasant to look at, so for me more or less the same applies to them as to sunsets (we have a lot of beutiful pictures of them but they are all of the same sun). This picture shows no special landmarks or anything more of encyclopedic interest than sand and water (and a cropped off umbrella), and I we have almost 300 pictures of general beaches and 116 categories of beaches by country. I just do not think this image stands out or is a lot better than the rest of them, so ill oppose in the same way that I (kind of rudely) opposed another (technically very good) picture of a beach before: Its just a lot of wet sand. --Korall (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop on the parasol is a disaster. -- JovanCormac 08:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Joke? --Karel (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd greatly appreciate my work not being called a "joke", thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don´t mean, that your image is joke. What should a joke be for me is attempt to nominate it for FP. I think, that you see other´s comments. Please, try to read some about this on the begging of nomination page. Thanks. --Karel (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good technical quality, but I'm not convinced about the composition, sorry --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 11:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by J woodward - uploaded by J woodward - nominated by J woodward -- J woodward (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I though this was an interesting and unusual view of Sydney. Its also my first time nominating so I want to see what happens
Support -- J woodward (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blurriness and glare. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Juliancolton, too much glare. Tiptoety ^talk 18:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image quality issues aside this has been taken too late in the day. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- JovanCormac 08:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Thomisidae sp. (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This one is the best of the lot. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ID's missing. —kallerna™ 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ID, redundant shotgun nomination tactics, not really up to the high macro standards. --Dschwen (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ID sufficient for FPC. But only a very small part is actually in focus - perhaps just a crop of the head ...? --Tony Wills (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient ID for commons. Lycaon (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Vella Gulf (CG-72) through a wave - 090228-N-1082Z-004.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MC2 Jason R. Zalasky - uploaded and nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Motiv good, quality bad (not the best) → Neutral --ka ʁs tn 19:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cool image. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me going around Cape Horn.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy seas??? Bad timing and average quality. Lycaon (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Considering that the Ticonderoga Class of cruisers (one seen here in drydock) has a 10m draught (distance for keel to waterline) and that the wave reached the top of the bow (about another 10m) I'd say that that counts as 'heavy seas'. The spectacle of roughly 9600 tonnes of metal crashing into a wave higher than a house is something I think should be featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. —kallerna™ 09:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think it's cropped. The bridges of these cruisers don't look really good for photographing off, due to the many windows (as you can see in this picture), so I think it was taken from the walkway on the right side of the bridge. That would account for the angle, as it's simply not possible to take a photo from the bridge itself without getting window frames in-shot. This is the bestshot one could hope to get under the circumstances. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You would get better crop with for instance 14mm lens. —kallerna™ 15:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and technical quality IMO not sufficient. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Descendants of slaves of the Pettway plantation.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 18:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arthur Rothstein, uploaded, restored and nominated by Yann (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. There is a feeling here... Yann (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I guess it has value but I think the quality is not good enough for FP, it's very grainy. Also I do not see anything extra good about the photograph, seems like an easy shot. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that it is a 72 years old picture, which has IMO a lot of historical value. It is way above the minimum size. It could be downsampled by 50% and still be above the required size. Yann (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great document. -- JovanCormac 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grain visible even on thumbnails. —kallerna™ 10:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very poignant --ianaré (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I miss that 'feeling', Yann. It is a bland composition IMO. Lycaon (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel78 and Lycaon. Age alone can't be a criterion for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Girl at Gees Bend.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 22:22:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arthur Rothstein, uploaded, restored and nominated by Yann (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting contrast between two worlds. Yann (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting composition. Tiptoety ^talk 00:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Yann--Mbz1 (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could benefit from noise removal. —kallerna™ 11:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the noise/grain issue again. Pre-digital photos exhibit film grain, not image noise. Retouching to remove grain, while possible, takes away authenticity IMO. -- JovanCormac 13:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution, good quality. -- JovanCormac 13:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I can't see what is so extraordinary about that picture that would make it featured (and yes, I know it's old :-) ). --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a strong symbolism here. It is a pity you don't see it... :( Yann (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Neurotiker. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I don't understand people supporting military hardware, and who can't even see the most basic symbolism... Yann (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pity you withdrew. Many people had supported already, and the vote was far from over even with the "roman style" opposes in the end. I think that the reason some people don't see the symbolism of the contrast between the clean world propagated by the newspaper and the girl's poor living conditions is that they simply don't look at the image in full size (where the Cellophane ad becomes more prominent) - which is a shame, but unless voters decide to take the time to do so there's nothing that can be done about it. -- JovanCormac 05:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a featured picture, but you could try nominating it as a valued image. --Ernie (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kremnica - The Plague Column.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 17:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose For FP the image IMO lacks a bit sharpness. Also the colours in the background and on top of the column look a bit washed-out. It's a pity because I really like the symmetry. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per NEUROtiker. -- JovanCormac 05:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While I think the sharpness is not an issue, I agree that the colors in the background make the top of the column look washed-out. Also, it is too bad that the bottom of the statue was cropped, we are not able to see all of the stairs. Tiptoety ^talk 06:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Pudelek (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stow Lake with pagoda, pigeons and the Moon.jpg[edit]

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

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This image lacks the "wow" factor for me needed for FPs, though I do think it is an interesting shot. Also, the birds and the moon are a bit blurry, making them somewhat distracting. That as well as the small piece of branch on the right hand side make the crop not the best (could be easily fixed though). Lastly the dark shadowing in the lower right hand corner make it hard to tell what you are looking at. Tiptoety ^talk 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The flying birds are blurry a lot, and it what makes the image interesting at least for me

File:Strawberry splash.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 06:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Abhijit Tembhekar - uploaded by Tiptoety - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 06:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiptoety ^talk 06:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom crop is terrible, the original version has more space. Please recrop. -- JovanCormac 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the original from flickr is that it includes a border. To be honest, I would not call the current crop terrible, nor do I think there is much more to add back. Really, I just removed the border...I will mess around with it regardless. Tiptoety ^talk 11:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info I changed the crop slightly. Tiptoety ^talk 11:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Resolution.~~ Too tight crop. —kallerna™ 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Strangely enough, before recropping the image had a much higher resolution. Perhaps a mistake? -- JovanCormac 12:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{FPX|the image is below minimum size requirement}}~~ Lycaon (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size issue resolved but still too tight crop. Lycaon (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:African dwarf goat baby.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 15:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by Korall -- Korall (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice baby --George Chernilevsky (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background distracting --ianaré (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. —kallerna™ 18:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I do not particularity care for the twigs in the foreground as they block the goat and obstruct the view of what it is doing with it's mouth. I also agree that the background color makes the goat blend in. Though, it is cute. Tiptoety ^talk 05:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amadeo Modigliani 012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 14:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Amedeo Modigliani - uploaded by Eloquence - nominated by JovanCormac
Info Great scan of a highly expressive modern art nude by Amedeo Modigliani. The painting was widely viewed as scandalous when it was first shown in 1917. We barely have any Featured artworks from that period. -- JovanCormac
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 14:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP collection must have this in excellent quality --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfaithful reproduction.--Claus (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Claus. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Claus. Lycaon (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Paris 16 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give a reason for opposing. Yann (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per others. You can see this.--Paris 16 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but we need official shot from museum to be sure about colours, like those images --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Damselfly July 2009-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 18:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Yes, it is a bit small (cropped, not downsampled) and not pin sharp, but maybe the beauty of this elegant creature mitigates the technical imperfections. It is a male "demoiselle" of the Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis species (from the pink rear of abdomen). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, too small, too little detail. The macro bar is higher than this. --Dschwen (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dschwen. —kallerna™ 15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Excavation at Uriconium by Francis Bedford2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 17:46:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Francis Bedford and restored by Durova - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Ankara -- Ankara (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ankara (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A black&white picture should be B&W, this one needs to be grayscaled. Yann (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why ?? GerardM (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a historic picture of an excavation by a relevant photographer ... NICE GerardM (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great value. -- JovanCormac 18:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For GerardM and JovanCormac. Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Yann. --Karel (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I lack something that adds something more than value. Also it lacks date information, not even a year or a period is mentioned. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park Beach Sunset 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 12:01:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artsy but rather confusing. The small size doesn't help to figure out what we are seeing, even the barnacles look like white specks (I'm sure they look like barnacles on the version you have on your computer). Lycaon (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two coast guard HH-65C Dolphin helicopters.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 18:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Because of the non-sRGB profile, you need to use a software capable of color management to assess this image. In particular, Internet Explorer is not capable of displaying it correctly. (Firefox >= 3.5 is.) -- H005 (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image has been renamed to File:Two coast guard HH-65C Dolphin helicopters.jpg. -- H005 (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please note that the image was not cropped. It was taken from the door of the third helicopter in the formation. This explains the close-up look. (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info created by PAC Dana Warr - uploaded by Turboshaft - nominated by Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A pretty well-defined image. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But cropped too tight. --Dschwen (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-- Unfortunately it seems to have been taken like that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I'd support it if it didn't violate against the rule Quality images must be categorized, have meaningful title and description.

As for the crop: IMHO the tight crop adds to the tension of the image, so I'd rather keep it as it is.

Btw, it seems that the Wikimedia thumbnail creation software isn't able to deal with the embedded AdobeRGB profile - the thumbnails look rather pale. Is this a known issue? -- H005 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- I fixed the first and third issue. It seems as if the image made it onto the site before we changed the rules here about the names of things. If anyone can move the image, than that would be great, but since I cannot do so, this works for now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've added a rename tag and trust that a bot will one day deal with the name issue. -- H005 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, good composition. --Aqwis (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I really like the composition, but am not impressed with the crop. Tiptoety ^talk 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if part of the blade is missing, I find this picture really amazing! Strong support --Ymaup (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support IMHO it's Ok. Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing, but the crop... —kallerna™ 11:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. I like all aircraft photos in general, but this one especially. And as for the crop - there are obstacles impossible to overcome. Airwolf (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What, like zooming out a little? ;o) --Dschwen (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If not cropped, then woefully resized. Lycaon (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support The blade crop does not detract from the image IMO. Better, not cropped, but the picture is very nice the way it is. --Relic38 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very nice, but the crop is unimpressive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Truly great composition, but crop is simply too bad for FP. -- JovanCormac 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a good angle, bad crop. Cacophony (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CatedralBerlin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 14:08:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic picture of the main nave of the Berlin Cathedral.

Info created by Elemaki - uploaded by Elemaki - nominated by Elemaki -- elemaki (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- elemaki (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice thumbnail, but the full image is quite a disappointment. Very low resolution (<3MP) for a pano and still unsharp at that size. Verticals should be corrected in this case. And the projection causes major distortion on the left side. --Dschwen (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't see any of these concerns being an issue impeding the "wow!". -- H005 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the composition looks incomplete. I believe that the image could have been much more interesting, if the ceiling above the organ was not cut off.Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - oddly distorted, sharpness seems to wander across the scene and, in common with Mbz1, I think the scene cuts off too low. - Peripitus (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow - per Dschwen. —kallerna™ 11:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dschwen. -- JovanCormac 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bufo bufo on grass2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 14:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by -- Korall (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice colours --George Chernilevsky (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support not wow, but croak! --Jklamo (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:California surfer inside wave.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 20:25:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by mbz1 - uploaded by mbz1 - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely! --Korall (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great action picture. -- JovanCormac 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! And Mbz1 strikes back. ;) →Diti the penguin — 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition. Lycaon (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Good spray and movement, and about time we featured a woman surfing, ;-) Maedin\^talk 06:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop could be better, but it's still FP-material. —kallerna™ 10:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good one --ianaré (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imo is the woman not sharp enough --ka ʁs tn 18:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good image, well captured. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Lycaon. --Karel (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Cesco77 (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - An excellent image, as would be expected by the uploader, but I'm not so sure about the composition. It's hard to tell what I'm looking at; is this an aerial shot? The relatively tight crop makes it a bit confusing, I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lycaon and Carschten. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Derwent Water, Lake District, Cumbria - June 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 10:03:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by David Iliff, nominated by Maedin
Support High quality, good size, and I love the way the evening sun brings out the gold and honey in the wood of the boats. Maedin\^talk 10:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very, very good light! --Aqwis (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some people, notably Diliff and Durova, should really get an "FP exception", meaning that they can mark their own pictures as Featured at will, since just about everything they produce is FP quality anyway and it would save us the tedious task of nominating them one by one . -- JovanCormac 10:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe, support your proposal --Muhammad (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boats are partly cropped off. —kallerna™ 16:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the cut off boats either, but I do not think the photographer could have done anything about them. I'm opposing because IMO the foreground boats are not sharp enoug. The swimming ducks (mostly the very right one) is not sharp enough either IMO. I also believe that the sky is noisy. The place is very beautiful and the image in preview also is, but in full resolution... Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition and quality! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did not think this was England at first :) /Daniel78 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mbz1 -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 05:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good but not that good. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeune bouquetin.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:54:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Ymaup -- Ymaup (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ymaup (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why png format? That's not very bandwidth-friendly. Lycaon (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually tried to upload a jpg version, but it didn't work, and I didn't find why.... Ymaup (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO not sharp enough. —kallerna™ 10:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could be perhaps a little darker, have a little more contrast and a unsharp-mask could help, too; the composition is good --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mbdortmund --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. See also my comment here regarding multiple nominations of the same subject. -- JovanCormac 14:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
InfoI will nominate a better version of this one Ymaup (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support for JPG, one is enough --ka ʁs tn 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PNG is complete and utter nonsense for a picture like this. --Dschwen (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Out of focus. Tiptoety ^talk 05:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or[edit]

Support Yann (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThanks Yann!Ymaup (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose prefer the shot above, the river/road in the bg is messing up the composition. --Dschwen (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks alright. Tiptoety ^talk 05:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality not enough. —kallerna™ 15:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kallerna. -- JovanCormac 16:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the size of the image is almost 3 times bigger than required size. IMO the quality for this size is fine.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Almost there, but still per kallerna. Lycaon (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality not sufficient. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per Lycaon --Ernie (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.

File:Bouquetin jeune 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 10:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ymaup -- Ymaup (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ymaup (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice composition --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I move my vote to other variant --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better than the other one. Yann (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Try as I might, I just can't find anything special about this shot, both in quality and composition. Compare with this picture, which IMO is superior in every way. -- JovanCormac 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This picture is a lama!!! I find it quite weird to compare my picture with this one! -- Ymaup (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, it's a llama. But you have to admit that the setting is very simliar, and the quality and composition of the llama picture are better. -- JovanCormac 15:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Which doesn't mean that both can't be FP! If you always compare with other, you'd only have 100 FP on Commons, althoguh I have to agree that the other one is better... -- Ymaup (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I agree with Ymaup. It is incorrect compare. try to compare picture by Amedeo Modigliani and nominated before b/w nude. With best regards --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not good enough. —kallerna™ 14:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you give more details? -- Ymaup (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)<br[reply]
  - On full size it's bit blurry & noisy. —kallerna™ 15:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK with me, and I uploaded a sharpened and reduced noise version File:Bouquetin jeune 2 edit 1.jpg. If you believe it is over-sharpened, I could reduce noise only in my next edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI nominate this new version instead of the last one -- Ymaup (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, please do not forget to support it

--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support for JPG, one is enough --ka ʁs tn 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't think this is particularly noisy, but a slightly tighter crop could improve it. --Dschwen (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall quality IMO not sufficient for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one too. Yann (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course... Ymaup (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same problems as on the original version. —kallerna™ 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kallerna. -- JovanCormac 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall quality IMO not sufficient for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woman worker in the Douglas Aircraft Company plant1942.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 22:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alfred T. Palmer, uploaded, retored and nominated by Yann (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't nominate it for its historical value (although it could illustrate very nicely how the US government made propaganda), but for the beauty. I did only minimal restoration, this is my first attempt on a color picture, so please be nice. I was surprised that it wasn't nominated before, so I couldn't resist... ;oD Yann (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought that removing the 2 big white spots would make it even better, but I don't know how to do that. Yann (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image for 1942! I removed reflections File:Woman worker in the Douglas Aircraft Company plant1942 edit1.jpg, but I am afraid I rather have done a sloppy job.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although Mbz1 did a nice job removing the reflections but I prefer this version, it is more natural. ■ MMXX^talk 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Though I can't see why this should be Featured when this candidate is being opposed for being staged - surely the same applies here! -- JovanCormac 07:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On artistic PoV alone, I think this one is much better. And I nominate it because of that only. Yann (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Yann. Very beautiful picture and it has an unaffected style. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support Restoration by Mbz1. Yann (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I prefer the version above. It looks like there are parts of her hand missing now. --Ernie (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am removing my vote. I still think that there was no need to fix the picture. So I guess both versions will be FP now. --Ernie (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course only one image will be FP. The other is nominated as alternative. The image that gets more supports and/or less opposes will be promoted.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maybe it looks like the hand is missing, or maybe we cannot see it because the glass is not so clear :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colosseum in Rome, Italy - April 2007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 02:39:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 02:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiptoety ^talk 02:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already featured! as File:Colosseum_in_Rome-April_2007-1-_copie_2B.jpg. --Dschwen (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should file a delist request for one of these and make just one of them featured all over wikimedia. ■ MMXX^talk 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not featured as an edited version is already featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 b.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2009 at 12:42:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Łukasz Golowanow -- Airwolf (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality and composition. The swirled smoke looks otherworldly, nice background too. --Dschwen (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I stumbled across this picture whilst browsing idly through the Commons, and it caught my eye right away. Kudos to the photographer! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and interesting. Love how the smoke shows the deep curve that the planes have flown. Maedin\^talk 14:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible image. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 17:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shot is really amazing, but the resolution is way too low, and many details might be missing. --Ymaup (talk) 17:127, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Support Beautiful! --Cesco77 (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3.9Mpx is more than enough resolution for me. Amazing shot! Smoke trails look almost painted on. --Relic38 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good shot. Tiptoety ^talk 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice composition, not the best quality. —kallerna™ 09:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yerpo (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Simonizer (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support PMG (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I told you, Airwolf -- JovanCormac 18:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes to self: 1. JC is always right; 2. if he's wrong, consult item 1. :) Airwolf (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ha! I wish it was so... -- JovanCormac 07:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maire (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 16:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tropenmuseum sample3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 08:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by J.E. (Julius Eduard) Muller (Fotograaf/photographer). - uploaded by Durova - nominated by GerardM

Granman Jankoeso of the Saramkaner Maroon with his captains in the garden of the "Gouvernementsgebouw" in Paramaribo. This picture has been restored in anticipation of a collection by the Royal Institute for the Tropics / Tropenmuseum. This picture is now officially uploaded in a low resolution here. This represents the practice where pictures may be provided to us in a high resolution when we are willing to restore them.. -- GerardM (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- GerardM (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something went awry with the restoration process IMO. It looks as if a raster pattern was introduced (or half-toning amplified??) by the restoration. Moreover, while certainly valuable as a historical document, as a photograph it has some shortcomings (such as the crop on the right). Lycaon (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis picture was selected for a press release about the cooperation between the Tropenmuseum and the Wikimedia Foundation. The picture was digitised at high resolution to make a restoration possible. The granman can be understood to be on the same level as a president. The tiff that was created is available for your information so you can see for yourself what the starting material is.

This is important material and, it is even important for Commons one other reason why it deserves consideration as a featured picture. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that side info, but that doesn't address any of my concerns. Lycaon (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was definitely not a halftoned original. Perhaps Lycaon misidentifies the print surface texture that was picked up during rephotography? Durova (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Lycaon. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Often, people complain about missing metadata (e.g. species id) of candidates. Here, not even the year in which this was taken is given. Since by today's standards, the quality is quite bad, it matters whether the picture is from 1880 or from 1930, that latter being "oppose" territory as we know that much higher quality was possible even then. The restoration is good as usual, of course, but the composition and crop are unimpressive. I'll just abstain for now. -- JovanCormac 07:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

file: Poivre4b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 15:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sichuan pepper (Zanthoxylum piperitum) fruits

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Didier Descouens / Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Picture is strongly over-processed. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per NEUROtiker. Tiptoety ^talk 21:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per NEUROtiker & Tiptoety - Ahgee (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per NEUROtiker & Tiptoety & Ahgee. Lycaon (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per NEUROtiker & Tiptoety & Ahgee & Lycaon. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:360° Panorama Zitterklapfen.jpg, featured[edit]

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great! --Aqwis (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! --Cesco77 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominated at German Wikipedia for FPC, so here I have to support. Wonderful image. I like the rucksack :-) --ka ʁs tn 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very cool image. Tiptoety ^talk 18:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly very nice. Maedin\^talk 18:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the wavy horizon. Other than that, good image and excellent use of annotations. --Dschwen (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours --Muhammad (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Technically a very nice picture but I deslike the composition. It would be much better if it were taken from a higher point of view. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar has a point, and the picture also could have done without the backpack in it, but quality is fantastic and the wow factor is definitely there. The mountains in the picture are also well documented using image annotations already. -- JovanCormac 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I couldn't notice the backpack, so that isn't too bigs of a deal for me. Other than that I can find no problems with it, and it definitely has a "wow" factor. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky do not look good. --Karel (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent panorama, prette good usage of annotations. --Jklamo (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. Nice view! --Mhera (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, no stitching errors. --S23678 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Balisique Saint Marc de Venise facade door 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 09:22:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 09:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 09:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very good and nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Yann (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would have looked better if it was actually symmetric. I find it rather irritating like this. --Dschwen (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 23:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking symmetry. No wow. —kallerna™ 09:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Casing.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 02:31:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info - uploaded by Head - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 02:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiptoety ^talk 02:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 03:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but IMO too noisy. —kallerna™ 09:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy war propaganda. Lycaon (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Noisy, true, but there's a lot of wow there. Airwolf (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support →Diti the penguin — 12:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy weapon-marketing --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg your pardon, do you really believe that this picture could serve as an advertisment of some sort for assault rifles? Airwolf (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced some noise File:Casing edit1.jpg.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sharp boundaries between the noisy and denoised areas in your version look kind of weird to me. Also, the shadow areas remain quite noticeable noisy. I suspect it might be better to just denoise everything, or at least be more careful with the blending. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the noise, I ask that reviewers remember FP standards which state: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I thought this was already featured, otherwise I would have nominated it myself (I know, I'm a sucker for punishment :P) Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are. Bend over, Junior. Airwolf (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like weapons, but this is FP. Noise isn't a problem for a picture like this, IMO --Cesco77 (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good shot! --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Kallerna --ka ʁs tn 17:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing shot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Lycaon and Mbdortmund. Yann (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lycaon, Mbdortmund and Yann. I was initially unaware of the image's connection to US war propaganda and the murder of infants with assault weapons. But, since it was pointed out, I'd like to vote my full support for both principles. Bullzeye (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Shot has lots of wow, value, and the noise is heavy but not overly distracting for me. As for the war propaganda and weapons marketing... does this apply to every image of a gun? If so, we have a lot of war propaganda on Wikimedia. --Relic38 (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Judging only the picture itself) Great shot. Noise is okay to me. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Good photo, but I do think some careful denoising could make it even better. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition, not really propaganda IMO, but as others have pointed out noise is a big problem. -- JovanCormac 07:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the wow overrides the noise concerns IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing --Mardetanha ^talk 02:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per TonyBallioni. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Lycosidae female carrying young.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 18:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Female wolf spider, Lycosidae carrying her young in her egg sac. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Simonizer (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Korall (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great camouflage picture. More please! -- JovanCormac 07:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shi'i talismanic piece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 22:38:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown calligrapher, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge size, beautiful. Yann (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, highly impressive! --Aqwis (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere maybe a stitching error. I pointed it out.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a stitching error: the picture is not stitched. The parchment is folded. Yann (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good and rare --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful --Mardetanha ^talk 23:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Durova (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 22:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 19:17:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by David Iliff, nominated by Maedin
Support One of my (many) favourites. I love the symmetry and the bored students, :-) Maedin\^talk 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Defiantly has that "wow" factor for me. Tiptoety ^talk 02:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though this picture makes me feel like I should put some more time into my studies, like most of the people in this picture seem to be doing. --Korall (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, me too, Korall! On the other hand, if I had a place like that to study in, I'm sure I'd spend more time doing it! Maedin\^talk 10:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like the barrel distortion, but apart from that it's a great picture. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is no barrel distortion. Cacophony (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tree flowers.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 20:26:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Vladsegrt (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vladsegrt (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Not identified and not categorized. Lycaon (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Most of the subject is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abrissschere DSCF7737.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 20:21:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by -jha- - uploaded by -jha- - nominated by Herzi Pinki -- Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nominating an image the first time: I like the man-machine relationship -- Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not an expert in the field of quality and technical issues, but as far as composition, wow factor and value are concerned, I like it very much. Airwolf (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose. The wow! is certainly there, but there are significant technical issues. Sharpness is insufficient on some areas (especially the man) and a strong chromatic aberrration. Also I find it a bit overexposed. -- H005 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per H005. —kallerna™ 08:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall technical quality insufficient. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per H005. -- JovanCormac 07:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per H005.--Paris 16 (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astronaut Christopher Cassidy during STS-127's third space walk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 11:46:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Chris Cassidy works near the JEF during the third space walk of STS-127.
Support As nominator - Originalwana (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clumsy composition. No match for File:Piers Sellers spacewalk.jpg. Lycaon (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lycaon, plus blown highlights. Yeah, it is in space, but there is no shortage of NASA pictures and there are way better ones. --Dschwen (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. It requires some time in order to understand - what is this... First impression - this is some buildings in the city of the future. May be the crop of right (white) part of the photo will improve it. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lyacon. -- JovanCormac 08:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pelecanus crispus at Beijing Zoo.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 12:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by shizhao (talk) - uploaded by shizhao (talk) - nominated by shizhao (talk) -- shizhao (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- shizhao (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness not perfect (eye); also image noise, and a somewhat tight crop. -- JovanCormac 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pogona vitticeps close-up 2009 G5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 06:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Central Bearded Dragon (Pogona vitticeps)
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, bad crop. —kallerna™ 11:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I agree if it is to be a close-up then a crop of just the head perhaps --Tony Wills (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, let it not a close up. If i change the description, the image will not changed. This photo is cut off to good show some thorns on a head and a trunk of a lizard. A tail is long and not so interesting. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just call it a tradition, people at FPC don't like little unimportant bits chopped off their animals, even the odd toe or ear tip gets them upset :-). It's either a complete picture of the animal, or a closeup highlighting some feature. Humour us and show us what the tail looks like (of course if you chopped off the tail with an axe, then show us the stump and we will use it as an example of animal cruelty ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Railway station Puchenau-West (DFdB).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 20:00:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dein Freund der Baum - uploaded by Dein Freund der Baum - nominated by Dein Freund der Baum

I know there's some noise but imho composition, atmosphere and colors look great and compensate the minor lack at this late evening picture. So I

Support my work. -- Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it the real photo, or a retouched version? It seems to have a lot of contrast, that is. →Diti the penguin — 20:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info It is of course retouched a little bit (if you will call it retouched), but I think it falls within the guidelines above (Digital manipulations). Do you think I should describe the corrections (rotated and afterwards cropped a little bit, contrast and colors a bit higher, removed lens reflection in the sky) in the image text? --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am not sure I would say poor quality, but it is certainly not up to FP standards. Tiptoety ^talk 00:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boeing 737-400 Centralwings.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 18:45:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś - uploaded by Łukasz Golowanow - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too blurry, not enough wow! -- H005 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it's my photo, I really don't feel like voting... But I agree with H005, it's surely a QI and might be a VI, but if I were to vote, I'd say weak oppose. Airwolf (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but too blurry for FP. —kallerna™ 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- JovanCormac 15:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ingen vidare bra bild /Ö 15:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albertus teolog (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NYC Ellis Island 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2009 at 22:16:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ellis Island with Jersey City and Hudon River in the background. All by Dschwen (talk)
Support -- Dschwen (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality and so on, but dull colours and nothing special. Definitely QI. —kallerna™ 09:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colors, lacking crispness. -- JovanCormac 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 18:01:28 (UTC)

Info created/uploaded by Daniel Schwen – uploaded/retouched/nominated by Carschten --ka ʁs tn 18:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot and very interesting. I like the planes in the sky. --ka ʁs tn 18:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the white balance of this version is completely off. --Aqwis (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong white balance. Yann (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same problems as original version IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ernesto Cardenal a la Chascona.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 16:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 16:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 16:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. Noisy ~~and blotches~~ and rather poor masking (viz. hat). Lycaon (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the processing, but the smears on the background are definitely unacceptable. -- JovanCormac 08:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info I cleaned up the background, left some texture -- Tony Wills (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice compostion --AngMoKio (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great portrait --Tony Wills (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Lycaon and Jovan Cormac (even after rework). --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 14:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LodalenPano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 18:05:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aqwis - uploaded by Aqwis - nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aqwis (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be some noise in the left hand section of the image around the mountain, other than that it is a great image. Tiptoety ^talk 18:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. --Aqwis (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a new version with less noise. --Aqwis (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The mountain in the shadow on the left side really disrupts the picture to me. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As NEUROtiker, the noisy dark mountain disturbs. Lycaon (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While I agree the image noise was reduced after the second upload, I still feel it is too much of a distraction. Sorry. Tiptoety ^talk 00:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with Tiptoety. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I can try reprocessing the RAW file to try to get rid of the noise if anyone is interested. --Aqwis (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow lemons.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 04:20:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Abhijit Tembhekar - uploaded by Tiptoety - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We have very few food related FPs, and this one is of a very high quality. Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite up to sharpness standards I'm afraid. Compare File:Orange and cross section.jpg, which uses focus stacking to achieve superior sharpness with a similar subject. -- JovanCormac 05:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose look behind the right fruit and to the shadow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough. —kallerna™ 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Houston Police Officer's Memorial2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 05:46:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by meltedplastic - uploaded by Tiptoety - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiptoety ^talk 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot, but IMO the technical quality is far from FP standards. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Holocaust Memorial at the California Palace of the Legion of Honor, San Francisco.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 19:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThis is The Holocaust Memorial in San Francisco. I believe the image has a great meaning. The people that are laying down are in a shadow. The rays are trying to reach them, but mostly are missing them. These people are dead. The only standing man is in the light, the light of hope.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed and too similar to previous noms. Lycaon (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any Holocaust Memorial image featured? Could you please provide a link to the Holocaust Memorial image that is FP? And btw, if we are to talk about similarity, I mean really to talk about similarity, how about dragonflies, flies, butterflies and so on?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust Memorial is certainly a subject worth a FP, but the sun light is too strong for me here. Yann (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Yann. As I have explained bellow IMO there should have been something really special to show the place. The rays over the Memorial were special. I also took this image

. It is a refraction of the Memorial ia dew drop, which to me was as a refraction of the Memorial in a tear. The thing is that the memorial was built in a rather strange place and some find it an "unexpected intrusion on the view, and an unfriendly reminder to one of the most significant genocides of the 20th century." So let's say I wanted my image also to be "an unfriendly reminder to one of the most significant genocides of the 20th century" to continue with the artist idea. Anyway thanks for the comment versus oppose. It was kind of you! :)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That picture is really interesting, much more than the current nomination, IMO. Yann (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Yann. I thought about nominating of that other image, but the thing is that without knowing what this image is about, a reader will not be able to understand it IMO. In other words to understand that image a reader will have to read the description and see the other images of the Memorial. There's nothing wrong with this of course, but just another reason to oppose the image. This Memorial is full of symbolism. For example one could find ""Christ-like" figure in the assemblage, reflecting on the Jewishness of Jesus, as well as a woman holding an apple, a reflection on the idea of original sin and the biblical connection between Jews and Christians, and raising the question of this relationship during the Holocaust." With my images I kind of hoped to continue with that symbolism. Looks like I failed :( --Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking the pictures on the Memorial, I see that there are plenty of possibilities of great symbolic pictures, so please try again. But I agree that many Commons users are not very open to symbolism and feelings. Yann (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the angle... TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and you can hardly see the monument, I feel blinded when looking at it. (Btw, I have no clue in which way this would be too similar to previous nominations, in particular not in the light of those tons of arthropods close-ups that are nominated and featured here.) -- H005 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@H005. Yes, the image is overexposed in very few spots, but I hope you do agree that it was all, but impossible to show the rays and the memorial in the same shot with no overexposure. IMO overexposure in this particular image is rather a way to show the memorial in a different light. IMO this image has a great symbolic meaning. It was like the sun and the fog created the memorial over the memorial! I am surprised and dissapointed nobody sees it. You said you could "hardly see the monument". IMO the readers could see everything there is to see - the dead bodies in a shadow and the only man standing in the light. You said you felt blinded. Maybe me as the photographer wanted to create rather strong, and not necessarily pleasant feelings in the people looking at the image. I am glad I succeeded in doing this! This memorial is very special, and IMO a simple good quality shot would not have been good enough to show it. Thank you very much for stating out your opinion about similarity! You are right. There were no similar images ever nominated.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it is an interesting way to present a piece of art, even though I do not see all the symbolism in the sculpture and Im too lazy to read all about it.--Korall (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great symbolism not just for the holocaust but also for other genocides of the 20th century. To me it shows onlookers being too blinded by other issues to see what was happening. And it builds on what is already there, as good photographs should. Time3000 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Time3000. -- JovanCormac 07:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition, sunlight direction ...--Karel (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, withdrawn[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above -- TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as with the other image. -- H005 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Promote the other one. -- JovanCormac 07:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tribute in Light (air force 2).JPG, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 08:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Denise Gould - uploaded by Nard the Bard - nominated by Jacopo Werther -- Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tilted --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right, it is just tilted. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Info I've uploaded a modified version (see above) with tilt and perspective correction done in hugin. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very good work! I am touched by your concern...thank you so much. Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support As former nominator of the previous version and for the good work of Ilmari Karonen. Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise and sharpness are problematic. -- JovanCormac 08:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise visible even on thumbnails. —kallerna™ 09:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, qaulity not enough for FP. --Karel (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bürstegg Biberkopf.jpg, not featured[edit]

Info the oldest and highest (1.719m) Walsersiedlung in Vorarlberg
all by -- Böhringer (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually tend not to wote on panoramas because I feel to unexperienced to evaluate them but this one is just to painfully beautiful not to support. --Korall (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, seems underexposed to me. --Aqwis (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't, if you look at the histogram. →Diti the penguin — 19:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some areas of the picture are definitely at least half a stop underexposed. --Ernie (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info – I took myself the liberty to slightly change the blackpoint of the picture. --Ernie (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please upload as separate version. This version had votes already. Lycaon (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp, beautiful. Yann (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a real nice panorama, but IMO it lacks a certain wow that would make it featured. Sorry. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is better! →Diti the penguin — 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per NEUROtiker, also it doesn't seem to be quite as crisp as the author's usual ones. -- JovanCormac 08:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per JovanCormac. I have such a slow Internet connection – it takes me like half an hour to upload the 9MB version again and I don't think it is worth the effort. --Ernie (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Info I've uploaded a modified version. I have done a tonal value correction and a light colour boost. --Simonizer (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the colors are more friendly now, detail has been lost in light areas, notably the church (windows). Also, the sharpness problems persist. -- JovanCormac 06:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Jovan is right about the increase of highlights, but those are really just small parts of the image. The reason why I oppose is that it still does not catch me as one of Wikimedia's finest. --Ernie (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support sieht besser aus --Böhringer (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Defenitly a good picture, but it`s missing that last step to really make it stand out. Maybe a deeper color saturation would make it more eye-catching. Per Ernie. --S23678 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as opposers. Lycaon (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nordkirchen-090806-9515-Horn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 18:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

baroque sculpture on Venus island at Schloss Nordkirchen

difficult to take a picture of the sculpture withou the trees

Info all by Mbdortmund -- Mbdortmund (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That tree on bottom right distracts me too much + it's 1.2 only. —kallerna™ 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I could easily edit out the tree (though preserving the few strands of spiderweb in front of it might be just a bit trickier :). However, I do echo Kallerna's concern about the licensing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The sculpture is located in one of Germanys biggest historical sculpture parks and the distracting old trees imo belong to the reality of the park just like the spiders and the dirt caused by birds and trees, please leave it as it is. I accept if someone doesn't like the composition and I'm interested in feedback, even if it is negative, that's OK. I'm watching the retouching of our pictures carefully and many do a good work on this task, but I don't believe that it is a good concept to erase all ugly parts of reality.

The debate about licensing is imo displaced in the review of a single picture, many of our best photographers use GFDL 1.2 or similar licenses and they have reasons to do so. We can discuss that but the review of a single picture is not the right place to do so. And I'm sorry, I'm a little bit disappointed, that Kallerna uses this way directly after I critizised this kind of debate concerning a QI picture of another Wikipedian, where Kallerna opposed because he wanted to change our policies for QI. That looks like a sort of revenge.

The discussion of licensing can be very distructive, we have this kind of partially aggressive debates on German Wikipedia since about a year. My main reason to use GFDL 1.2 is the changing of licensing without asking me as an author. Some people say that I could opt out, but in fact that is difficult, because I have thousands of pictures on this server and the gallery of my works mix own pictures with pictures I retouched during my work on categories like «Images for cleanup». For me the license I gave to a picture is a kind of contract between me and the project and I think that that contract cannot be changed without prior agreement. Please leave this statement concerning licenses without comment, because we should discuss that on the right place and that is not the review of a picture. best regards --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vote wasn't a revenge, I don't have anything against you or any other user. And the main reason to my vote was that tree on bottom right. —kallerna™ 18:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nice to read that, thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm fine with the licence and the trees, but the image is, despite its extraordinary technical quality (really great!), not special enough - no wow!, sorry. -- H005 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calliphora sp Portrait.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 18:35:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, fantastic! --Aqwis (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing quality -- MJJR (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect quality --Cesco77 (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Simonizer (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No wow. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Korall (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ka ʁs tn 16:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oodles of wow, yet only just over the minimum size :-(. Lycaon (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overcontrasted, low size, 1.2 only. —kallerna™ 08:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is CC-BY-SA 3.0. The contrast is a function of the lighting, not playing games in photoshop. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow again! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a no-brainer. -- JovanCormac 07:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow!!! --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing --D-Kuru (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maitohorsma (Epilobium angustifolium).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 15:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 15:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite common plant, but IMO very nice composition and good quality. —kallerna™ 15:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not extraordinary enough for FP IMO. Also the bumblebee unfortunately is out of focus. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with NEUROtiker. Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ... And this is much better? As ordinary flower and very small size... —kallerna™ 18:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but have to agree with NEUROtiker. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musca domestica Portrait.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 18:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

N* Info c/u by noodle snacks nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Muhammad (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support sharp --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cesco77 (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Simonizer (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Korall (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oodles of wow, yet only just over the minimum size :-(. Lycaon (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overcontrasted, low size, 1.2 only. —kallerna™ 08:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic. -- JovanCormac 07:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sciurus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 14:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in sunset

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Didier Descouens / Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mignon, mais pas assez net, pas assez de profondeur de champ, et un découpage plus serré serait mieux. Yann (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute in thumb, but too noisy and very little details. Lycaon (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support It's really so cute! Jacopo Werther (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the image & would have been very pleased if I had taken it. However I would have also been irritated with the DOF - a little more would have been great, sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SiegesdenkmalBZ.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 19:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by HubiB - uploaded by HubiB - nominated by HaTe -- HaTe (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HaTe (talk) The Fascist "Monument of Victory" in Bozen / Bolzano, South Tyrol, view over the Talfer bridge, 19:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llorenzi (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Don't think this is special enough for FP. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Menger-Schwamm.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 21:14:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Niabot - uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Airwolf -- Airwolf (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible to get a PNG version of this image? There are some slight compression artifacts which get even worse in the thumbnails. Otherwise I really like it. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I'm not the author there's not too much I can do about it personally. However, since the artifacts appear on the red surface, we have a totally grey image which we could consider instead of this one. See below. Airwolf (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd prefer the version with the red part. I just left a comment on Niabot's talk page on the german wikipedia. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Info PNG-Version is now available. --Niabot (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2, featured[edit]

Support PNG is better in this case. Yann (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 05:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful picture. We don't have enough Featured material illustrating mathematical concepts. -- JovanCormac 15:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I would prefer one without the red, howerver the one in the middle seems too distorted for my taste.--Korall (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vprisivko (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freddie Mercury performing in New Haven, CT, November 1978.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 04:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Carl Lender - restored from File:Queen - Freddie Mercury.jpg by Lošmi - nominated by Lošmi -- Lošmi (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was thrilled when I saw that we have such a good photo of Freddie Mercury on Commons. The image is noisy, but it's a rock concert picture so I find some noise quite normal. Also, the image is much larger than required, and in minimum and print size the noise is not so visible. -- Lošmi (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the fact that it was taken at a rock concert in 1978 account for the noise, and while a bit more denoising wouldn't hurt, I think this is about the best we can hope for when it comes to finding a free picture of this subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good shot --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very low quality --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as George Chernilevsky. Lycaon (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too low of quality. Tiptoety ^talk 03:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality. --Karel (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe renominate it to Valued images?--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't remember it ever have been nominated at VI??? Lycaon (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that this was taken on high iso film (one assumes) the almost 20 megapixel size seems completely unjustifiable. I would suggest with downsampling to around 5-6Mpx and a bit of a selective denoise and sharpen it would scrub up quite well. Flying Freddy (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Universal joint.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 15:55:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Van helsing - uploaded by 不寐听江 - nominated by Amir -- Amir (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! -- H005 (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very cool. Tiptoety ^talk 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! HaTe (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even for a (great) animation, too small. Lycaon (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. Yann (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cacophony (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree about the size. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Littleboy inner1 info.png, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 00:40:18

Info en:Little_boy#Counter-intuitive_design and File:Little Boy internal diagram.svg strongly suggest that the diagram is rather missleading. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Geni (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 09:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom and superseded by SVG. Lycaon (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Korall (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anax Imperator 2(loz).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 15:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded + nominated by Loz -- Loz (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Loz (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Korall (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome quality. -- JovanCormac 13:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I was going to nominate myself, it would be rude to oppose. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk)
Support --MarisaLR (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Euplectes orix 5 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 09:47:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition, nice colours --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- JovanCormac 10:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors. ■ MMXX^talk 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWOW--Cesco77 (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --D-Kuru (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree: wow! --DPC (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MarisaLR (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 10:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Horseshoe falls fw.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 08:22:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flying Freddy - uploaded by Flying Freddy - nominated by Flying Freddy -- Flying Freddy (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Flying Freddy (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Beautiful, but not only does the water move producing that nice effect, but a number of the fern leaves have moved too --Tony Wills (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is largely unavoidable when photographing waterfalls putting out a medium volume, in dense forest, the water tends to create it's own wind, just to clarify Flying Freddy (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, there is no such thing as a perfect photograph, and the subtle indication of movement in the ferns is fair enough, the scene is tranquil but not static --Tony Wills (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Y.A.W.N. = Yet Another Waterfall? - No, thanks But it's certainly as good as the other featured ones, so there's not much choice but to support, is there? -- JovanCormac 13:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work --AngMoKio (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 03:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per JovanCormac. Tiptoety ^talk 03:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

File:STS-116 spacewalk 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 12:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Miguel Cervantes - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 12:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Matasg 12:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing perspective. -- JovanCormac 14:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this has been my wallpaper for a while. --Aqwis (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 17:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs bit editing, couple parts are almost burnt. —kallerna™ 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the cloud that obscured my view of the space walk (see image note :-) I will support anyway ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW, I can see my house from here ;-) --Cesco77 (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking. Just wonderful. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 10:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing. Tiptoety ^talk 18:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Sunflower sky backdrop.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 06:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by JovanCormac
Info A beautiful & colorful photo of a sunflower. Quality and composition leave nothing to be desired. Featured on EN. -- JovanCormac 06:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 06:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very small, but too nice not to support. Lycaon (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I was counting on someone saying that, since intuitively, the "2 Mpx" requirement is often interpreted as meaning "at least one side has to be more than 2000 px long"; but actually, multiplying width by height here gives a resolution of almost 2.2 Mpx, well within the guidelines. -- JovanCormac 08:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it hadn't been over 2Mpx, I wouldn't have supported ;-)). Lycaon (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Lycaon. Really a very beautiful and colorful photo, I like it. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good and nice colours --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really nice. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great contrast against the very blue sky. Tiptoety ^talk 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peacock mite, Tuckerella sp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 17:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Erbe, Pooley: USDA, ARS, EMU - uploaded by Brian0918 on English Wikipedia - uploaded by Saperaud on Commons - nominated by Jacopo Werther
Comment False-colour SEM of Tuckerella (Peacock mite) shown on a tea stem, magnified 260×. IMHO very interesting and beautiful scientific image. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and highly valuable image. This is a no-brainer. -- JovanCormac 17:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H005 (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Korall (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing image. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cesco77 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MarisaLR (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 10:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 06:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beijing Castle Boxer Rebellion 1900 FINAL.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 15:02:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Torajirō Kasai - uploaded by Staxringold - nominated by Staxringold -- Staxringold (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Staxringold (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and high resolution. -- JovanCormac 13:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last minute Support cdause I would like to see this pic go though.--Korall (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blue Angeles flying in formation1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 17:21:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not too sharp, over-contrasted and/or under-exposed. Lycaon (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines never say the image should be "too sharp", just that the image should be sharp and the nominated image is not "too sharp", but it is sharp enough

--Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Microwave tower - Wrights Hill 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 10:47:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural colours, only post processing was to rotate it slightly for those who think engineers never build things on a slant, and gravity always points straight down :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupportInspiring light--Mbz1 (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light is nice indeed, but sharpness and details are lacking. Lycaon (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is all about light, soft and pleasant, a mood shot, cold overcast dawn at the moment the sun was above the horizon but below the clouds, sharp edges aren't wanted :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Oppose Per Lyacon. Even in a "mood shot", at least some part of the image should be sharp, which sadly isn't the case here. Beautiful colors, though. -- JovanCormac 13:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely image but just not sharp enough for FP, sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SkodaSuperbII.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 21:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michel de Vries - uploaded by MicheldeVries at de.wikipedia - nominated by Blackfalcon -- Blackfalcon (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question © Michel de Vries, shouldn't we have an OTRS-ticket? --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? What has copyright to do with anything? The license is what matters. --Dschwen (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please take a look at original uploader's talk page (English), I think an OTRS memeber should check that did the user ever send permission or no. ■ MMXX^talk 05:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I already did. No reason to be extra suspicious just because there is a (c) sign. --Dschwen (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the work of a commercial photographer I wold have thought OTRS was a pretty standard requirement as proof of validity of uploaders licensing claims (tineye shows it has been published quite bit). --Tony Wills (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support excellent shot, even with original EXIF! --Jklamo (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, I'm not so sure about how original this is. I'd like to se a makin-of of this image. --Dschwen (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –A great advertisement photograph made by a pro with a pro camera, all this with an artistic touch. Thanks to him for sharing his work. Sting (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great professional image. -- JovanCormac 12:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Although I really doubt that it has been exposed for 16 seconds... --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Oppose per Tony Willis --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer" - Is this a digital painting or a photograph? This is not a photograph of a car speeding through a tunnel, but an artistic composition based on a photograph of a car. I seem to see a bunch of onlookers in the reflection in the front left indicator glass. Are those painted 'speed streaks' behind the car? Is the road surface and tunnel wall panning blur just digitally produced motion blur? The wheels appear to be spinning far faster than the background blur would suggest. If the EXIF info doesn't relate to the shot (16 second exposure but no blur due to the vibration of a moving car, no movement of the passengers face?) what does it represent. So a very nice product shot, but the undisclosed manipulation should disqualify it from being a featured picture. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a very valid argument! I must admit I was a bit naive and dazzled by the image. The process of retouching should be made more transparent, especially with such a extreme case. I revise my vote. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is actually not a valid argument. The image can just as well be taken as a great professional example of automobile product photography. --Dschwen (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Silvereyepairofjuveniles.jpg "deceitful photomaniplation. --Dschwen". Well I don't think either case is particularly "deceitful". In the case of the birds it follows a long line of bird illustration where a composite image was made for illustration. I too would like to know more about the "makin-of of this image". I expect that this could still get FP status as a great product promotion image (it might revise a few peoples idea of what a "skoda" is), but I think we should be told whether we're voting for a great bit of action photography or a great bit of air-brush work, before we start :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apples and Oranges, Tony. The bird-shot pretended to be just that. Here it is pretty obvious that it is a typical car product shot. Compare this to the Michell Merkin model shot that was up for FP on en and commons. --Dschwen (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without some declaration on the image page, this is masquerading as an action shot. We are talking about commons:FP criteria, I don't think en:wp sets much precedent, a rather different process and criteria, apples and oranges really ;-). Would you care to ask the photographer about the making-of this image, so that the image page complies with FPC criteria and we're not setting a precedent for undisclosed manipulations as being quite ok? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, what are you talking about? I am referring to Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg, please do not modify my posts in a confusing way. Yes I planned on writing him another mail. --Dschwen (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I wrote en and commons. So forget about en then. --Dschwen (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll forget about en :-). Sorry, the way it was formatted on my screen I didn' see the commons ref too. See what a difference adding a link makes :-). I will start a general discussion on FPC talk --Tony Wills (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sure it is, no argument there. I'm very glad we have this image on Commons, it definitely is of great value to many projects. But that is not the point. I don't criticize the quality of the image. But I think with a featured picture important information such as this massive reworking should not be concealed. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you look more carefully at the original uploader's talk page (English) you will understand that in the time that user uploaded these images there was this concern that, is this user really same person as author/copyright holder or no, the user claim that he has send the permission in October 2008, but it seems he never send any!(or did he?) I still think a user with OTRS access should check this. ■ MMXX^talk 18:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, another professional contributor chased away. --Dschwen (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just checked the OTRS database. There is an email send in october 2008 by someone who identifies himself as Michel de Vries. However, the information in that email is not sufficient to ensure the copyright holder consents with releasing the picture with a free license. A corresponding email was send back by an OTRS member describing the problem, but no response came back so far. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So the uploader may be a copyright violator and impostor! a German speaker user should contact the real author through his website http://www.micheldevries.de (mail@micheldevries.de) and ask him to verify whether he is the uploader or not?, otherwise unfortunately we should tag all of these images as "no permission". ■ MMXX^talk 03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll send a mail right away. --Dschwen (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        He just replied to permissions-commons and copied me. It couldn't get any clearer than what he wrote. An OTRS member is of course welcome to confirm (god forbid you'd have to take my word for it ;-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for taking the iniative, Dschwen. The mail he wrote is absolutely sufficient. I added the template on the image description page and I will restore his pictures on de. Regards, --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for your effort, Dschwen! :D --Blackfalcon (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks just like any other car ad --Avala (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point. It is a great example. And by the standards here without any doubt excellent, amazing resolution and sharpness, striking composition, clear subject. --Dschwen (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that the licensing question is cleared up. --Dschwen (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eventhough the Woman sitting in the car is very blurry, I Support this image since it's of a really great value, the whole care is sharp with a great composition and reflections.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! Jacopo Werther (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that the copyright problem is over. ■ MMXX^talk 19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Trier Porta Nigra BW 4.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 08:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colours and composition, but not sharp enough in my opinion - Ahgee (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ahgee. -- JovanCormac 13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:9104 - Milano - Museo storia naturale - Fluorite - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 22-Apr-2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 12:29:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by G.dallorto (Giovanni Dall'Orto) - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 12:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Fluorite crystals (blue) with Pyrite (gold-coloured)
Support -- Ra'ike T C 12:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting picture, but would look better if focus-stacked like Alchemist's photos. -- JovanCormac 06:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! ■ MMXX^talk 18:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MarisaLR (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting. Tiptoety ^talk 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Aivazovsky, Ivan - The Ninth Wave.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 22:57:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky (1817-1900) - uploaded by Platonides - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The most famous work by the great maritime artist in perfect quality Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How can we ever feature great works of art if the reproduction quality is not standardized? This version is very different from a smaller version you mention on the same page!! Lycaon (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can in this case, because this shot made by Hermitage museum contributors. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support ! --Tony Wills (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image, no matter how faithfully it reproduces the artwork. -- JovanCormac 13:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice colors, but I find it a bit noisy. Yann (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is a just a hideous painting in my opinion. Cacophony (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Black swan 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 00:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Please do not take offense to this statement, but the composition here is a bit boring. I guess I would like it better had there been more in the image. Also it lacks "symbolic meaning or relevance" to me, and seems like just another swan. Tiptoety ^talk 00:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the evening lighting and the angle of the head made it interesting. More interesting than the classical simple profile shot normally seen as in this picture of the only non-white swan featured. The original uncropped image is there, feel free to suggest a more attractive crop :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the lighting is nice. Also, in regards to the angle, I actually prefer the profile shot you linked to. That said, looking at the uncropped one, having the reflection of the swans head on the water adds quite a lot to the image IMO. Not sure if you or others would agree though. Tiptoety ^talk 02:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The light is very nice. I do not think we have lots of black swans as FP.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Tiptoety. Lycaon (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality not as good as on our other bird-FPs. —kallerna™ 11:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Per kallerna. -- JovanCormac 13:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 10:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jastrabia veža from dolina Zeleného plesa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 17:58:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Sfu - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stitch (misalignment) error, noted on image. It may be fixable. Otherwise, very nice. --Relic38 (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please never, ever use the image annotation tool on the description page to comment on a candidate. The annotations you leave there are for the world to see, and are meant to be informative, labelling parts of the subject, not commenting on the image quality. There is a seperate tool on the nomination page for the express purpose of commenting during the FPC process. I have moved your annotation there. -- JovanCormac 06:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, now I know. --Relic38 (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sharpness is a little less than we have come to expect from such landscape panoramas (visible especially on and around the peaks). -- JovanCormac 06:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Stitching error. Tiptoety ^talk 18:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 10:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castelo fiocruz panoramico.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 12:51:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded and nominated by Econt (talk) -- Econt (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Econt (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please correct the perspective, otherwise you may receive oppose votes. Diti the penguin — 13:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality insufficient for FP. There is strong chromatic aberration and blurriness, especially on the sides. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 13:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ser snett ut /Ö 15:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm really sorry, beautiful but the perspective is too bad, you have to correct it. Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A beautiful image, well stitched, low noise, good colours but ... :) I only mention this because it would be a pity to re-submitt it with the perspective fixed (including no leaning buildings) only to have people then complain :-) There is a stitching error, I will mark it with image-notes and there is a bit of distracting chromatic abberation (purple etc fringing), especially noticeably on the bollards at the entrance. If you need help with any of these things just ask :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just think that's a good idea! Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for the reviews. But how I correct the perspective?--Econt (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A Google search will give you good answers. Diti the penguin — 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info new version --Econt (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pisa - Cathedral - Facade 1052.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 23:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by and nominated by NormanB (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NormanB (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is anyone out there willing to give their opinion? --NormanB (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not like, where nobody votes on my nominations. So, here's my opinion. Your image is a very good QI image with some great and interesting details. It is also valued image. IMO the composition is not good enough for FP. Maybe a panorama would have been better? May I please suggest you to take a look at some works of other Commons photographers, who's taking images of architectural objects, for example user:Diliff. Please do not get discouraged by my comment :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to composition. The image is sharp enough throughout, but a little noisy in places. I would have promoted as QI, but someone beat me to it. Keep up the good work. --Relic38 (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I really appreciate them.
NormanB (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the composition, sharpness and detail is very good, noise not an issue. I'd have supported it if the white belance was better. That cathedral is white, not rosé. -- H005 16:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russell Falls 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 10:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info location missed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Way too similar to this candidate, which will be promoted soon. Where's the creativity, folks? -- JovanCormac 11:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Creativity is a cliché. Should be a welcome change from all the insects no? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Can you take a picture of an insect on waterfall at sunset? If you get Adam or Duvora restore it, that would be the ultimate FP. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I almost fell over when I read this. That was FUNNY! -- JovanCormac 17:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nevertheless, it's a very good picture. Airwolf (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes it is.--DPC (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better then the other one --Simonizer (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful, but ... :-). Two problems, the sky was inevitably over exposed - the trees top right look a bit washed out, and in this one the movement of the tree ferns (far right) is a little more than subtle. So does the very long exposure produce a better photo than you could have achieved otherwise? It is a bit like night shots, great images but are they the best way to portray the subject? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is the best way for this subject. There is lots of spray, so a polariser is really helpful (and it improves colour saturation and reduces dynamic range). The ferns are blurred at much faster exposures anyway (I did try it), so a moot point imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einstein2 (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friendlystar (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tristan da Cunha5.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2009 at 18:09:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chris and Steve from Flickr - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by The Evil IP address -- The Evil IP address (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support So, I've just today come across this picture. My opinion is that it should be featured. I like the way the things are arranged in this picture: The big mountains that are so high that you can already see the nebulae, followed by a very small village and with the water at the bottom. Furthermore, I can't think of any technical mistakes with this image, though I admit again that I'm a noob on this area. Also, my opinion is that this image could make a good motive for postcards for this region. Considering all this, I think it's worth being added to our high number of featured pictures. Please let me know of your opinion. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture is very nice to look at, indeed, but it's way to small to get featured. Airwolf (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the resultion is below 2MP /Daniel78 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Waxy Monkey Tree Frogs Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 14:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp, well-isolated subject—I could see it as a poster—congratulations! →Diti the penguin — 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why the background is fully black? —kallerna™ 18:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment flash? --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The frogs were behind the glass in a very dark tank, and the flash was used. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I read that I thought you had found them in the back yard, and I wondered at the skill of having the flash isolate the subject without any distracting background showing up! Just as well the glass was clean :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Oppose The right frog is a bit too blurry IMO. Otherwise this is a very nice picture, but not perfect enough for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, featured[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support first variant is better IMO, but both are WOW for me --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Muhammad (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically unfortunatelly just soso and the composition is for me not enough for FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While technically acceptable, I don't like the unnatural environment. Lycaon (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? I mean you yourself have quite a few FP of quite of few organisms photographed in a very "unnatural endearment" [5], [6] and so on. The environment of the nominated image is actually a very natural one (at least California Academy of Sciences tried to do their best

), if we're to assume for example that the image was taken at night. I'd like to thank you for finding the technical quality OK. I mean, if even lycaon finds quality of Mbz1 image OK it means something

... You rebuked a prior review for me, and it was very nice of you

--Mbz1 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good image & I do not consider the environment an issue. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colored pencils chevre.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 08:32:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chevre - uploaded by Kaldari - nominated by Airwolf -- Airwolf (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose File:Colouring pencils.jpg, which is already Featured, is much better. -- JovanCormac 08:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I consider this an invalid reason to oppose, shall I strike it out ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider all you like, it's not currently listed as one of the "invalid reasons" in the rule

which is precisely why we decided to list all invalid reasons rather than the valid ones. -- JovanCormac 11:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this royal 'we' :-) I think the vote on the whole idea needs to be revisited. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It came out 5-1, not counting my own vote. By contrast, the new "Well documented" requirement for artworks (which I'm still not sure I agree on) was introduced without any vote at all... -- JovanCormac 13:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out one aspect in which thi picture is IMO superior: it is the lack of symmetry which gives it an artistic touch, justified with such a joyful, colourful image. Airwolf (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - For an FP shot like this I would expect the pencils to be all sharpened to the same level and the points clean as in the image mentioned by Cormac. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AD2009Sep15 Rana temporaria 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 14:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ernie - uploaded by Ernie - nominated by Korall -- Korall (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No FP quality to me. Should have stopped down a little more to avoid the highlights. Additionally there are better pictures of Rana temporaria already featured – like this one. --Ernie (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition could be better, no wow, harsh light. —kallerna™ 15:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice frog --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much image noise. -- JovanCormac 05:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to agree with Kallerna, the harsh light ruins the image.--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apollo 11 crew members.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 10:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/Bill Ingalls - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apollo 11 crew members, Buzz Aldrin, left, Michael Collins, second from left, Neil Armstrong and NASA Mission Control creator and former NASA Johnson Space Centre director Chris Kraft, right, gathered at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is far below FP standards. This might be a Valued Image, though. -- JovanCormac 10:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bad quality.--Avala (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only value. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GuerreroAméthyste.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 15:30:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Didier Descouens - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't keep up with the technical standard of other FPs of minerals. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 16:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to agree with NEUROtiker, even though it's very beautiful. -- JovanCormac 17:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Korea-Seoul-Blue House (Cheongwadae) garden 0681&2&3-07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 00:31:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Steve46814 - uploaded by User:Steve46814 - nominated by User:Steve46814 -- Steve46814 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Steve46814 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition; however, blown sky, and generally overexposed. --Relic38 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Relic38, also resolution is on the very low end for such a shot. -- JovanCormac 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too bad for the overexposition.--Avala (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RO IF Mogosoaia Palace watchtower 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 07:00:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andrei Stroe - uploaded by Andrei Stroe - nominated by Andrei Stroe -- —Andrei S. _Talk 07:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Andrei S. _Talk 07:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough (ordinary subject, ordinary composition, quality so-so). -- JovanCormac 10:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but have to agree with Cormac. Nothing special here for FP. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 i.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 12:15:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Łukasz Golowanow
Info Since you like the other Red Arrows picture so much, I think you will also like this one, which was taken a few second later and shows the same formation from a different perspective. Airwolf (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNo, this picture is less dynamic and has not the same depth than the other one. --Simonizer (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Simonizer. The other one is far superior. -- JovanCormac 11:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose it just can't compete with the previous nom. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently I'm a very lousy expert... Believe it or not, but I like this picture more than the other one . Airwolf (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Believe me, it would have definitely been promoted if we hadn't seen the other one. And don't worry, If you want to see how much of an expert I'm not, check out my own track record on liking things no one else liked. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment and joke So maybe if you think oppose, you should vote in favour? :) Airwolf (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 10:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarcophaga africa.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 18:38:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 19:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Your macros are getting better and better! -- JovanCormac 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite small resolution, 1.2 only, nothing special. Good but IMO not enough for FP. —kallerna™ 11:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Kallerna, I think its is unfair and wrong that you oppose pictures as such when clearly 1.2 is an accepted license and the resolution meets the requirement. --Muhammad (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThis picture is disgusting me, but not for its quality ;-) Great macro without any noise, excellent. --Cesco77 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--DPC (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MarisaLR (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 10:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /–blurpeace ^(talk) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Feral Domestic Goose.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 12:27:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created and uploaded by Mystère Martin - nominated by Mystère Martin -- Mystère Martin (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info A feral Domestic Goose near Lago di Toblino
Support -- Mystère Martin (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, but not quite up to technical standards required for FP. --NEUROtiker ^⇌
Oppose because of background, sharpness, overall too little wow for FP. -- H005 [t|c] 16:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry but have to agree with NEUROtiker. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dead baby bird.jpg[edit]

Original, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 23:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPC needs more bird nominations, a dead one is better than none (good educational value (just in case you're a en:FPC addict ;-)) :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support poor chick... died before it ever was able to fly :( --Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting photo with a lot of educational value. I would like to see that shadow in the bottom right corner cropped though. Tiptoety ^talk 01:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've experimented a bit, but if I crop that out then the overall composition is too tight, I like to have a bit of space around the edge of the subject. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were you seeing the big shadow on the original upload, or the small shadow left in the second version - I just noticed that the image page was showing the original upload version, rather than my crop uploaded over top. I have now purged that and it should show the correct crop now. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info On all my recent uploads I have tried to upload the original unedited photo first, then my best cropped/retouched version over-top. That way people can work with the original if they want to make improvements. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral technically a very good photo. ..and i'd say it is a sure QI but for FP I miss the convincing composition which makes it somehow special. Still documents the subject very well. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AngMoKio, there is nothing special about this, even though it is a lovely picture. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many dead animals but this is striking in that it is complete, not half eaten, not fly blown, not decomposing nor squashed road kill. Looks as though it died suddenly - head is thrown back, maybe a broken neck after falling from a nest. It tells of a life cut short before it had the chance to open its eyes and see the world - I think it is a wee bit special :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very educational; a lot of people probably think that a baby bird has feathers. -- JovanCormac 05:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course some are hatched with feathers, but I like the way you can see through the transparent skin and see the developing feathers before they emerge --Tony Wills (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per AngMoKio. —kallerna™ 11:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per TonyBallioni. Lycaon (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very deep picture, in the emotional sense. You just can't look away. An apt analogy for humanity, perhaps... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The look on its face tells a story of woe, a life cut down before it could bloom. Basically, what Tony Wills said. AlexAH (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As AngMoKio--Karel (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retouched, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 23:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Comment I used Adobe Lightroom's local retouching tool to create this new version without the bottom right shadow. Is that better? →Diti the penguin — 09:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably better (although colours look a bit washed out in that corner). But I just noticed that the image page was showing the original upload version, rather than my crop uploaded over top. I have now purged that and it should show the correct crop now - I could see why there were objections to the large shadow in the original :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boletus in Finnish forest.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 08:43:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Petritap - uploaded by Petritap - nominated by Petritap -- Petritap (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question So, which Boletus is it? Boletus edulis? --Ernie (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Nope, not B. edulis. Probably Boletus badius but I'm not 100 % sure. Lycaon (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment For me, it rather Leccinum scabrum or Tylopilus felleus,a Hymenophore is bit pink. But I'm too not 100 % sure. It is necessary to check up on taste . Tylopilus felleus is very bitter -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Very interesting perspective and composition, but sadly the main subject is unsharp at the part closest to the viewer. -- JovanCormac 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. I have uploaded a new, improved version in which I have tried to address the shortcomings mentioned.Petritap (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - While you did a fine job editing out the blades of grass, the sharpness problems persist, and it likely won't be possible to retouch them away as well... -- JovanCormac 19:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now very good result --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a small crop at the bottom will make it much better. Yann (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See File:Boletus in Finnish forest cropped.jpg Yann (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful composition. -- Ra'ike T C 17:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition indeed, but I have to agree to Jovan Cormac. Also the shadow in front of the mushroom and the chromatic aberration are counter-arguments for me. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 14:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dune Efa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 19:01:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Anvikh (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anvikh (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image lacks sharpness, and truth be told I also find the scenery rather dull. -- JovanCormac 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose May be good enough for QI, but not quite there for FP. Keep at it; maybe try a panoramic shot. --Relic38 (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 11:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emma, Lady Hamilton by George Romney.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 00:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the National Portrait Gallery, uploaded by Dcoetzee, and nominated by Yann (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful painting by George Romney. Yann (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice, big image. Tiptoety ^talk 05:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful indeed. -- JovanCormac 05:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MarisaLR (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Surely, it's an excellent and very sweet portrait, like the others of this pretty girl although. But it lacks for some special thrill or wow-factor, IMO. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Impact Sprinkler Mechanism 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 06:29:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by JovanCormac
Info A high quality, unusual shot that is as much a piece of art as it is informative.
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 06:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 09:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Korall (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image - support per nom. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool image. I really like the drop of water in the lower right hand corner. Tiptoety ^talk 18:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rastrojo (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the signature, I think you have typed five tildes instead of four. ■ MMXX^talk 03:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, but I really would like to see a wider crop, both from top and sides. ■ MMXX^talk 03:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. --Einstein2 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friendlystar (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice!! Rastrojo _(D•ES) 19:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Mandel zoom 11 satellite double spiral.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 06:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Wolfgang Beyer - nominated by JovanCormac
Info A highly detailed zoom into a Mandelbrot fractal, part of a zoom series. This picture perfectly combines beauty and chaos, the aspects fractals are known for, and is intended to replace this as a Featured fractal picture, which I nominated for delisting below. Even the layman will find the picture positively mesmerizing, while the math enthusiast will appreciate the well-described parameters which allow for reproduction of the image in any fractal software whenever needed. Featured on EN already.
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 06:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, my new desktop wallpaper. Airwolf (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colour and detail, but I see no reason to replace the old FP. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The old one uses an outdated coloring algorithm with steps rather than gradients. Modern fractal software allows for smooth shading, better illustrating the changing "escape velocities" of the divergent series associated with a point. Also, the old picture does not use antialiasing, giving the fractal boundaries a jagged appearance at full size when the mathematical truth is quite the opposite (arguably, the antialiased one looks better, too). -- JovanCormac 09:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Wow! Amazing! Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Korall (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's very beautiful although it's quite subjective to evaluate which fractal to chose if you have to select among several. But looks better than one nominated for delisting. I remember when I first was introduced to fractals and became interested in them and set up my computer to generate one. I think it took my poor computer 3 full days to generate an image which was not even a tenth as good as this one, and my computer could not be used for anything else while doing that computation :) That was > 15 years ago though… /Daniel78 (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, those were the days ;-) But not just computers weren't as advanced back then, algorithms weren't, either. One of the things that make the candidate look so much better than many other fractal images floating around is the use of the Normalized Iteration Count Algorithm (or probably a variant thereof), which avoids color bands and gives the fractal its characteristic, multi-colored "glow" while adding fractal structure to the Mandelbrot set's exterior. Also, wonders can be done by choosing a good color palette. Doing so is often the key difference between an amazing and an ordinary fractal. One of the advantages of using commercial fractal software like Ultra Fractal (the program that was used to make the candidate image) is that those packages usually come with well-tuned color palettes, which instantly make the fractal look "richer" and more interesting, even though all fractal software uses more or less the same algorithms. -- JovanCormac 06:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 02:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Melbourne Skyline from Rialto Crop - Nov 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 17:08:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by JovanCormac
Info More David Iliff goodness. The quality is absolutely flabbergasting.
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 17:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful panorama --Avala (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 02:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 02:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- MJJR (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Vertical lines are not vertical (the top of the buildings are leaning towards the center of the image). Did anyone really looked at this picture before voting??? --S23678 (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Picture was already promoted via the 5-day rule. The perspective distortion you are referring to is minimal for a 180° panorama, and much less than in many (if not most) similar Featured Pictures (compare File:St Peter Salzburg panoramic view of interior small.jpg). -- JovanCormac 11:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 11:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:P1160808 Palomena prasina.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 17:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Darius Baužys - uploaded by Darius Baužys - nominated by Darius Baužys -- Darius Bauzys (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support ■ MMXX^talk 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have very high standards for macro shots, sorry. —kallerna™ 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very bad image quality, visible even in the thumbnail! What a pity… →Diti the penguin — 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question What image quality are you complaining about at thumbnail level, do you mean the artifacts around the antenna caused by the wiki scaling software? --Tony Wills (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not so bad ~~, but quality not enough for FP.~~ Morale support (not as vote) --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, we have worse bug FPs than this. --Aqwis (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Aqwis. Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry, but what the f... should be so very bad?! I think, it's a really good bug-picture and always good enough for the featured-star. -- Ra'ike T C 17:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I agree that we have many Featured pictures of bugs that are worse, I also think that, well, we shouldn't. The image suffers from a low DOF, image noise (visible around the antenna) and general low quality in the bottom half, maybe due to overenthusiastic JPEG compression. (And about the bug photos currently Featured that are worse than this: They'll get delisted sooner or later). -- JovanCormac 17:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with JC on this one. --Relic38 (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not everything must be on focus, must be? :O. I find the picture really beautiful.--DPC (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MarisaLR (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good, after second look --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Red Apple.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 03:44:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Abhijit Tembhekar - uploaded by Killiondude - nominated by Killiondude -- Killiondude (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Killiondude (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We have very few food items as FPs, and this one is of a wonderful quality with great detail. Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It's alright, I suppose, but it isn't a very high-quality apple. There are very noticeable brown spots and dents. That aside, it seems like a bit of an unusual angle, as it only shows the top of the apple. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brown spots and dents? I do not know, have you ever seen an apple grown without using chemical protection? Have to agree on the unusual angle though. --Ernie (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough. —kallerna™ 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brown spots and dents? This is an apple, not a plastic ball. Yann (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very high quality apple. Airwolf (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support high resolution, high quality, very clear. Om nom nom nom nom. Harej (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Yann. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is an "apple" for goodness sake. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Royal College of Music - April 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 16:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Tiptoety -- Tiptoety ^talk 16:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiptoety ^talk 16:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not FP. Maybe VI, definitely QI. —kallerna™ 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose The image has great detail and symmetry, which I really like. Still I have to agree with Kallerna. To me the image lacks that certain je ne sais quoi (got that from the dictionary, do you really use that expression?) and is a bit too noisy, especially in the darker parts. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The FP guidelines say: 'Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special'. -- NormanB (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO this picture features a terrific piece of architecture and an import building in a superb way. That is valuable and special enough for me. -- NormanB (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per NormanB, very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Per kallerna & NEUROtiker. -- JovanCormac 05:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great! --Aqwis (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp, nice colors. Yann (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support— Maedin\^talk 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per NormanB. AlexAH (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Kallerna. --Karel (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed some minor stitch errors on the right-hand side of the building (see notes). Overall this is a very nice shot, but I have not yet decided how to vote. --Relic38 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seal Rocks and Cliff House big.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 20:05:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Simonizer (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice indeed! -- NormanB (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful lighting & composition. -- JovanCormac 06:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 09:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--DPC (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request I have no idea where this is. Can you geocode this, or as a minimum, add a location to the description? --Relic38 (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just noticed the links in the description, but I still would like to see Geocoding used more. --Relic38 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Darius Bauzys (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent job. Stitched panos with waves are very impressive. --Relic38 (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I want to go there. Tiptoety ^talk 18:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support toll --Böhringer (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. —kallerna™ 10:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--663h (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work --AngMoKio (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ until the pretty bad stitching error on the horizon is fixed. Did any of the reviewers actually look at the image? Other than that, very nice colors and great vantage point. --Dschwen (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed something, and don't even think telling me that it was not the one

. Daniel, if I fixed a wrong one, may I please ask you to be so kind and to put a note at the error you mean. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the one. Could you please log out and then log back in and see, if you still see it. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see an attempt at masking the error :). But there still is a slightly visible stitch seam and the levels of the horizon left and right of the seem are different. --Dschwen (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried one more time, but I am afraid my monitor and/or my eyes :( are not good enough to see the difference between my two last atempts. So, I'd say it is the best I could get, and now you tell me: if you did not know there was an error befoe, would you have noticed it now?

--Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that'll have to do it. Not perfect, but good enough. --Dschwen (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all you could say "Not perfect, but good enough"? If I only knew that you would just cross out your oppose, but never support the image, I would have never ever, ever, ever spent my time correcting the error

. Daniel, I hope you do share my sence of humor. Please do feel free to tell me, if sometimes it is too rough for you. :). Thanks for finding the error.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be the cue for a totally inappropriate adult-joke... ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --S23678 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)--Mbz1 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bahram Gur hunting.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 11:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another beautiful Persian manuscript. Yann (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though it supports color management, Firefox 3.5 doesn't display the image correctly (the whole thing is cyan). Maybe the JPEG file is corrupt? Looking at the file with GIMP, I think it should be rotated clockwise by about 1 degree to make the left edge of the manuscript vertical. -- JovanCormac 11:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The margins are not even, and the manuscript is not rectangular, so I don't think a rotation would make it better. You will always have one side not aligned with the grid. I don't see any issue with colors, either with FF or Konqueror. Yann (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're not precisely even, true, but all of them appear to be tilted counterclockwise. In Firefox 3.5.3 on Vista, the image looks like this. -- JovanCormac 13:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems that's a problem with your browser. Yann (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I run firefox 3.05 on vista and it looks fine to me.--Korall (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The file seem to be ok:

$ jpeginfo -c Bahram_Gur_hunting.jpg

Bahram_Gur_hunting.jpg 3396 x 4470 24bit JFIF N 5802637 [OK]

… and it looks ok here also (only tried Opera though) /Daniel78 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I also started a test at browsershots.org, and actually 5 out of the 47 currently tested browsers displays this image in cyan, but they are all firefox or versions of firefox so I guess it has a bug. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The rub is that those browsers are not exotic ones or beta versions, but rather the very latest, stable public releases of the second most popular browser in the world. So whatever the problem is, it's our problem as well, sadly. The average user won't give a rat's behind whether it's a browser bug or not - for him or her, it's just a miscolored image. -- JovanCormac 20:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, no point waiting for a fix in firefox if something can be done about it here. Sometimes just a simple resave in some image software can solve such issues, or converting it a lossless format and then go back to jpeg. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I will submit it again with a different color profile. Yann (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Budgerigar diagram-labeled.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 04:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ZooFari - uploaded by ZooFari - nominated by ZooFari -- ZooFari 04:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ZooFari 04:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't it be of more use if the labels were replaced with numbers? It's a great image, but because of the labels it can only be used for English speakers. AlexAH (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks like a great Valued Image to me. For a Featured Picture, it just isn't extraordinary enough. -- JovanCormac 09:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jovan Cormac. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hippie market.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 01:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andres G - uploaded by Andres G - nominated by Andres G -- Tucayo (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tucayo (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is too messy for me and not very sharp at full size. --Relic38 (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see sharpness as an issue here, but no good light (looks like a standard flashlight was used) and there are to many unappealing things in there that just don't fit in (plastic bags, wooden boards, hangers, ropes, ...) -- H005 05:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lac Léman depuis la Côte avec les Voirons et le Salève au fond.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 18:11:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Yann (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seem me too monotonous--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I like it that it's so dark and gloomy. Airwolf (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fascinating sky, but IMO overall the image is not fascinating enough for FP, sorry. -- H005 (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per H005. —kallerna™ 10:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Basik07 (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generic sky picture --S23678 (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NGC 6302 Hubble 2009.full.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 02:33:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Friendlystar - nominated by Friendlystar -- Friendlystar (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Friendlystar (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support NASA, our #1 contributor of Featured Pictures (or is it the U.S. Army?). -- JovanCormac 09:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 09:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice object, but I'd really like to see this from a different perspective. Shifting the axis of vision by maybe 15 or 20 degrees would make the hourglass shape much better visible! Also those white dots in the background are highly distracting. ;-) just kidding --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And there is a lot of "dust" in the image :) /Daniel78 (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 02:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cacophony (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:SanFranciscoChurch.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 02:02:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andres G - uploaded by Andres G - nominated by Andres G -- Tucayo (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tucayo (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moderate sharpness, strong chromatic aberration (esp. in the foliage in the top left corner), blown highlights, very dark shadows... let alone the bizarre composition (centering the fountain exactly on the tower tends to stack them instead of giving them breathing space) and the strong perspective distortion (which makes the tower appear like it's leaning to the right). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maurilbert. --Relic38 (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tree is blocking part of the tower, and it lacks the "wow" factor for me. Sorry, Tiptoety ^talk 06:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Aqwis (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overexposed sky, too many unwelcome objects. -- Darius Bauzys (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird composition (tree and fountain covering tower), strong chromaticc aberration, overexposed sky, unfortunate light, no wow! -- H005 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snapshot --S23678 (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alnus glutinosa 02 by-dpc.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 16:30:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by David Perez -- DPC (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater roots of Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa) in River Cabrera, León (Spain).
Raíces sumergidas de (Alnus glutinosa) en el río Cabrera, León (España).

Support -- DPC (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A piece of art. -- JovanCormac 17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MarisaLR (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 09:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lourdes (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing specal. Good quality image, but for FP missing wow. --Karel (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Kerel. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For Karel. Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3 missing wows? This is one of the 'wow'iest pictures I have seen --Muhammad (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I will not go as far to say 'wow'iest, but this image definitely has some wow and meets technical requirements for an image of a difficult subject. --Relic38 (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicolás Pérez (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous photo which, alongside the technical difficulty that shows, has the originality of the subject: roots are rarely the target for photographers. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Cygnets Portrait.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 16:22:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A denoise could do wonders here. -- JovanCormac 17:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute. Sharp, light is good. Yann (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks too dark to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure, but I'll give it a weak suuport, as I think there are a lot more pros than cons here. Airwolf (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LCAC.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 16:15:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photographer's Mate Airman Sarah E. Ard - uploaded by KuK - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! -- H005 (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. -- JovanCormac 17:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacular! --DPC (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 09:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, great action shot --Tony Wills (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the crop isn't ideal. —kallerna™ 10:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Opal from Yowah, Queensland, Australia 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 11:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by JovanCormac
Info An opal. This is so very beautiful. Already featured on EN. -- JovanCormac
Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 11:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Airwolf (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice. The only thing that bothers me is that the backgrounds shows some very faint artifacts from retouching (e.g. on the right side and upper right corner). They become more apparent when you decrease the brightness and increase contrast (look here), but even without this they are very faintly visible on my screen. This should be easy to fix. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 13:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, that's not optimal. Could you fix it? I don't know how to. -- JovanCormac 15:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not good at that either, but I made a request at the "Fotowerkstatt" of the german wikipedia. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 15:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why didn't you request it at our very own Graphic Lab? ■ MMXX^talk 18:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Artifacts right and bottom are from the focus stack. Not really visible to me in the original though. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I gave it a try with my poor retouching skills: File:Opal from Yowah, Queensland, Australia 2 retouched.jpg. Basically I fixed the major artifacts and removed the yellowish colour from the background. ~~Unfortunately there's a little spot on the stone itself where the colour accidentally was removed too. I will reupload as soon as It's possible.~~ --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 16:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. I also removed the grey line from the top border of the image. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Since your version is obviously better, I think you should replace the candidate file with it. There's no need to keep separate files when clear improvements are made. -- JovanCormac 19:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Good idea, done. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 05:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great pict! --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Being a Queenslander myself, it would be a sin not support this. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DPC (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but IMHO the upper part of the stone is too bright/overexposed. All those lovely colours you see in the lower part are not visible any more. I think a different light or an enblend of exposures would have made it much better. -- H005 13:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice.--Avala (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - The Wave (1896).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2009 at 21:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825–1905) - uploaded by Lecter - cleaned and nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support She looks so alive and so lovely.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Korall (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another amazing artwork. -- JovanCormac 09:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anyone got her phone number? Airwolf (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support very aesthetically acceptable --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Staxringold (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful /Daniel78 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 00:34:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NormanB - uploaded by NormanB - nominated by NormanB -- NormanB (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NormanB (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The image is nice to look at for sure, but the blurriness of some of the people along with the crop, specifically the banister in the bottom of the image puts it below FP standards for me. Tiptoety ^talk 02:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not worried by blurry people here, after all it is low light conditions needing a long exposure. The main problem is the crop, difficult to overcome without using an extreme fish-eye lens, or stitching multiple photos[7]. Perhaps a square crop would be more appealing. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The banister in the bottom is there on purpose, to increase the sense of depth. The fact that the people that are moving are blurry is unavoidable given the light conditions (flash is not an option there). -- NormanB (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the fact you can see the base of both spirals, all the way up to that detail of the banister. Your photo has a lot going for it, and it is a difficult subject - the version I linked to was made up of 6 photos stitched together but that wasn't perfect. Without stitching I think the only way to portray it is with a super wide angle lens. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too noisy, lot of CA. The photo that Tony Wills showed has better composition. —kallerna™ 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too noisy for FP. I'd love to see a good shot of the staircase featured, though. -- JovanCormac 13:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg Here is one. Yann (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, didn't know about that one, though its quality is far from perfect, too. -- JovanCormac 05:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did I just see this pic in B&W on reddit? --Calibas (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question If you did, do you have a URL for me? I'd like to see it too. -- NormanB (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! --NormanB (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NormanB (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

NormanB (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The voting period for this candidate is over, but the FPCBot is leaving this for manual investigation due to use of multiple images. Closing this candidate needs to be done using the manual instructions.

/FPCBot (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Feeding pigeons 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 03:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The exposure time of the image is 1/13 sec. It was done in purpose to blur the motion of the feeding and flying birds, and to show an atmosphere of the scene.
Comment This elderly lady told me before she left: "Pigeons need food, not pictures." It was interesting to see the birds flying around her, it was almost as they did not want to let her go, that they were afraid she might not come tomorrow.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very confusing and busy composition. Is this the best we have on commons? Nothing special here. Lycaon (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprisingly it is quite attractive --Muhammad (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same thought as Muhammad. →Diti the penguin — 07:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Muhammad. Reminds me of Mary Poppins... Time3000 (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it so much. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but IMO there's something wrong with the colours. —kallerna™ 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there's nothing wrong with the colors, normal colors of an early sunny morning. The only edit to the image was auto contrast.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Artsy, but bad composition and crop. -- JovanCormac 13:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was not cropped at the bottom. There were pigeons everywhere there, no matter how the image was taken, some would have been cropped anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose i get the idea...but for me it is also a bit to busy. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, AngMoKio, I am afraid you did not get the idea. What I am going to say next is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the the truth. So here it is: When I am taking images of the people (not my usual subject) I am thinking: AngMoKio said that Commons has not enough people featured, when I am taking a long exposures shots (not my usual subject either) I am thinking: AngMoKio says he likes long exposure shots. So as I could see I am doing everything to please you, and after all my efforts oppose again

--Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect that my comments have such a big impact on your life. But all you said about me here is true....but this doesnt mean i support any people or long exposure shot. If you have a convincing pic I am happy to support as I did before. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not on my life, it is an overstatement, only on some of my subjects

--Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support this composition is much more interesting, than one below. Leaving figure is more touching, than standing one. Аrrangement of birds on this shot is better too. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are very interesting pictures, but the overall technical quality IMO is not sufficient for FP. Also the colours don't really appeal to me. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 14:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alternative, featured[edit]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the one above so much, but this one I really, really like. I'm glad you put this up as an alternative, I was going to suggest it! Maedin\^talk 08:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I like this one better. Yann (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above --Muhammad (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Lycaon (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very emotional and nice shot! --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral quite usual composition. The one above is much more interesting. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are very interesting pictures, but the overall technical quality IMO is not sufficient for FP. Also the colours don't really appeal to me. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 14:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What quality is not sufficient for FP? You means the blured pigeons?

--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the blurred/moving pigeons are what makes the pictures so nicely alive! What I mean is: especially in the upper picture the plants in the background are blurred an the small patch of sky is overexposed. In the lower picture some parts of the background look like they have been sharpened, but there are still blurry parts. This doesn't mean I don't think these are good pictures, they are just not perfect enough for FP IMO. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 15:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. In this particular image one should keep in mind, that if some parts of the background seem to be blured, it only means that a pigeon flashed over it. This is a single image, and IMO it is not possible to have some parts of the background blured and otheres sharp.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tells a poignant story :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WLA cma The Sea at Le Havre 1868.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 21:40:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by "dewey decimals", nominated by Yann (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely picture of a beautiful painting from the Wikipedia Loves Art project. Even the frame is nice... ;o) Yann (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The frame is not 2-dimensional, so unless the photograper releases the work under PD im not so sure about the pd status. --Korall (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? It is not PD, it is CC-BY-SA. Yann (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you add the frame into the picture, it shouldn't be cropped. Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand. The frame is not cropped, is it? Yann (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me it looks as if it is. Maybe I'm wrong? Let's wait for more opinions... Lycaon (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The frame is definitely cropped. Look in the top left corner at full size, you will see it instantly. -- JovanCormac 16:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personally I find the frame distracting. Pick up any art history textbook; how often will you see images of paintings with their frames? Very rarely indeed. Or, more to the point, how often do you see them in wikipedia articles? See this example. Also the image page should credit Claude Monet, as his signature is clearly visible in the bottom left. -- Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claude Monet added. Yann (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.

Alternative, without frame, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 11:13:00 (UTC)

Support Without the frame. Yann (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow from the frame is still visible at the top of the painting. --Korall (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I cropped it further. Yann (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK I wont really oppose but I dont want to support a cropped painting either. --Korall (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can still see signs of it on the top, left, and right. Didn't see this alternative before voting on the above. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MigrationRouteOnRomanianTeritory.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2009 at 07:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Migration routes of Hungarians, Bulgarians, Pechenegians, Cumanians and the great Tartar invasion on Romania's territory.

Info created by Asybaris01 - uploaded by Asybaris01 - nominated by Asybaris01 -- Asybaris01 (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Asybaris01 (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alignment problems (see image annotations). Those may be small but from a Featured Picture we expect perfection. Also, text should be in text objects, not converted to paths, for easier localization. -- JovanCormac 07:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All text objects is Grouping with graph object.Asybaris01 (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment is ok now.Asybaris01 (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ungroup them, then. Ctrl+U in Inkscape (repeat if neccessary) and the group is split into its parts. -- JovanCormac 10:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected all problems.Asybaris01 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All except for the text being paths, which as Sting pointed out is the biggest one. -- JovanCormac 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ –Giving here only a technical opinion: well bellow what one can expect from a SVG file and a map. The colored areas don't fill the whole document at the borders; the boundary between the two areas at the extreme left is a straight line while it should follow the Danube; almost the same problem at the right where there is missing a triangular section of the light green area along the “Dnistr”... which should be spelled “Dniester” as it's a map in English; same for the “Tisa” (en:Tisza) and maybe others (I didn't check); in the compass rose the West should be shown by a “W”, not a “V”; no indication (except when reading the whole legend) of the period covered by the map: neither in the file name, nor in the description page and no title in the map. For the SVG, everything is in one layer and as nothing is name-specified in the XML tree, making modifications will be quiet time-consuming; and maybe the worst: all the text have been transformed into paths making it impossible to translate it directly (the purpose of a SVG-map here is also to be easily used in the projects in other languages), which will need to retype all the labels searching the right font-type and size. Sting (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The colored areas don't fill the whole document at the borders~~ - ok
- ~~in the compass rose the West should be shown by a “W”, not a “V”~~ - ok
  - The edit you made replacing "V" with "W" messed up the image even more. It's plainly visible that the letter is not of the same font as the others, and not even of the same color. This is precisely why one must never convert text objects to paths. -- JovanCormac 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - From my own experience, if I don't convert the text into path, the text will appear deformed in the browser and also any multiple blank (spaces) between letters or words will dissapear, compressing the text or word (ex: "L a n d o f J o h n" will be displayed as "L a n d o f J o h n"). I have not yet managed to find a solution other than converting the text into path, if you happen to be more familiar with InkScape, please, by all means, lend a hand.Asybaris01 (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, MediaWiki is really a scrap when rendering text. The solution I found is to copy those texts, transform them into paths as you did which will serve for the display and hide the original texts in a layer bellow the map. This way you keep a clean display as well as the power of the SVG format for easy translation with the hidden labels. The file size will be a bit heavier but I think it's a small counterpart. Sting (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "Original Text" - LAYER created
- ~~at the right where there is missing a triangular section~~ - ok
- ~~no indication (except when reading the whole legend) of the period covered by the map: neither in the file name, nor in the description page and no title in the map~~ - indication in the description page - ok
- ~~“Dniester” as it's a map in English; same for the “Tisa” (en:Tisza) and maybe others (I didn't check)~~ - checked, ok.
- ~~For the SVG, everything is in one layer and as nothing is name-specified in the XML tree, making modifications will be quiet time-consuming~~ - layers created - ok
- ~~the boundary between the two areas at the extreme left is a straight line while it should follow the Danube~~ - ok

I my opinion the map is ok now. Asybaris01 (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my Inkscape (v.0.46) doesn't understand all the code of this file because I still only have one layer (root), except if I look in the XML tree where nothing is named and where paths are mixed with texts. I don't oppose anymore because the most obvious problems have been corrected and I didn't check the whole map in details, but I still believe this SVG has been very badly conceived from the start, making it difficult to modify due to a lack of organization. Sting (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mikumi panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 00:14:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nominated before but there were some problems with the crop. Fixed now and featured on two wikipedias already. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeas before. I don't see it fixed, the trees are still cropped, and the horizon is stil in the middle. --Dschwen (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to some black space which had been not been cropped during the first nomination --Muhammad (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - trees are cut off.--Avala (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per Avala--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -As per Avala. Even with a better crop, it would likely be Neutral for me. --Relic38 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - So what if the trees are cut off? We all know what trees look like and there are more in the background. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Bad crop. Tiptoety ^talk 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Don't have a problem with the crop. It might have been nice to include a little more sky and the top of the tree but I like the proportions as-is. Diliff (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /–blurpeace ^(talk) 19:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco Downtown, and Golden Gate Bridge early morning panorama.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2009 at 20:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Last night, when I took the image nominated just below, Golden Gate Bridge was completely covered by fog. Today in the morning it showed up a little bit, so I went for more complete panorama of the scenery. I am not sure, which image you like better, if I should nominate this one as alternative to the nomination below or do not nominate this one at all. Of course the images are similar although the light and the fog were very different. In any case I am oppened to suggestions. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here I would cut the right part which is not sharp, and keep the left part with the fog. That would make a quite different picture, which could be nominated independently of the one below. Yann (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much you believe the right part should be cut off? Could you add a note please? Thanks.(I would not like to loose Bay Bridge). If it is really unsharp, maybe I should do another panorama from a different set of the images.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is better to have a smaller image, but which is good everywhere, that a big image which is good on one part, and not so good on the other part. Yann (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The light is better here, but the right is too hazy to really make this better than the one below. --Relic38 (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote and your comment. The thing is that not only the light was different. What was more important to me that the fog was different. The idea was to capture a panorama from Golden Gate Bridge to Bay Bridge. The light between the bridges was changing rather drasticly. The scenery was really beautiful and I am sorry I could not capture that beauty with my camera.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ until you correct the leaning buildings and the bent horizon. This can easily be done using vertical guide point pairs. --Dschwen (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Daniel, I cannot tell tell you how much I missed you opposing and commenting on my images. I am glad you are back on them

. I stitched the image with Adobe cs3. When I used Hugin the horizont looked better I guess, but... could you please take a look at the image and tell me what you think? I really like to get that panorama right, not even for FP for myself! Thank you for your vote, your comment and your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a step in the right direction. But honestly, I've said it so many times, users should be forced to learn about vertical guide point pairs in hugin. They should be strapped to a chair until they understand them an use them, they should be banned from uploading pictures until they mastered them (and they should be refused water, food and sunlight!). ;-). Seriously, guys, and girls, do not do it for me, do it for yourselves. Your images will be even better, you will save a lot of headaches, and ultimately you will save work!. Naaahhhrrggghhh! --Dschwen (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A step in the right direction, but still not good enough? :( "refused water, food and sunlight" !!! Now, it ia a torture! Of course it is not half as bad as being blocked or being banned from uploading pictures :) --Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Not good enough, given how easy it is to get it right... ...using vertical guides. --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: you seem to lack sky in the left and right ends of the picture. And you downsampled quite a bit. Why? --Dschwen (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you're asking why I downsampled the image??? Of course I did because I would not have liked User:Dschwen to be able to see all the stitching errors I have

. To tell you the truth I did downsample it, but not so much. The thing is that I cannot open big images with my Internet explorer, which means I cannot check it myself.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your what? --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when you left click on an image and select "open with" and then from pop-up menu select "Internet Explorer". It provides me the view that I will see, when an image is actually uploaded. Am I doing something wrong again???--Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just didn't know that "image viewer". Are you already busy exploring the vertical guide point feature in hugin? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, you the meanest guy in the world,

, I'm still trying to fix hard to see stitching error from my other image that I thought has been fixed already.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any better?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This time it's a clear no. The downtown buildings (and the Bay Bridge) are still all leaning left. Use vertical guides on them! --Dschwen (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I did, I did.I mean I could bear no food, no water, no sunlight, I would not complain about being strapped to my chair, but you know I cannot bear being banned from uploading my images to Commons, don't you, Daniel? BTW it reminds me something. One diver said: "If I am going to run out of air or of film, let it be air." Anyway... I selected two the same images, and added two more points for the same building, one point was added to the top of the building and other to the bottom. Then I hit "add", and re-stitched the panorama. Have I done something wrong?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that sounds about right. You could try adding a few more. If you want me to take a look at your pto file send me a mail. --Dschwen (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I emailed you the files. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope you didn't withdraw the nomination for this one, too. I really like it, please let me know, when you uploaded the final version. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not withdraw this one, It does not deppend on me anymore. Daniel is working with my images now, and I just emailed to him that his final result will be more his image than mine because he's the one, who is going to do all the hard work. It will be up to him what to do with the image and the nomination. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so gosh darn humble. You are making the rest of us feel bad ;-). Ok, I uploaded the new version over your file. I realized too late that you cropped off more on the right than me. But I am kind of in love with the warm glare there, and IMO it adds to the composition. The new version has the full resolution now, and the source material is worth it! Which working on the pano I got lost in the image and its details. Of course I

Support this. IMO the horizon is a straight as can be now. All buildings are vertical. The remaining bending is probably an illusion due to the curved appearance of the rolling fog. --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! I really love the trichotomy of the fog, the illuminated buildings on the hill and the city in the background shrouded by haze. And of course a good deal of the tribute has to be paid to the photographer. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 06:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alt 1 cropped as Yann suggested[edit]

Okay I cut off the right. Did I cut off too much ot too little or just right? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this isn't really an "alternative" to the other picture, though. --Aqwis (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it now. Yann (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the other crop better as it includes more to look at (bridge and city). this one is mostly fog and keeps the eye trained on the lower right corner. The original still works best for me. --Relic38 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is the horizon bowed? Noodle snacks (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly it seems that it is to me too, but I never could tell for sure

. Could you please tell me what do you think about the original? Do you believe it is bowed there also? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose crop ruins a beautiful picture (minus the technical issues). --Dschwen (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]